Macatee Richard J, Albanese Brian J, Allan Nicholas P, Schmidt Norman B, Cougle Jesse R
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, P.O. Box 3064301, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, P.O. Box 3064301, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
J Affect Disord. 2016 Dec;206:125-132. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.07.035. Epub 2016 Jul 19.
Distress intolerance (DI) is conceptualized as an individual difference reflective of the ability to tolerate aversive psychological states. Although high DI has demonstrated cross-sectional associations with multiple forms of psychopathology, few studies have tested key facets of its theoretical conceptualization. Specifically, little research has been conducted on DI's theorized role as an incrementally valid prospective moderator of the relationship between daily stressful events and affective symptoms reflective of preoccupation with aversive internal (e.g., depression, worry) rather than external stimuli (e.g., social anxiety).
A non-clinical sample (N = 147; 77% female; M age = 19.32) in which high DI individuals were oversampled was recruited. Participants completed baseline measures of DI and trait negative affect followed by six diary entries over a two-week period in which participants reported on daily stressors, negative affect, worry, depressive, and social anxiety symptoms.
Hierarchical linear models revealed that DI positively predicted depressive and worry, but not social anxiety symptoms, independent of daily stressors and negative affect. Further, a significant interaction effect was found such that the positive association between daily stressor(s) occurrence and daily worry was significant at high, but not low DI, and a similar trend-level interaction effect was observed for depressive symptoms. The interaction for social anxiety symptoms was non-significant LIMITATIONS: Utilization of a non-clinical sample precludes generalization of results to clinical samples. Only self-reported DI was assessed, limiting conclusions to perceived as opposed to behaviorally-indexed DI.
Results largely supported DI's theoretical conceptualization as an incrementally valid moderator of stress responding with relevance to particular affective symptoms.
痛苦不耐受(DI)被概念化为一种个体差异,反映了个体耐受厌恶心理状态的能力。尽管高痛苦不耐受已显示出与多种形式的精神病理学存在横断面关联,但很少有研究检验其理论概念化的关键方面。具体而言,关于痛苦不耐受作为日常应激事件与反映对厌恶内部刺激(如抑郁、担忧)而非外部刺激(如社交焦虑)过度关注的情感症状之间关系的递增有效前瞻性调节因素的理论作用,几乎没有相关研究。
招募了一个非临床样本(N = 147;77%为女性;平均年龄 = 19.32岁),其中对高痛苦不耐受个体进行了过度抽样。参与者完成了痛苦不耐受和特质消极情绪的基线测量,随后在两周内进行了六次日记记录,参与者报告了每日应激源、消极情绪、担忧、抑郁和社交焦虑症状。
分层线性模型显示,独立于每日应激源和消极情绪,痛苦不耐受正向预测抑郁和担忧症状,但不预测社交焦虑症状。此外,发现了一个显著的交互作用效应,即每日应激源发生与每日担忧之间的正相关在高痛苦不耐受水平时显著,但在低痛苦不耐受水平时不显著,并且在抑郁症状方面也观察到了类似的趋势水平交互作用效应。社交焦虑症状的交互作用不显著。局限性:使用非临床样本妨碍了将结果推广到临床样本。仅评估了自我报告的痛苦不耐受,将结论限制在感知到的而非行为指标化的痛苦不耐受。
结果在很大程度上支持了痛苦不耐受作为应激反应的递增有效调节因素与特定情感症状相关的理论概念化。