The Entrapment Scale

Abstract

The Entrapment Scale (ES) is a prominent 16-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by evolutionary clinical psychologist Paul Gilbert and Steven Allan in 1998. Designed to measure the subjective perception of being trapped in an unacceptable situation from which all escape routes appear blocked, the instrument operationalizes the ethological concept of “arrested flight.” The scale conceptualizes entrapment as a multidimensional phenomenon comprising two distinct yet interrelated dimensions: External Entrapment (10 items), which assesses perceptions of being confined by outside circumstances, social relationships, and oppressive environmental conditions; and Internal Entrapment (6 items), which measures the feeling of being trapped by one’s own internal states, unwanted thoughts, painful emotions, and perceived personal inadequacies. Respondents evaluate each statement on a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 0 (“Not at all like me”) to 4 (“Extremely like me”), yielding subscale scores as well as a composite global entrapment score ranging from 0 to 64. Psychometric evaluations across diverse non-clinical, psychiatric outpatient, and inpatient populations demonstrate exemplary internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding .88 for both subscales and .93 for the total scale. Factor analytic studies consistently validate the two-factor oblique structure, while also supporting a bifactor conceptualization where a robust general entrapment factor accounts for the majority of common variance. The Entrapment Scale exhibits profound convergent validity with measures of depression, hopelessness, perceived defeat, and social rank devaluation. Critically, within modern suicidology—most notably through the Integrated Motivational-Volitional (IMV) Model of Suicidal Behaviour—the Entrapment Scale has been identified as measuring one of the strongest direct psychological precursors to suicidal ideation, serving as the critical cognitive-affective bridge that transforms feelings of humiliation and defeat into acute suicide risk.

Keywords

Entrapment Scale, arrested flight, external entrapment, internal entrapment, defeat, depression, suicidal ideation, evolutionary psychology, social rank theory, psychometrics

Authors

The Entrapment Scale was formulated and psychometrically validated by:

• Paul Gilbert, PhD, FBPsS, OBE — Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, and the Department of Psychology, University of Derby, United Kingdom. Professor Gilbert is the pioneer of Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) and a leading international authority on the evolutionary basis of affective disorders, social rank mechanisms, and self-criticism.
• Steven Allan, PhD, CPsychol — Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby, and Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Leicester, United Kingdom. Dr. Allan has published extensively on evolutionary approaches to social comparison, psychopathology, defeat, and the psychometric measurement of affective constructs.

Correspondence regarding the original development of the instrument was historically directed to the Mental Health Research Unit, Kingsway Hospital, Derby DE22 3LZ, UK, and the Centre for Health and Social Care Research, University of Derby.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Entrapment Scale is to provide an empirically robust, theoretically driven measurement of an individual’s perceived inability to escape from subjectively unbearable external conditions or distressing internal experiences. In evolutionary psychiatry, animals subjected to inescapable threat, defeat, or social subordinate stress exhibit an instinctive drive to flee. When flight is physically thwarted, blocked, or social-contextually penalized, organisms enter a state of “arrested flight,” which triggers severe psychophysiological down-regulation, anhedonia, and conservation-withdrawal behavior. Gilbert and Allan developed the Entrapment Scale to quantify this exact cognitive-emotional state in human psychopathology.

Clinically, the scale fulfills several indispensable functions across diagnostic and therapeutic contexts:

• Suicide Risk Stratification: In contemporary suicidology, entrapment is recognized as a key proximal psychological driver of suicidal ideation and intent. Differentiating between external pressures (e.g., domestic violence, financial debt, coercive relationships) and internal pressures (e.g., intractable self-loathing, shame spirals, affective agony) allows clinicians to detect whether suicidal behavior is perceived by the patient as the only remaining escape route (“flight mechanism”) from an intolerable existence.
• Assessment of Treatment-Resistant Affective Disorders: Chronic entrapment is strongly implicated in maintaining major depressive disorder, dysthymia, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD). Tracking changes in entrapment scores during psychotherapy helps clinicians assess whether the patient is beginning to perceive agency and psychological flexibility or remains mired in defensive behavioral arrest.
• Guidance for Targeted Psychotherapeutic Interventions: In modalities such as Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), identifying whether a patient experiences primarily external or internal entrapment dictates clinical formulation. High internal entrapment necessitates interventions addressing experiential avoidance, harsh self-criticism, and emotional acceptance, whereas high external entrapment demands systemic intervention, assertiveness training, social problem-solving, and relationship restructuring.
• Delineation from Hopelessness and Defeat: While defeat captures the feeling of having lost a critical social struggle or fallen down the social ladder, and hopelessness reflects generalized negative expectations about the future, entrapment specifically measures the urgent, frustrated motivation to escape coupled with the catastrophic perception of being completely hemmed in. The scale allows researchers and clinicians to isolate this unique motivational conflict.

Psychological Construct

The construct of entrapment represents a complex motivational and affective state characterized by an acute, desperate desire to escape from a distressing situation, paired with the subjective appraisal that all exit routes are blocked, impossible, or exhausted. It is fundamentally an experience of thwarted escape. Gilbert and Allan (1998) delineated entrapment into two complementary sub-constructs:

1. External Entrapment (Items 1–10)

External entrapment refers to an individual’s perception of being trapped by external events, interpersonal environments, social roles, financial obligations, or controlling relationships. In this state, the source of threat and distress is located in the outside world, yet the individual feels powerless to withdraw, sever ties, or alter the environment. Manifestations include:

• Interpersonal Domination and Bullying: Feeling subjugated by more powerful, aggressive, or abusive individuals (e.g., an authoritarian spouse, a tyrannical workplace supervisor) without the emotional, legal, or economic resources to leave (captured by Item 8: “I would like to get away from other more powerful people in my life” and Item 10: “I feel trapped by other people”).
• Relational and Role Confinement: Feeling tethered to partnerships or socio-familial caretaking duties that drain personal autonomy (Item 3: “I am in a relationship I can’t get out of” and Item 6: “I feel trapped by my obligations”).
• Circumstantial Impasse: Experiencing situational gridlock such as poverty, chronic illness, legal turmoil, or geographic isolation where the urge to flee is intense but pragmatically impossible (Item 7: “I can see no way out of my current situation” and Item 9: “I have a strong desire to get away and stay away from where I am now”).

2. Internal Entrapment (Items 11–16)

Internal entrapment reflects the harrowing subjective perception of being trapped by one’s own mind, personality, intolerable affects, or cognitive processes. Unlike external entrapment, where spatial or social relocation could theoretically resolve the crisis, internal entrapment offers no geographic escape because the perceived tormentor is the self. Key dimensions include:

• Experiential and Cognitive Confinement: The inability to silence ruminative thought loops, self-directed hostility, memories of trauma, or intense depressive and anxious states (Item 13: “I would like to escape from my thoughts and feelings”).
• Ego-Syntonic Alienation and Identity Aversion: A profound rejection of one’s own self-concept and history, accompanied by the yearning to erase the current self and be reborn as an entirely different person (Item 11: “I want to get away from myself” and Item 15: “I would like to get away from who I am and start again”).
• Self-Directed Helplessness and Internal Collapse: The conviction that personal change is intrinsically impossible, generating an existential feeling of suffocation within one’s body and mind (Item 12: “I feel powerless to change myself”, Item 14: “I feel trapped inside myself”, and Item 16: “I feel I’m in a deep hole I can’t get out of”).

Empirical studies consistently demonstrate that while external entrapment often precedes internal entrapment, it is the internal dimension that exhibits the strongest statistical association with acute psychological agony, persistent depression, and lethal suicidal intent.

Theoretical Framework

The Entrapment Scale is embedded within the Evolutionary Social Rank Theory of Depression (Gilbert, 1992, 2001a, 2001b; Price et al., 1994) and the broader ethological literature on defense systems. The theoretical architecture rests upon several foundational pillars:

1. Ethology and the Arrested Flight Response

In animal behavioral ecology, confrontation with danger triggers hardwired defense cascades: freeze, flight, fight, or submit. Flight represents the primary adaptive strategy to remove the organism from lethal predator encounters or escalated conspecific rivalries. When an animal loses a territorial or hierarchy fight, the subordinate instinctively seeks to retreat to safe margins. However, if the losing animal is trapped within the dominant’s enclosure or cornered physically, flight is “arrested.” Ethologists such as Dixon (1998) established that thwarted flight produces extreme neuroendocrine mobilization (elevated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal [HPA] axis activity, sustained hypercortisolemia, and sympathetic hyperactivity) followed rapidly by profound behavioral de-escalation—an “involuntary defeat strategy.” In humans, this biological program manifests subjectively as depressive paralysis, despair, and somatic exhaustion.

2. Social Rank and Involuntary Subordination

Human beings evolved in hierarchical social groupings where access to reproductive opportunities, food, and social safety depended heavily on relative social rank and perceived social attractiveness (Gilbert, 2007). When individuals experience severe humiliation, rejection, social marginalization, or persistent failure, their internal monitoring systems register a catastrophic loss of rank (defeat). If the individual cannot escape this subordinated, despised social space—due to financial reliance, family ties, emotional codependency, or institutional control—they enter a state of chronic entrapment. Depression functions evolutionarily as a desperate physiological mechanism designed to shut down competitive strivings, communicate non-threat to dominants, and reduce injury, but in modern human environments devoid of natural escape avenues, this mechanism becomes pathologically chronic.

3. The Integrated Motivational-Volitional (IMV) Model of Suicide

Professor Rory O’Connor integrated Gilbert’s entrapment framework into the core of the IMV Model of Suicidal Behaviour (O’Connor, 2011; O’Connor & Kirtley, 2018). In the IMV model, suicide risk unfolds across three distinct phases: the Pre-motivational Phase (background factors and vulnerability), the Motivational Phase (emergence of suicidal ideation and intent), and the Volitional Phase (transition from ideation to lethal action). Within the Motivational Phase, the progression from feelings of defeat/humiliation to suicidal ideation is fundamentally mediated by entrapment. When defeat is interpreted through negative cognitive styles as inescapable (internal or external entrapment), suicide emerges as the ultimate, tragic behavioral manifestation of “flight”—an extreme attempt to escape an unendurable internal and external reality.

Validity

The Entrapment Scale has undergone rigorous empirical validation across diverse non-clinical cohorts, clinical psychiatric outpatients, acute psychiatric inpatients, and suicide attempter populations globally.

Construct and Convergent Validity

The construct validity of the ES is evidenced by strong, theoretically coherent correlations with established instruments measuring related emotional distress constructs:

• Depressive Symptomatology: In the seminal study by Gilbert and Allan (1998), the total Entrapment Scale correlated heavily with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in both non-clinical student samples ($r = .65, p < .001$) and clinical psychiatric samples ($r = .74, p < .001$). Internal entrapment consistently displays higher correlations with depression ($r = .76$) than external entrapment ($r = .62$), highlighting the primary role of internal misery in depressive states.
• Perceived Defeat: Concurrent administration of the Entrapment Scale with the Defeat Scale (Gilbert & Allan, 1998) demonstrates exceptional convergent validity ($r = .80$ to $.88$ across clinical and non-clinical populations), confirming that feelings of losing status/struggle and feelings of blocked escape are tightly coupled components of the evolutionary subordinate defense mechanism.
• Hopelessness: The ES correlates moderately to strongly with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) ($r = .60$ to $.73$), validating that perceived lack of escape is deeply linked to negative future expectancies.
• Anhedonia and Social Comparison: Gilbert et al. (2002) observed significant negative correlations between the ES and measures of positive affect and social rank ($r = -.52$ to $-.68$), confirming that heightened entrapment is fundamentally associated with perceived social inferiority and the loss of pleasure.

Discriminant Validity

Despite significant correlations with depression and hopelessness, confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation modeling demonstrate that entrapment represents a distinct clinical construct. Multiple regression and hierarchical linear modeling have demonstrated that entrapment accounts for unique variance in psychological distress after controlling for baseline depression, neuroticism, and state anxiety. Crucially, factor analyses combining items from the BDI, Defeat Scale, BHS, and the ES consistently separate entrapment items onto distinct latent factors, demonstrating that entrapment is not merely an artifact of general negative affectivity.

Predictive and Incremental Validity in Suicidology

The predictive validity of the Entrapment Scale is exceptionally well-documented in suicide research. Multiple prospective and longitudinal investigations (e.g., O’Connor et al., 2013; Rasmussen et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2011) demonstrate that:

• Entrapment scores at hospital admission prospectively predict suicidal ideation and repetition of self-harm at 6-month and 12-month follow-up, even after statistically controlling for prior suicide attempts, age, gender, and baseline depression severity.
• In prospective tests of the IMV model, mediation analyses confirm that entrapment fully or partially mediates the relationship between defeat/humiliation and the subsequent onset of suicidal intent.
• Internal entrapment demonstrates superior predictive power over external entrapment in distinguishing individuals with active suicidal plans from those with passive ideation or psychiatric controls without suicidality.

Reliability

The Entrapment Scale demonstrates outstanding psychometric reliability across diverse demographic groups, clinical presentations, and translated versions (including Spanish, Turkish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Chinese adaptations).

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates for the ES have consistently surpassed conventional psychometric benchmarks ($lpha ge .80$ for basic research, $ge .90$ for clinical evaluation):

• Seminal Validation (Gilbert & Allan, 1998):
  • Student Sample ($N = 217$): Total Scale $lpha = .93$; External Entrapment $lpha = .88$; Internal Entrapment $lpha = .86$.
  • Clinical Depressed Sample ($N = 97$): Total Scale $lpha = .94$; External Entrapment $lpha = .89$; Internal Entrapment $lpha = .86$.
• Subsequent Clinical Cohorts: In inpatient psychiatric studies examining suicide attempters (e.g., O’Connor et al., 2013; Sturman, 2011), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the total 16-item scale have ranged between $.93$ and $.96$. External Entrapment subscale coefficients consistently fall between $.89$ and $.92$, while Internal Entrapment coefficients range from $.85$ to $.91$.
• Composite Reliability: Studies applying modern psychometric theory have calculated McDonald’s omega hierarchical ($\omega_h$) and categorical omega ($\omega_c$), yielding values above $.90$, confirming that total scale variance is overwhelmingly driven by the true underlying entrapment construct rather than multidimensional measurement noise.

Test-Retest Reliability and Longitudinal Stability

Because entrapment measures a state-sensitive psychological reaction to life stressors rather than a fixed personality trait, test-retest reliability reflects predictable clinical dynamics:

• Over short-term non-interventional intervals (e.g., 2 to 4 weeks) in stable non-clinical populations, test-retest reliability coefficients range from $r = .78$ to $.84$, indicating substantial temporal stability.
• In clinical longitudinal studies tracking patients receiving psychological or pharmacological therapy, entrapment scores exhibit significant, clinically meaningful declines over 8 to 16 weeks that parallel reductions in depressive severity and suicidal risk, proving the instrument’s sensitivity to therapeutic change.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Entrapment Scale has been investigated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across a quarter-century of clinical research.

Original Exploratory Factor Analysis

In their original 1998 investigation, Gilbert and Allan conducted a principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations on the 16 items. The scree test and eigenvalue criteria ($lambda > 1.0$) clearly supported a two-factor solution accounting for over 56% of total variance:

• Factor 1: External Entrapment accounted for the largest percentage of variance (approx. 45%), with items 1 through 10 exhibiting primary factor loadings ranging from $.51$ to $.84$. These items unambiguously captured entrapment rooted in relationships, other individuals, environmental conditions, and outer obligations.
• Factor 2: Internal Entrapment accounted for an additional 11.5% of the variance, with items 11 through 16 demonstrating primary factor loadings ranging from $.60$ to $.82$. These items loaded cleanly onto feelings of being trapped by internal thoughts, personal feelings, self-identity, and self-helplessness.
• Cross-loadings between the two factors were generally modest, although the two factors were moderately to strongly correlated ($r pprox .50$ to $.65$), justifying oblique rotation.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Structural Models

Subsequent psychometric evaluations (e.g., Griffiths et al., 2014; Carvalho et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2011) tested multiple competing structural models across clinical and general population samples:

1. Unidimensional Model: Posits that all 16 items reflect a single global entrapment factor. While this model exhibits acceptable fit in some highly acute inpatient samples due to severe symptom saturation, standard fit indices are frequently sub-optimal ($\chi^2/df > 3.5$, $ ext{CFI} < .90$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .08$).
2. Two-Factor Correlated Model: Posits two distinct yet correlated latent factors (External and Internal). This model consistently exhibits superior fit compared to the unidimensional structure ($ ext{CFI} ge .94$,$ ext{TLI} ge .93$,$ ext{RMSEA} le .06$,$ ext{SRMR} le .05$).
3. Bifactor Model: Evaluates a general Entrapment factor alongside two specific orthogonal group factors (External and Internal). Recent structural investigations indicate that the bifactor model achieves the best absolute statistical fit ($ ext{CFI} > .97$,$ ext{RMSEA} < .05$). The general factor accounts for more than 75% of the common variance, confirming that while the subscales offer valuable clinical nuance, calculating a single total entrapment score is psychometrically justified.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: The Entrapment Scale (ES)
• Alternative Names: Gilbert & Allan Entrapment Scale, Involuntary Subordination Scale (Entrapment Subscale)
• Developer / Creators: Paul Gilbert, PhD, and Steven Allan, PhD (1998)
• Construct Measured: Perception of arrested flight, unendurable thwarted escape from external conditions and internal distressing states
• Instrument Type: Self-administered psychological assessment instrument / rating scale
• Format / Modality: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital computer-based test, or online psychometric battery
• Target Population: Adults and older adolescents (ages 16+) across non-clinical, primary care, psychiatric outpatient, and acute inpatient settings
• Reading Level: Estimated 6th-grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid), concise statements with high linguistic accessibility
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Item Count: 16 items
• Subscale Allocation:
  • External Entrapment: 10 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
  • Internal Entrapment: 6 items (Items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale scored from 0 to 4:
  • 0 = Not at all like me
  • 1 = A little bit like me
  • 2 = Moderately like me
  • 3 = Quite a bit like me
  • 4 = Extremely like me
• Scoring Instructions:
  • All 16 items are phrased in the direct symptomatic direction; there are no reverse-scored items.
  • External Entrapment Subscale Score: Sum the ratings of Items 1 through 10 (Score range: 0 – 40).
  • Internal Entrapment Subscale Score: Sum the ratings of Items 11 through 16 (Score range: 0 – 24).
  • Total Entrapment Score: Sum the ratings of all 16 items (Score range: 0 – 64). Higher scores reflect greater subjective entrapment and acute arrested flight motivation.
• Clinical Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Non-clinical Norms: Community and university samples typically yield total scores between 8.0 and 15.0 ($SD pprox 9.0$).
  • Depressed Psychiatric Cohorts: Outpatient and inpatient cohorts with active major depressive disorder typically average total scores between 32.0 and 44.0 ($SD pprox 12.0$).
  • High Suicide Risk Benchmark: Total scores $ge 35$, particularly when accompanied by Internal Entrapment scores $ge 15$, serve as critical flags for severe suicidal ideation and require immediate clinical assessment and safety planning.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Entrapment Scale was formally published in 1998 in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Medicine. The original development and validation paper by Gilbert and Allan included the full 16-item instrument in the public scientific domain for clinical and academic research purposes.

Licensing and Accessibility: The scale is widely regarded as an open-access psychometric instrument for non-commercial academic research, institutional investigation, and non-profit clinical utility, provided the original authors are formally credited and cited according to academic standards. Commercial software integration, pharmaceutical clinical trial usage, or proprietary redistribution generally requires explicit written permission from the copyright holders or the author. Researchers seeking information on specialized variants or related measures developed by Professor Paul Gilbert may contact the Compassionate Mind Foundation or the University of Derby Centre for Health and Social Care Research.

References

• Carvalho, C. B., Dinis, A., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Estanqueiro, C. (2013). The Portuguese version of the Entrapment Scale: Psychometric properties in clinical and non-clinical samples. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E92. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.92
• Dixon, A. K. (1998). Ethological strategies for defence in animals and humans: Their role in psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 71(4), 417–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1998.tb01002.x
• Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The Evolution of Powerlessness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates / Psychology Press.
• Gilbert, P. (2001a). Evolutionary approaches to psychopathology: The role of natural defences. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00856.x
• Gilbert, P. (2001b). Depression and stress: A biopsychosocial exploration of evolved functions and mechanisms. Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress, 4(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.3109/10253890109014743
• Gilbert, P. (2007). Psychotherapy and Counselling for Depression (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214534
• Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1998). The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: An exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine, 28(3), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291798006711
• Gilbert, P., Allan, S., Brough, S., Melley, S., & Miles, J. (2002). Anhedonia and positive affect: Relationship to social rank, defeat and entrapment. Journal of Affective Disorders, 71(1-3), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0327(01)00395-6
• Griffiths, A. W., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Taylor, P. J., & Tai, S. (2014). The prospective role of defeat and entrapment in depression and anxiety: A 12-month longitudinal study. Psychiatry Research, 216(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.037
• O’Connor, R. C. (2011). The integrated motivational–volitional model of suicidal behavior. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 32(6), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000120
• O’Connor, R. C., & Kirtley, O. J. (2018). The integrated motivational–volitional model of suicidal behaviour: New insights and clinical implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1754), 20170268. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0268
• O’Connor, R. C., Smyth, R., Ferguson, E., Ryan, C., & Williams, J. M. G. (2013). Psychological processes and repeat self-harm: 12-month follow-up of a prospective cohort of self-harm patients. Psychological Medicine, 43(8), 1685–1695. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291712002497
• Price, J., Sloman, L., Gardner, R., Gilbert, P., & Rohde, P. (1994). The social competition hypothesis of depression. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 164(3), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.164.3.309
• Rasmussen, S. A., Fraser, L., Gotz, M., MacHale, S., Mackie, R., Masterton, G., McConachie, S., & O’Connor, R. C. (2010). Elaborating the role of defeat and entrapment in suicidal behaviour. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 40(4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.2010.40.4.333
• Sturman, E. D. (2011). The capacity to assess social rank and its relationship to depression: The Social Involuntary Subordination Scale. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30(5), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.5.435
• Taylor, P. J., Gooding, P., Wood, A. M., & Tarrier, N. (2011). The role of defeat and entrapment in depression, anxiety, and suicide. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 391–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022935

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)