O'Grady Megan A, Tennen Howard, Armeli Stephen
University of Connecticut Health Center.
J Soc Clin Psychol. 2010 Nov;29(9):949-974. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2010.29.9.949.
This study examined whether deficits in dealing with daily problems emerge before a depressive episode (i.e., pre-existing vulnerability) or after a depressive episode (i.e., psychosocial scar). Participants completed a 30-day daily diary in which they reported their most negative event of the day, their appraisals of that event, and their mood. Three years later, they completed a structured depression interview. The sample consisted of 350 college students, 24 of whom had a past history of depression and 54 of whom experienced a depressive episode subsequent to dairy completion. Multilevel modeling revealed that students with past depression blamed others more than the never-depressed and those with subsequent depression, which supported the scar hypothesis. In support of the vulnerability hypothesis, as compared to the never-depressed group, participants with past depression demonstrated steeper declines in positive mood on more stressful days but did not significantly differ from the subsequent depression group. Overall, our findings do not provide clear support for either hypothesis; however, this study is the first to use a daily diary design to directly compare individuals with past depression to individuals who would subsequently experience depression.
本研究考察了应对日常问题的缺陷是在抑郁发作之前出现(即预先存在的易感性)还是在抑郁发作之后出现(即心理社会创伤)。参与者完成了一份为期30天的每日日记,在日记中他们报告当天最负面的事件、对该事件的评价以及他们的情绪。三年后,他们完成了一次结构化的抑郁访谈。样本包括350名大学生,其中24人有抑郁病史,54人在完成日记记录后经历了抑郁发作。多层次建模显示,有过抑郁经历的学生比从未抑郁过的学生以及后来经历抑郁的学生更倾向于责怪他人,这支持了创伤假说。为支持易感性假说,与从未抑郁的组相比,有过抑郁经历的参与者在压力更大的日子里积极情绪下降更为明显,但与后来经历抑郁的组没有显著差异。总体而言,我们的数据并未为任何一种假说提供明确支持;然而,本研究是首次使用每日日记设计来直接比较有过抑郁经历的个体与随后会经历抑郁的个体。