4.7 Article

Between- versus within-person emotional and cognitive reactivity in relation to depressive symptoms

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 295, 期 -, 页码 479-487

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.064

关键词

Emotional reactivity; Cognitive reactivity; Depression; Multilevel modeling; Daily diary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that depressive symptoms were positively related to within-person emotional and cognitive reactivity, but not to between-person operationalizations. Recommendations were made to distinguish between-person from within-person dimensions in future research.
Background: Theories connecting depression to emotional reactivity (ER) or cognitive reactivity (CR) have not clearly indicated whether ER and CR are between-person or within-person constructs. Most empirical tests of these theories have focused on either between- or within-person operationalizations of these constructs, but not both. Between- and within-person studies address qualitatively different questions and often generate very different results. Consequently, the goals of the current study were to examine the relation of depressive symptoms to both between- and within-person operationalizations of both ER and CR. Methods: Participants were 160 undergraduate students who completed daily diary measures (assessing stress, negative emotions, and negative cognitions) and measures of depressive symptoms. Multilevel modeling (MLM) enabled examination of depressive symptoms to the within- and between-person components of ER and CR. Results: Depressive symptoms were positively related to within-person ER and CR but not to between-person operationalizations of ER and CR. Limitations: The sample only included college students and only assessed depressive symptoms, not clinical diagnoses of major depression. Conclusions: Important implications emerge for theory, practice, and future research. We recommend distinguishing between-person from within-person dimensions of ER and CR in future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据