Vilhjalmsson R
Department of Nursing, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
Soc Sci Med. 1993 Aug;37(3):331-42. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90264-5.
In recent years, theorists and researchers have disagreed about the relationship between social support and mental health. Some believe that support is a direct provoking agent (i.e. lack of support constitutes strain), whereas others maintain that support is a vulnerability factor moderating the effect of life stress. Focusing on clinical depression, the article reviews the arguments and evidence supporting a strain hypothesis of social support versus a vulnerability hypothesis. Reanalyzing cross-classified data from 12 community studies of clinical depression, the study shows that the choice of model depends on the specification of functional form of the stress-clinical depression relationship. The linear probability specification suggests a vulnerability hypothesis, whereas the logit and probit specifications support a strain hypothesis. However, theoretical and statistical arguments tend to favor a logit or probit specification, and an additional analysis of data from Brown and Harris [Social Origins of Depression: A Study of Psychiatric Disorder in Women. The Free Press, New York, 1978] supports these arguments. Thus, the study concludes that the strain hypothesis of social support is more consistent with the available data.
近年来,理论家和研究人员对于社会支持与心理健康之间的关系存在分歧。一些人认为支持是一个直接的诱发因素(即缺乏支持构成压力),而另一些人则坚持认为支持是一个调节生活压力影响的易感性因素。本文聚焦于临床抑郁症,回顾了支持社会支持的压力假设与易感性假设的论据和证据。通过重新分析来自12项临床抑郁症社区研究的交叉分类数据,该研究表明模型的选择取决于压力与临床抑郁症关系的函数形式的设定。线性概率设定表明了一种易感性假设,而逻辑回归和概率单位设定则支持压力假设。然而,理论和统计论据倾向于支持逻辑回归或概率单位设定,对布朗和哈里斯[《抑郁症的社会根源:对女性精神障碍的研究》。自由出版社,纽约,1978年]数据的进一步分析支持了这些论据。因此,该研究得出结论,社会支持的压力假设与现有数据更为一致。