We examined the diathesis-stress model of sociotropy and autonomy in the prediction of dysphoria and self-reported hostility. Participants were 39 women who ...
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
C 2002), pp. 231–244 Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, April 2002 (°
Predicting Dysphoria and Hostility Using the Diathesis-Stress Model of Sociotropy and Autonomy in a Contextualized Stress Setting Chitra Raghavan,1,2,4 Huynh-Nhu Le,1,3 and Howard Berenbaum1
We examined the diathesis-stress model of sociotropy and autonomy in the prediction of dysphoria and self-reported hostility. Participants were 39 women who had recently relocated to the United States. Because participants relocated at approximately the same time and for the same reasons (husband enrolled in a university program), we were able to measure multiple stressors that occurred in the same context (relocation). We measured stress comprehensively using semistructured interviews and coded each negative stressor into interpersonal and achievement categories. The match between sociotropy and interpersonal stressors predicted dysphoria, whereas the match between autonomy and achievement stressors predicted hostility. Implications for the diathesisstress model of sociotropy–autonomy are discussed. KEY WORDS: sociotropy; autonomy; stressful life events; depression; hostility.
Recently, there has been considerable focus on the cognitive–personality variables of sociotropy-autonomy to explicate diathesis-stress models of depression and depressive outcomes (e.g., Clark, Steer, Haslam, Beck, & Brown, 1997; Coyne & Whiffen, 1995; Robins, 1990; Rude & Burnham, 1993; Segal, Shaw, & Vella, 1989). The diathesis-stress model posits that certain vulnerabilities or diatheses, when interacting with matching stressful life events, increase the risk for both clinical and nonclinical depression. Two personality characteristics, sociotropy and autonomy, have received much attention as potential vulnerability characteristics. Sociotropy is characterized by dependency on others, a high need for approval and reassurance, and a fear of abandonment (Beck, 1983). Autonomy is characterized by a emphasis on independence, personal achievement, and control followed by self-blame when failing 1 Department
of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. address: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University. 3 Present address: Department of Psychology, George Washington University. 4 Correspondence should be directed to Chitra Raghavan, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 633, Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017; e-mail: craghavan @yahoo.com. 2 Present
231 C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation 0147-5916/02/0400-0231/0 °
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
232
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Raghavan, Le, and Berenbaum
to meet self-imposed standards (e.g., Clark, Beck, & Brown, 1992; Robins, 1990). In the context of a diathesis-stress model, it is postulated that those with high levels of sociotropy are more vulnerable to depression in response to disruptions in interpersonal relationships, whereas those with high levels of autonomy are more vulnerable to depression in the context of stressors leading to perceived failure or lack of control in the environment (e.g., Blatt & Maroudas, 1992; Clark et al., 1992; Robins, 1990). Most studies investigating the personality-event congruency theory have found that the specific match between sociotropy and interpersonal stressors predicts variants of depression, whereas the match between autonomy and achievement stressors does not (e.g., Clark et al., 1992; Robins, 1990; Rude & Burnham, 1993; Segal et al., 1989). The lack of a specific match between autonomy and achievement stressors may be related to the measurement of stressful life events (Bagby, Parker, Joffe, Schuller, & Gilchrist, 1998). Most measures of stress used in diathesis-stress studies are self-report check lists, which may be biased by mood state and personality type (Abramson, Alloy, & Hogan, 1997), although there are notable exceptions (Hammen, Marks, Mayol, & DeMayo, 1985; Mazure, Raghavan, Maciejewski, Jacobs, & Bruce, 2001). Second, although a few studies have emphasized the importance of contextual stress ratings, (e.g., Hammen, 1991; Hammen et al., 1995), and the pitfalls of a priori classification (e.g., Clark, Beck, & Alford, 1999; Ingram, Miranda, & Segal, 1998; Kwon & Whisman, 1998), most studies decide a priori which stressors are achievement related and which stressors are interpersonal related (e.g., Robins, 1990; Robins, Hayes, Block, Kramer, & Villena, 1995). Although a particular domain (e.g., work) is typically considered achievement oriented or interpersonal oriented, the meaning of the stressor to an individual may be different. For example, although losing one’s job would typically be rated as an achievement failure, it is possible that for an individual whose social life is dependent upon her job, the loss of a job may also signal an interpersonal loss. Another potential shortcoming of stress measures concerns the variability of the context in which each stressor occurs. Most individuals will endorse stressors that may have occurred under different circumstances in a given time period. For example, one individual may report losing a job due to a serious mistake as her most stressful event, whereas another may report the loss of her home through a fire as the most stressful event. Although both stressors may be classifed as achievement oriented, both the stressors and the contexts in which they occurred are quite different. These contextual differences may “contaminate” stress indices because each context may have different implications for depressive outcomes. Another attempt to disentangle the diathesis-stress model has focused on the symptom specificity hypothesis proposed by Beck (1983). According to this hypothesis, individuals high on sociotropy are posited to exhibit depressive traits focusing on themes of deprivation, whereas individuals high on autonomy when depressed should exhibit traits focusing on themes of defeat. Expanding the idea of symptom specificity further, we suggest that individuals high on autonomy may respond to failures with anger or hostility instead of depressive symptoms. This hypothesis is consistent with the finding reported by Robins, Bagby, Rector, Lynch, and Kennedy (1997) that hostility is more strongly associated with autonomy than it is with sociotropy. In addition, preliminary support for the relationship between autonomy,
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Diathesis Models of Sociotropy–Autonomy in a Contextualized Stress Setting
233
achievement failures, and hostility comes from the research examining another subtype of depression, angry hostile depression (Fava, Rosenbaum, Pava, & McCarthy, 1993). Angry hostile depression is characterized by outbursts of anger and irritation that resemble panic attacks without the fear/anxiety. Bagby, Kennedy, Dickens, Minifie, and Schuller (1997) reported that compared with non–angry hostile depressed patients, angry hostile depressed patients’ personality profiles indicated that they were less compliant, trustful, confident, and less competent. This personality profile is similar in some respect to the autonomous individual who needs control, is self-critical upon failure, and questions her own competence. One of the hypotheses tested in this study was that individuals high on autonomy would react to failure with hostility, whereas individuals high on sociotropy would not. In this study, we selected a group of married women who had recently arrived in the United States to accompany their husbands who were pursuing university-level programs. By selecting such a sample, we were able to measure a set of stressors that occurred in the same time period and in a similar context (i.e., relocation due to husband’s education). With this in mind, we assessed stressors that were a result of, or related to, the moving experience. Examples of such stressors were changes in their relationship with their spouse due to moving, financial arrangements, living conditions, social support, and employment status. An additional advantage conferred by using this sample was the potential high risk status of this population for depressive disorders because they had recently experienced a major stressful event (Bifulco, Brown, Moran, Ball, & Campbell, 1998), that of relocation. In this current work, we examined the diathesis-stress model of sociotropy and autonomy in the prediction of depressive outcomes. However, unlike most previous studies, we tested these hypotheses using a population at high risk for depressive symptoms (rather than using already depressed populations or college students) and by using a stringent measure of stress. By doing so, we hoped to control for the possibility of measurement artifacts. We hypothesized that the interaction between interpersonal stressors and sociotropy would predict dysphoria. In addition, we examined whether the interaction between autonomy and achievement life stressors would predict dysphoria when a more stringent method of stress measurement was employed. Finally, we tested our prediction that the autonomy–achievement match would predict hostility, whereas the sociotropy–interpersonal match would not.
METHODS Participants Participants were 39 women who had recently arrived in the United States. They ranged in age from 20 to 34 years (M = 28.2, SD = 3.4). We recruited women who lived in married university housing for international students. Because we planned to assess stressors related to moving and the relocation process within the past 6 months, we recruited participants who had been in the United States for less than 6 months. Participants were recruited via telephone, using a list provided by the international student office. Interested participants who were married, been in the country for
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
234
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Raghavan, Le, and Berenbaum
less than 6 months, and spoke English were invited to participate in the study. Of the 100 individuals we reached, 50 women met these three criteria. Of this group, 41 consented to participate in the study. Two interviews were terminated due to lack of interest, leaving a total sample of 39 women. All participants were married except one who was in a domestic partnership. On average, participants had been married 2.5 years (M = 2.5, SD = 2.2) and approximately half had children. Twenty six participants (66.7%) reported Asian heritage, 25.6% reported European/Latina or European heritage (n = 10), and the remaining 7.7% (n = 3) reported either bi-racial or African heritage. The education status of these women was high; 61% of participants had a college degree and 28% had advanced degrees, and the remaining 11% had completed high school. In-person interviews were conducted at either the home of the participant or the university psychological services center. In return for their participation, participants were entered in a raffle. Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to explore the relationships among personality, stress, and mood. Participants were interviewed at two time points, approximately 6 months apart. Only data relevant to this work from the first time point will be presented in this paper. Measures Depression and Mood Mood and anxiety symptoms were assessed using the SCID (First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1998). Interviews were conducted by advanced clinical psychology graduate students. These diagnostic interviews were audiotaped, and the presence or absence of each symptom was rated separately by two of the authors (CR and HNL). Approximately half the original diagnostic interviews had been conducted by one judge, and the other half by the second judge. Differences in ratings were resolved by the third author (HB). Interrater reliability at the level of the symptom was extremely high; of the total of 1,443 symptoms rated (37 symptoms × 39 participants rated), there were only three disagreements. Diagnoses were formed using DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). One participant met criteria for major depressive disorder. Seven additional participants met DSM-IV criteria for minor depressive disorder (APA, 1994, Appendix B, p. 719; were the research criteria for minor depression not used, these individuals would be given a DSM-IV diagnosis of depressive disorder NOS); these individuals exhibited significant sad mood for at least 2 weeks but fewer than the five symptoms required for an MDD diagnosis. Eleven participants did not meet criteria for major or minor depressive disorders and were given the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood. These participants reported sufficient distress as a result of a clear psychosocial stressor, relocation, to warrant a diagnosis by virtue of reporting at least 2 weeks worth of moderate functional impairment in daily living, extremely sad mood and crying for at least 1 week, and more than four other symptoms lasting at least 1 week. None of the participants met diagnostic criteria for dysthymia, which requires at least 2 years’ worth of subsyndromal depression. Thus, 19 participants reported at least 2 weeks’ worth of dysphoria and/or functional impairment (or both)
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Diathesis Models of Sociotropy–Autonomy in a Contextualized Stress Setting
235
sufficient to merit a DSM-IV diagnosis. Twenty participants did not receive a study diagnosis. We created a categorical index, where a score of 0 indicated no diagnosis and a score of 1 indicated a depressive diagnosis. Because of the high overlap between depressive and anxiety disorders, participants were also assessed for anxiety disorders using the Anxiety Disorders Module of the SCID. No one in the sample met criteria for any of the anxiety disorders. Participants also completed three items selected from the Revised Symptom Checklist to measure hostility (SCL-90-R: Derogatis & Lazarus, 1994). The three items were “feeling easily annoyed,” “temper outbursts,” and “shouting/throwing things.” Participants indicated the extent to which they behaved in these ways on a 5-point scale where 0 was slightly/not at all and 4 was extremely. Internal consistency was marginal (α = .60). Although the level of hostility in this sample was low (M = 0.3, SD = 0.4), approximately half the participants (53.8%) reported a mean score above 0. Sociotropy–Autonomy Because of time constraints, an abbreviated form of the Personality Style Inventory (PSI; Robins et al., 1994) was administered to participants. The original PSI comprised 48 items. Items were dropped primarily if they took too long to complete. In addition, items were dropped if the language and especially the content of the items presented considerable comprehension difficulty to participants, particularly in the context of having recently relocated to a new country. This abbreviated form of the PSI is not intended to reflect a theoretical revision, but rather to address the practical concerns of time and language, and thus should be treated as unique to this study. The current autonomy subscale comprised 15 items and the current sociotropy scale comprised 10 items.5 Participants were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a scale from 1 to 6 . The PSI is a widely used measure of sociotropy and autonomy and has good psychometric properties (e.g., Robins et al., 1997). In this sample, the 15-item autonomy and the 10-item sociotropy scale had marginally acceptable internal consistencies (αs = .69 and .60, respectively). To explore the comparability of the abbreviated PSI scales with the original PSI scales, we examined the correlations between the abbreviated scales and the original scales in a sample composed of 442 college students participating in another study examining stress and dysphoria. All participants completed the full version, and the items for the abbreviated version were selected out of this single administration. The intercorrelations were quite high (Rsociotropy = .81, p < .001; Rautonomy = .94, p < .001) suggesting that the abbreviated scales most likely captured the constructs intended by the full scales. Stress Stress interviews were conducted on the basis of the Structured Event Probe and Narrative Rating Interview (SEPRATE; Dohrenwend, Raphael, Stueve, & Skodol, 5 Items
that were retained from the original PSI were as follows where odd numbers reflect sociotropy items and even numbers reflect autonomy items: Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18–20, 22–24, 27–30, 34, 36, 39, 45, 47.
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
236
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Raghavan, Le, and Berenbaum
1993). Acute stress items were added that were relevant to the specific issues of relocation. Construction of these items were further guided by the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule (LEDS; Brown & Harris, 1978). These items included the situation prior to the move, the actual move, and the process of resettling shortly upon arrival. Items were also modified to be relevant to relocation such that financial changes, occupation status, work, school, family, health, death, change in relationship with husband, and other social relationships were assessed as a result of relocation; a total of 36 potential stressful events were examined. Sample items include “After you moved to the U.S., did your financial situation change?” and “What has the relationship with (spouse’s name) been like since you came to the U.S.?” The stressors were probed to obtain information about how they occurred, how unexpected they were, if they had occurred before, how long they lasted, what consequences ensued, and what resources the participant had available to handle the stressor. The participant’s personal reaction to the event was avoided in the assessment to prevent confounds with other variables (e.g., personality). The stress narratives were tape recorded and subsequently coded by trained undergraduate research assistants who placed each stressor in an interpersonal or achievement category. Because stress in this study was measured by an interview format, a rating system sensitive to a variety of stressors was created. A theoretical taxonomy of what defines a stressor to be achievement oriented or interpersonal oriented was constructed. Stressors were defined as achievement if they were predominantly characterized by issues of self-control, self-gratification, self-maintenance, and pursuit and attainment of noninterpersonal goals. Stressors were defined as interpersonal if they were characterized by concerns, needs, motivations, and cognitions that were interpersonally focused. In creating this rating system, we were influenced by other researchers’ use of context to aid the interpretation of stressful life events (Brown, 1989; Monroe & Roberts, 1990). Stressors were classified as interpersonal or achievement if at least two out of three raters classified the stressor as a particular type. Pairwise (i.e., Rater 1 × Rater 2, Rater 2 × Rater 3, and Rater 2 × Rater 3) interrater reliabilities were computed using kappas for each of the 36 stressors. For all the stressors except resettlement immediately after relocation, agreement between raters ranged from perfect (κ = 1.0) to good (κ = .76), with the majority of the kappas being over .85. The stressor pertinent to postrelocation changes had the lowest level of interrater reliability (κ = .43). The low agreement probably reflects the complex changes in the participants’ lives that affected interpersonal and achievement domains in multiple ways. Stressors were rated as to their disruptiveness on a 1 not at all disruptive to 3 extremely disruptive scale based on the extent of disruption in the participant’s life using guidelines prescribed by Dohrenwend et al. (1993). Participants received an overall disruptiveness score for each set of interpersonal and achievement stressors. Subjective meaning of the stressor to the participant was not included in these ratings. On average, participants experienced a high level of disruption in their lives as a result of relocating (M = 2.54, SD = 0.40). Almost 90% (89.5%) of the participants were rated as having experienced at least moderately disruptive achievement or interpersonal stressors (ratings of 2 and above). Pre- and postmove changes involving occupation and status loss were the most frequently endorsed stressors in
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Diathesis Models of Sociotropy–Autonomy in a Contextualized Stress Setting
237
the achievement domain. As a result of the move but prior to moving, 36% suffered achievement failures and 10% suffered interpersonal losses. Immediately following the move, 49% experienced achievement failures and 1% reported interpersonal losses. Negative interpersonal stressors increased in number and frequency following relocation. In the interpersonal domain, negative relationship changes with the spouse was the most frequently reported stressor (23%). Interview Time Frames Participants were assessed for the onset of depressive symptoms anytime after their arrival to the United States with a query that had no time specification other than noting that it was postrelocation (e.g., Since arriving in the United States, have you lost or gained any weight? . . .). The majority of participants (16 of 19) who received a study diagnosis reported experiencing depressive symptoms within the first 3 weeks of arrival; the remainder reported experiencing symptoms within the first 3 months. None of the participants reported onset of symptoms prior to relocation. We assessed stressful life events that preceded (by a maximum of 3 months) and followed (by a maximum of 6 months) relocation to the United States.6 Control Variable We attempted to control for the possibility that sociocultural variables may influence the stressors experienced and accordingly, depressive outcomes. We obtained information about the presence of close family members in the United States because familial social support may buffer individuals from psychological harm.7
RESULTS As a first step, we examined the intercorrelations of all variables of interest, shown in Table I. As expected, sociotropy was significantly correlated with depressive diagnosis. No other variables were significantly related although family in the United States and achievement events showed a trend to correlate with depressive diagnosis. Next, we used a logistic regression procedure to test the hypothesis that the interaction between interpersonal events and sociotropy would predict dysphoria, whereas other interactions would not. We conducted four separate regression analyses, one examining the Interpersonal Stressor × Sociotropy interaction, a second examining the Achievement Stressor × Autonomy interaction, a third examining the Interpersonal Stressor × Autonomy interaction, and the fourth examining the Achievement Stressor × Sociotropy interaction. In each regression, family in the 6 For
the 19 participants with a depressive diagnosis, some stressful events (a total of four interpersonal stressors and three achievement stressors) occurred following the onset of depression. To avoid potential confounds between onset of depression and onset of stressors, such stressors were not counted when computing the number of stressors experienced by these participants. 7 There was no association between the length of time participants had resided in the United States as of the time of the interview and the number of stressors they had experienced since relocating, (rinterpersonal = .20, ns; rachievement = −.06, ns).
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
238
Raghavan, Le, and Berenbaum Table I. Correlations Among and Descriptives of Variables in the Study Variables
1. Depressed status 2. Hostility 3. Family in the United States 4. Sociotropy 5. Autonomy 6. Achievement events 7. Interpersonal events Means SD
1
2
3
—
.02 —
−.28 .04 —
48.7(19)a —
.3 .4
1.6 .5
4 .42∗∗
−.18 −.20 —
4.1 .6
5
6
7
.06 .21 .02 .01 —
.29 .25 .01 .23 −.07 —
−.15 .09 −.02 −.04 .01 −.20 — 1.0 1.2
3.4 .5
1.8 1.4
a Value represents percentage of participants who received depressive diagnosis with the exact number
in parenthesis. < .01.
∗∗p
United States, a personality variable (either sociotropy or autonomy), and a stress variable (either interpersonal or achievement stressors) were entered in the first step. The interaction between the stress and the personality variable was entered as the second step. The overall fit of each model was assessed by means of its chi-square based on the −2 log L criterion, and the significance of each individual term within each model was assessed by means of its Wald chi-square. Of the four regressions conducted, only one was significant. The overall model examining the interaction between interpersonal stressors and sociotropy was significant and correctly predicted 74.4% of the diagnoses, correctly classifying 68.4% of those with a depressive diagnosis, and correctly classifying 80.0% of those who received no diagnosis. As can be seen in Table II, having family in the United States significantly decreased the probability of acquiring a depressive diagnosis. The significant main effect of negative interpersonal stressors was modified by the interaction between sociotropy and interpersonal stressors (χ 2 = 3.99, p < .05). The odds-ratio of this interaction was high; the results suggest that participants who had high levels of sociotropy and who experienced a high number of interpersonal stressors were 10.5 times more likely to obtain a depressive diagnosis compared with participants who did not have this combination. There were no significant main effects or interaction effects for autonomy or achievement stressors. The nature of the interaction between sociotropy and interpersonal stressors is depicted in Fig. 1. The dependent variable is depicted on the Y-axis as the number Table II. Logistic Model Predicting Dysphoric Diagnostic Status χ 2 (4, N = 39) = 15.80∗∗ Variables Main effects of control variable Family in the United States Main effects of predictor variables Sociotropy Interpersonal stressors Interaction Sociotropy × Interpersonal stressors ∗p
< .05.
∗∗p
< .01.
Wald χ 2
Odds ratio of being diagnosed
β weight
3.84∗
.16
−1.84
0.10 4.12∗
1.34 0.00
0.30 −10.09
3.99∗
10.52
2.35
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Diathesis Models of Sociotropy–Autonomy in a Contextualized Stress Setting
239
Fig. 1. Number of participants with depressive diagnosis (Y-Axis) and sociotropy (X-Axis) as a function of no or one or more interpersonal events.
of participants who received a diagnosis. Two lines are plotted, one for participants reporting no interpersonal events and the other for participants indicating one or more events of moderate to high disruptiveness. For illustrative purposes, participants whose sociotropy scores were above the 75th percentile (sociotropy > 4.4) were assigned to the high sociotropy group. All others were assigned to the low sociotropy group. As can be seen in Fig. 1, individuals with depressive diagnoses tended to have high levels of sociotropy. Further, the effects of high levels of sociotropy were particularly pronounced among individuals who had experienced stressful interpersonal events. Next, we tested our hypothesis that the interaction between negative achievement events and autonomy would predict hostility. Because centered variables have more desirable properties than noncentered variables when using linear multiple regression procedures (e.g., Aiken & West, 1991), we centered autonomy and negative achievement stressors by subtracting these variables from their respective means. Using hierachical multiple regression, we entered the control variable (family in the United States) in the first step, centered autonomy in the second step, centered negative achievement stressors in the third step, followed by the interaction between the two centered variables in the final step. Only the interaction between autonomy and achievement stressors was significant and explained 12.7% of the variance F(1, 34) = 5.71, p < .05. In contrast, the results of three parallel regression analyses indicated that the interactions between sociotropy and negative interpersonal events, sociotropy and negative achievement events, and autonomy and negative interpersonal events did not predict hostility. The interaction between autonomy
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
240
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Raghavan, Le, and Berenbaum
Fig. 2. Mean hostility (Y-Axis) and autonomy (X-Axis) as a function of no or one or more achievement events.
and achievement events is depicted in Fig. 2. When reporting no achievement events, participant’s level of hostility did not vary much as a function of autonomy. In contrast, when participants reported one or more negative events, they experienced higher hostility when they also reported higher autonomy.
DISCUSSION In this study, we examined whether the matches between sociotropy and interpersonal stressors and between autonomy and achievement stressors would predict dysphoria and hostility in a sample of women undergoing a common stressful life event. This work differed from many previous studies in this area in the caution we used when measuring stress. First, instead of stress check lists, we coded each narrative individually to establish categories of interpersonal and achievement stressful incidents. Second, we only included stressors that had at least moderately severe or disruptive impact on participants’ lives. Finally, because our sample relocated to the United States at approximately the same time, we were able to measure stressful incidents for each participant that occurred in the same context, that of relocation. For example, many participants in this study reported being forced to quit their employment in their home country as a result of relocation. We found that women who had high levels of sociotropy and who also experienced one or more negative interpersonal stressors were approximately 11 times
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Diathesis Models of Sociotropy–Autonomy in a Contextualized Stress Setting
241
more likely to be dysphoric than were women who did not have this combination. In addition, the model was able to correctly classify 75% of the participants; in contrast, none of the other three models (i.e., the matches between sociotropy and achievement events, autonomy and interpersonal events, and autonomy and achievement events) were significant. These results, while similar to many others (e.g., Clark et al., 1992), are important for several reasons. The results of this study reinforce the importance, and clarifies the role of, severe stressors in the onset of depressive diagnosis within the diathesis-stress model. In particular, studies examining the diathesis-stress model have often used stress indices that include mild stressors that are considered additively or accumulatively (e.g., Hammen et al., 1985). In such studies, several mild stressors may be grouped together to reflect a set of negative life conditions for the participant. Although such studies are important, and have shed light on the role of accumulative mild stressors, they cannot be fully generalized to the role of more disruptive stressors. Brown and Harris (1978) have found that whereas a single severe event is predictive of depressive onset, the accumulation of less severe events is not. Another reason the results of this study are important concerns the sample utilized. This is one of the first studies to demonstrate the role of sociotropy in a community (nonclinical) high risk sample. Furthermore, no one in this sample met criteria for any type of DSM-IV anxiety disorder. Accordingly, these results suggest that high levels of sociotropy are a sufficient risk factor for depressive onset for an otherwise nondisturbed population. As such, these results give strong credence to the interpersonal component of the diathesis-stress model. These results also attest to the potency of sociotropy as a widespread vulnerability factor for depression. Despite the careful measurement of stress, the match between autonomy and achievement stressors was not predictive of depressive diagnosis. These results suggest that the relationship between the achievement component of the diathesis-stress model and depressive diagnosis is not the result of stress measurement error. These results and those of numerous other studies suggest that the full factor of autonomy is most likely not a diathesis for depression (e.g., Mazure et al., in press). Although we did not uncover a relationship between autonomy–achievement stressors and depression, we did find an interaction between autonomy and achievement stressors in the prediction of hostility. Those individuals who had both high levels of autonomy and a larger number of achievement stressors were particularly likely to report higher levels of hostility. Thus, when experiencing relevant failures/losses, sociotropic individuals become “sad,” whereas autonomous individuals become “mad.” Although provocative, the results of this study indicating a relationship between autonomy and hostility should be interpreted with some caution because of study limitations. We used an abbreviated version of the PSI. Although analyses indicated that scores on the abbreviated scales are strongly associated with scores on the full PSI scales, suggesting that the abbreviated version most likely measured the same construct, some scepticism is warranted when examining the results. For example, the relationship between sociotropy and autonomy is lower in this study than what is typically found, suggesting that the abbreviated version differs in some respect from the full version. We thus cannot rule out the possibility that the results would have differed had we used the full PSI. Because items were dropped for expedient reasons
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
242
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Raghavan, Le, and Berenbaum
rather than conceptual ones, and because this sample is unique, this version of the PSI must be considered specific to the conditions of this study, and quite unsatisfactory for general research purposes. We also used a shortened version of the self-report index of hostility that cannot fully capture the complexity of the hostility construct. Furthermore, the levels of hostility in this sample were extremely low and cannot be held to represent levels of pathological disturbance. Thus, future studies using more comprehensive measures of sociotropy/autonomy and hostility are clearly needed. Nonetheless, these results are consistent with what one would expect and suggest a promising direction for future autonomy–achievement research. A strength of our sample was that they experienced stressors that occurred within a similar context (relocation); nevertheless, at least two limitations should be noted. First, our sample is heterogeneous with respect to cultural background and high education levels but homogeneous with respect to including only women; second, our sample is small. These limitations may not only limit the generalizability of our finding, but also warrant additional research to test the replicability of our results. It should also be noted that because of the cultural variability of the sample, the results may have been influenced by cultural differences. However, cultural confounds seem unlikely for several reasons. First, the results of this study are similar to many others examining the diathesis-stress model. Second, we attempted to minimize cultural influences on the predicted outcome variables by the inclusion of the family in the United States posited to influence postlocation adaptation and depressive diagnosis. In fact, one could argue that despite unmeasured cultural differences, the results found in this study are remarkably similar to others, suggesting that sociotropy may be a widespread vulnerability to depression. In contrast, autonomy does not appear to confer a vulnerability to DSM-IV diagnoses of depression. Although half of the sample reported at least 2 weeks’ worth of dysphoria functional impairment or both sufficient to merit a DSM-IV diagnosis, only one participant received a diagnosis of MDD. Thus, the mood disorder symptoms in this sample were generally less severe and of briefer duration than is typically found in samples of clinically depressed individuals. Therefore, it will be important to replicate the present findings among more disturbed individuals. Another limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of our study. Despite the precautions taken (e.g., dropping events that occurred after onset of symptoms), the diathesis model requires a stringent test of causal relationships that we could not undertake. In particular, we cannot rule out the possibility that depressive onset influenced the continued course of stressors following relocation. As such, we cannot make causal inferences regarding the nature of stress and depressive and hostile outcomes. Future longitudinal studies of the diathesis stress model will be able to more effectively tease apart the diathesis from the context and the outcome.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Christina Gee and Debjani Mukherjee for their generous assistance during the data collection phase, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in the revision of this manuscript.
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Diathesis Models of Sociotropy–Autonomy in a Contextualized Stress Setting
243
REFERENCES Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., & Hogan, M. E. (1997). Cognitive/personality subtypes of depression: Theories in search of disorders. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 247–265. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Bagby, R. M., Kennedy, S. H., Dickens, S. E., Minifie, C. E., & Schuller, D. R. (1997). Personality and symptom profiles of the angry hostile depressed patient. Journal of Affective Disorders, 45, 155– 160. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., Joffe, R. T., Schuller, D., & Gilchrist, E. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Personal Style Inventory (PSI). Assessment, 5, 31–43. Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P. Clayton & J. Barrett (Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York: Raven. Bifulco, A., Brown, G. W., Moran, P., Ball, C., & Campbell, C. (1998). Predicting depression in women: The role of past and present vulnerability. Psychological Medicine, 28, 39–50. Blatt, S. J., & Maroudas, C. (1992). Convergences among psychoanalytic and cognitive–behavioral theories of depression. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 9, 157–190. Brown, G. W. (1989). Life events and measurement. In G. W. Brown & T. O. Harris (Eds.), Life events and illness (pp. 3–45). New York: Guildford. Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression. A study of psychiatric disorder in women. London: Tavistock. Clark, D. A., Beck, A. T., & Alford, B. A. (1999). Scientific foundations of cognitive theory and therapy of depression. New York: Wiley. Clark, D. A., Beck, A. T., & Brown, G. K. (1992). Sociotropy, autonomy, and life event perceptions in dysphoric and non dysphoric individuals. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 635–652. Clark, A. D., Steer, R. A., Haslam, N., Beck, A. T., & Brown, G. K. (1997). Personality vulnerability, psychiatric diagnoses, and symptoms: Cluster analyses of the Sociotropy–Autonomy Subscales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 267–283. Coyne, J. C., & Whiffen, V. E. (1995). Issues in personality as diathesis for depression: The case of sociotropy-dependency and autonomy-self-criticism. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 358–378. Derogatis, L. R., & Lazarus, L. (1994). SCL-90–R, Brief symptom inventory, and matching clinical rating scales. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 217–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dohrenwend, B. P., Raphael, K. G., Schwartz, S., Stueve, A., & Skodol, A. (1993). The structured event probe and narrative rating method for measuring stressful life events. In E. Leo Goldberger & E. Shlomo Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (2nd ed., pp. 174–199). New York: The Free Press. Fava, M., Rosenbaum, J. F., Pava, J. A., & McCarthy, M. K. (1993). Anger attacks in unipolar depression: I. Clinical correlates and response to fluoxetine treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 1158–1163. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1998). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute. Hammen, C. (1991). The generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 555–561. Hammen, C., Burge, D., Daley, S., Davila, J., Paley, B., & Rudolph, K. (1995). Interpersonal attachment cognitions and prediction of symptomatic responses to interpersonal stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 436–443. Hammen, C., Marks, T., Mayol, A., & DeMayo, R. (1985). Depressive self-schemas, life stress, and vulnerability to depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 308–319. Ingram, R. E., Miranda, J., & Segal, Z. V. (1998). Cognitive vulnerability to depression. New York: Guilford Press. Kwon, P., & Whisman, M. A. (1998). Sociotropy and autonomy as vulnerabilities to specific life events: Issues in life event categorization. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22(4), 353–362. Mazure, C., Raghavan, C., Maciejewski, P. K., Jacobs, S. C., & Bruce, M. L. (2001). Cognitive-personality characteristics as predictors of unipolar major depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25(2), 215–225. Monroe, S. M., & Roberts, J. E. (1990). Conceptualizing and measuring life stress: Problems, principles, procedures, progress. Stress Medicine, 6, 209–216.
P1: GVK/HAA/HGL-HGI
P2: FJT/GAP
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr]
244
QC: FpQ
PP398-368365
February 18, 2002
12:21
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Raghavan, Le, and Berenbaum
Robins, C. J. (1990). Congruence of personality and life events in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 393–397. Robins, C. J., Bagby, R. M., Rector, N. A., Lynch, T. R., & Kennedy, S. H. (1997). Sociotropy, autonomy, and patterns of symptoms in patients with major depression: A comparison of dimensional and categorical approaches. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 285–300. Robins, C. J., Hayes, A. M., Block, P., Kramer, R. J., & Villena, M. (1995). Interpersonal and achievement concerns and the depressive vulnerability and symptom specificity hypotheses: A prospective study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 1–20. Robins, C. J., Ladd, J., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P. H., Diaz, R., & Kutcher, G. (1994). The Personal Style Inventory: Preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277–300. Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1993). Do interpersonal and achievement vulnerabilities interact with congruent events to predict depression? Comparison of DEQ, SAS, DAS, and combined scales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17, 531–548. Segal, Z. V., Shaw, B. F., & Vella, D. D. (1989). Life stress and depression: A test of the congruency hypothesis for life event content and depressive subtype. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21, 389–400.
