UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sociotropy and autonomy and the interpersonal model of depression: an integration Bieling, Peter J. 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1997-250164.pdf [ 3.8MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0088135.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088135-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088135-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088135-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088135-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088135-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088135-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

S O C I O T R O P Y A N D A U T O N O M Y A N D T H E I N T E R P E R S O N A L M O D E L O F D E P R E S S I O N : A N I N T E G R A T I O N by Peter J . Biel ing B .Sc . (Hons.) University of Victor ia, 1990 M.A. University of Brit ish Co lumbia , 1993 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y IN T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S ( D E P A R T M E N T O F P S Y C H O L O G Y ) W e accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRIT ISH C O L U M B I A June 1997 © Peter J . B ie l ing, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Resea rche rs and theorists have suggested that two personal i ty styles may serve as pathways for the deve lopment of depress ion. One personal i ty style, sociotropy, involves intense needs for posi t ive interchange with others, whereas the other style, autonomy, involves an excess i ve need for self-control and independence. T h e s e personal i ty styles were invest igated in the context of C o y n e ' s (1976) interpersonal model of depress ion , which sugges ts that depressed persons are rejected by others. R e s e a r c h on this model has been equivoca l , and it is poss ib le that these two personal i ty d imens ions result in meaningful interpersonal di f ferences within depressed persons. Dep ressed outpatients, (N=41) and non-depressed controls (N=41) were a s s e s s e d on sociotropy and autonomy and then participated in a brief task in which a research assistant he lped them plan adapt ive life changes. T h e s e interactions were rated subjectively and uti l izing behavioura l coding. Resul ts indicated that a combinat ion of depress ion and autonomy were particularly l ikely to lead to rejection and less posit ive interpersonal behaviours. Sociotropy was related to percept ions of interpersonal deference, whereas depress ion was assoc ia ted with self-orientation in the task. T h e s e results suggest that both depress ion and personal i ty impact rejection and interpersonal behaviours in soc ia l interactions. Overa l l , this study represents a signif icant step toward greater specif ici ty in the interpersonal model of depress ion, and cl inical implicat ions of these f indings are descr ibed. i i i Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vii List of Appendices viii Acknowledgments ix Introduction . 1 Theoretical Evolution of Sociotropy and Autonomy 2 Construct Assessment 5 Research Evidence 8 Diathesis-Stress Models of Depression 8 Relationship of Sociotropy and Autonomy to Other Variables 10 Parental Relationships. 11 Attributional Research. 12 Gender Roles. 12 Differential Symptomatology. 13 Therapy Outcome. 14 Psychological Correlates. 15 i v Interpersonal Models of Depression 17 Depression and Interpersonal Rejection 19 Interpersonal Concomitants of Sociotropy and Autonomy 26 Research Evidence 28 The Present Study 31 Hypotheses 34 Method 35 Overview 35 Participants 35 Depressed Sample 35 Inclusion Criteria for Depressives. 37 Control Sample 37 Inclusion Criteria for Control Group. 39 Experimenters 39 Confederates 39 Procedure 40 Experimental Task 41 Diagnostic and Classificatory Measures 41 V Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R 41 Beck Depression Inventory 42 Personal Style Inventory 42 Dependent Measures 43 Desire for Future Interactions 43 Confederate Perceptions of Participants 44 Participant Behaviour 45 Results 46 Preliminary Analyses 46 Participant Characteristics 46 Confederate Checks 47 Participant Gender 47 Description of Independent Variables 48 Main Analyses .....49 Overview 49 Desire for Future Interactions 50 Confederate Perceptions of Participant 52 Interpersonal Deference. 52 Self-Orientation. 53 Participant Behaviours 54 v i Discussion , 57 Overview 57 Rejection, depression, and personality 58 Depression, Personality, and Others' Perceptions 59 Depression, Personality, and Behaviour 60 Implications for the Interpersonal Model 62 Caveats 66 Future Directions 67 Overall Summary 68 Footnotes 69 References • 70 Appendices • • 81 v i i List of Tables Tab le 1: Recruitment Sou rces 36 Tab le 2: Samp le Character is t ics 38 Tab le 3: M e a n s and standard deviat ions of sociotropy and autonomy scores in d e p r e s s e d and control groups 48 Tab le 4: Corre lat ions between des i re for future interactions (DFI), sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ion 50 Tab le 5: Hierarchical regress ion ana l yses predicting rejection from depress ion , sociotropy, autonomy, and interactions 51 Tab le 6: Part ial correlat ions between interpersonal deference, sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ion 52 Tab le 7: Hierarchical regress ion ana l yses predict ing interpersonal deference from depress ion, sociotropy, autonomy, and interactions 53 Tab le 8: Corre lat ions between self-orientation, sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ion 53 Tab le 9: Hierarchical regress ion ana l yses predict ing self-orientation from depress ion , sociotropy, autonomy, and interactions 54 Tab le 10: Corre lat ions between rated behaviours and sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ion 55 Tab le 11: Hierarchical regress ion ana l yses predicting posit ive behaviors from depress ion, sociotropy, autonomy, and interactions 56 List of Appendices Appendix A: Task Script 81 Appendix B: Pleasant Events Lists 84 Appendix C: Beck Depression Inventory 85 Appendix D: Personal Style Inventory 86 Appendix E: Confederate Perceptions of Participants 90 Appendix F: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variables 92 i x Acknowledgments There are many people who have helped in different capac i t ies to bring this project to a conc lus ion . S o m e have contributed in a profess ional way, others in a personal one, and most have he lped in both ways. First, I w ish to thank my advisor, Lynn A lden for her contributions: reading (and re-reading) my work, giving me feedback and advice, teaching me c learer writing and thinking, providing support whenever the waiting list ran low, and turning significant statistical tests into a meaningful story. I a lso wish to thank the members of my committee, Darr in Lehman and Dimitri Papageorg is for their different perspect ives on critical i ssues of the project. Then there are the people without whom the data cou ld not have been gathered, who had to show up e a c h and every day. Thank you to S h a w n Reyno lds and Mar iana Brussoni , who cheerful ly p lanned pleasant events with the multi tudes. No less important, Beren ica Ve jvoda, and Tracy Tanchuk, who ably coded the v ideotapes without ever nodding off. Thanks for the reliabil it ies. 1 Introduct ion Scho la rs from a broad variety of psycholog ica l perspect ives have examined personal i ty patterns that may precipitate and mediate depress ion. Despi te d iverse backgrounds, the work of these theorists and researchers converges on two sets of personal i ty features that are thought to serve as pathways for the development of depress ion. The first pathway, termed sociotropy, involves intense needs for posit ive interchange with others, dependency , and he lp lessness . The second pathway, termed autonomy, involves an excess i ve need for achievement, self-control, and independence from others (Arieti & Bemporad , 1980; Beck 1983; Blatt, 1974; Bowlby, 1977). T h e s e personal i ty features are theor ized to have distinct interpersonal components (eg. Beck, 1983; Blatt & Zuroff, 1992) that may be meaningful for both the onset and maintenance of depress ion. C o y n e (1976a) p roposed an interpersonal model of depress ion which focuses on other's responses to depress ives , and how such responses might exacerbate depress ion. However, empir ical support for Coyne ' s model has been equivoca l . One poss ib le explanat ion for these confl ict ing f indings is that research in this a rea has not taken into account meaningful interpersonal heterogeneity among dep ressed persons (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). Indeed, previous research has sugges ted that sociotropy and autonomy affect the soc ia l impact of individuals on others (Biel ing & A lden , 1996). The current research examines the interpersonal impact of these personal i ty features in interactions of dep ressed individuals. Toward this end, the theoretical evolut ion of 2 these personal i ty features will be summar ized , fol lowed by a review of the empir ical literature that examines the consequences of these features for depress ion. Theoretical Evolution of Sociotropy and) Autonomy T h e involvement of sociotropy and autonomy in depress ion has been descr ibed by at least four groups of theorists, each from a different psychologica l perspect ive. Al though there are dif ferences in each of the four approaches, their commonal i ty is more striking. T h e labels for these personal i ty features vary considerably from one approach to another. Autonomy has been labeled self-crit icism, dominant goal orientation, and self-definit ion. Sociotropy has been labeled dependency, dominant other orientat ion, and interpersonal re la tedness (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). R e s e a r c h indicates that, despi te dif ferences in terminology, sociotropy and dependency , as well as autonomy and self-cri t icism, are over lapping if not ana logous constructs (Alden & Bie l ing, 1996; B laney & Kutcher, 1991; Nietzel & Harris, 1990). The current work will use the terms sociotropy and autonomy to refer to these personali ty features except when referring to spec i f ic studies or speci f ic theoretical approaches. Wr i t ing from a developmental perspect ive, John Bowlby (1969, 1977, 1980) descr ibed "compuls ive ly self-reliant" and "anxiously at tached" individuals and how such individuals are prone to depress ion. Bowlby be l ieved that excess ive self re l iance was a defens ive react ion to early frustrated attachment needs and that anxious attachment was a react ion to unrel iable caregiver response. T h e s e different patterns of ear ly attachment behav iour were thought to result in internal "models" and expectat ions 3 regarding how other people behave. Such dysfunct ional work ing models were hypothes ized to be carr ied through until adul thood and to pred ispose an individual to the exper ience of depress ion . Wri t ing from a psychodynamic perspect ive, S idney Blatt (1974) dist inguished two subtypes of depress ion . The first, anacl i t ic depress ion , w a s character ized by feel ings of he lp lessness , weakness , and deplet ion. S u c h individuals were theor ized to have a strong need to be cared for by others and to va lue c lose socia l contact beyond all e lse. They were sa id to be fearful of los ing the support of others, and thus to have trouble express ing dissat isfact ion or anger. Blatt termed the second subtype introjective depress ion and character ized it by feel ings of wor th lessness, guilt, and a sense of hav ing fa i led to live up to expectat ions or s tandards. S u c h individuals were descr ibed as highly competit ive, demanding, and crit ical of others because of their intense compet i t iveness. Anacl i t ic depress ion was thought to deve lop in an individual who was excess ive ly dependent whereas introjective depress ion was thought to develop b e c a u s e of excess ive self-crit icism. Arieti and Bemporad (1980) made a similar bipartite distinction based on an examinat ion of two decades of psychotherapy with approximately forty depressed patients. They pointed out that depress ion results when an individual rel ies excess ive ly on external sources of support to maintain se l f -es teem and gratification (Arieti & Bemporad , 1980) They dist inguished between two types of excess ive rel iance, "dominant other" and "dominant goa l . " Dominant other corresponds to excess ive dependency and was descr ibed as a pattern of relating to others that begins 4 in chi ldhood. Here, the person seeks rewards through some signif icant other(s) who is rel ied upon to bestow meaning, gratification and sel f -esteem (Arieti & Bemporad, 1980). S u c h persons are descr ibed as cl ingy, pass ive, manipulat ive, and anger avoidant. The other form of excess ive rel iance was termed dominant goal and cor responds to excess i ve autonomy. Th is pattern was sa id to be estab l ished in chi ldhood if parents p laced an excess ive emphas is on achievement . Eventual ly, "the individual se lects some fantast ic goal for himself which he then pursues fanatically, apparently for its own s a k e " (Arieti & Bemporad, 1980; p 1361). Ach ievement of this goal has broad and unjustif iable meaning attached to it. In addit ion these individuals are reclusive, arrogant, and obsess ive . Arieti and Bemporad argued that these patterns result in interpretations of speci f ic life events that may lead to depress ion. Wri t ing from a cognit ive perspect ive, Beck (1983) descr ibed personali ty "modes, " which he ca l led sociotropy and autonomy. Sociot ropy (social dependency) was descr ibed as "the person 's investment in posit ive interchange with others" (p. 272). Su ch individuals were descr ibed as dependent on soc ia l feedback for gratification and support. Autonomy w a s descr ibed as "the person's investment in preserving and increasing his independence, mobility, and personal r ights" (p. 272). Such persons derive gratif ication from direct ing their own activities and attaining meaningful goals. Beck outl ined symptom clusters which would be more frequently assoc ia ted with one mode or the other, desc r ibed events that would precipitate depress ion in one type or the other, and examined speci f ic therapeut ic foci for both modes. 5 Theoret ica l work regarding sociotropy and autonomy in depress ion has sparked numerous invest igat ions examin ing the role of these personal i ty features in depress ive disorders. Th is research can be d iv ided into several broad categor ies: (1) assessmen t of the personal i ty features and development of s tandard ized measures , (2) attempts to investigate vulnerabil i ty to depress ion by examining the speci f ic interactions between negat ive life events and sociotropy or autonomy, and (3) attempts to identify individual di f ferences between depressed individuals who are sociotropic or autonomous. E a c h of these three a reas will be reviewed, beginning with the formal assessmen t of these personal i ty features. Construct A s s e s s m e n t There have been three major attempts to formally measure sociotropy and autonomy. The first was made from a psychodynamic perspect ive by Blatt (Blatt, D'Affliti, & Quin lan, 1976) and the second attempt from a cognit ive perspect ive by Beck and his co l leagues (Beck, Epste in , Harr ison, & Emery, 1983). T h e most recent measure was deve loped by Rob ins and his assoc ia tes as a response to psychometr ic problems evident in the two previous measures (Robins, Ladd , Welkowi tz , B laney, Diaz, & Kutcher, 1994). Blatt and his co l leagues (1976) set out to a s s e s s dependency and self-cri t icism by examin ing a wide variety of exper iences related to depress ion. Thei r sca le , the Depress ive Exper iences Quest ionnai re or D E Q , was rationally constructed and a s s e s s e s distorted or depreciated s e n s e of self, dependency, he lp lessness , 6 egocentricity, fear of loss, ambiva lence, difficulty in deal ing with anger, sel f -b lame, guilt, loss of autonomy, and distortions in family relat ions (Blatt et al . , 1976). The sca le was found to have three underlying factors. The first was ca l led dependency and included fears of abandonment, lonel iness, and he lp lessness . The second was ca l led self-cr i t ic ism and concerned feel ings of guilt, hope lessness , life dissat isfact ion, insecurity, and a s e n s e of having fai led to meet expectat ions. The third factor was ca l led eff icacy and concerned one's perce ived resources and capaci t ies. The D E Q is the oldest and most establ ished measure of these personal i ty features and as such has been used most frequently in research. However, it appears that signif icant problems exist in the sca le ' s psychometr ic propert ies; the D E Q has been cri t icized for its lack of factor purity, particularly in cl inical samples . Moreover, there are quest ions concern ing the content validity of D E Q items and the method used for sca le scor ing (Vigl ione, C lemmey, & Cammenzu l i , 1990; Welkowi tz , L ish , & Bond , 1985). A more recent attempt to measure the personal i ty features of sociotropy and autonomy comes in the form of the Sociot ropy and Autonomy S c a l e (SAS) which was deve loped by Beck and his assoc ia tes (Beck, Epste in , Harr ison, & Emery, 1983). Items to a s s e s s the personal i ty features were drawn from patients' self-reports and cl inical records. T h e items were factor ana lyzed and y ie lded two factors corresponding to sociotropy and autonomy. However, the S A S has a lso been cri t icized on psychometr ic grounds. T h e autonomy sca le in part icular is v iewed as limited because its items load on both autonomy and sociotropy, the low inter-correlations between sub-factors on the 7 autonomy sca le , and its negat ive correlation with depress ion (Robins, Block, & Pese low, 1989; Rob ins & Block, 1988). In an attempt to rectify cri t icisms of both the D E Q and the S A S , Rob ins and his co l leagues deve loped a sociotropy / autonomy sca le , the PSI (Personal Style Inventory; Rob ins , et a l . , 1994). The PSI was created with items from the S A S and D E Q , as wel l a s the Dysfunct ional Attitude S c a l e and the Inventory of Interpersonal Prob lems (Horowitz, Rosenbe rg , & Baer, 1988). The sca le cons is ts of two 24-item sets, one measur ing autonomy and the other sociotropy. Unl ike its predecessors , the PSI demonstrates excel lent reliability (i.e. high internal cons is tency and factor purity) and validity (i.e. appropr iate patterns of convergent and discriminant correlat ions with other measures) . T o summar ize , three instruments are presently used to a s s e s s sociotropy and autonomy. T h e first evo lved from Blatt's psychodynamic perspect ive and the second from Beck 's cogni t ive perspect ive. The third measure evo lved as a response to psychometr ic prob lems inherent with the two other avai lab le measures . Interestingly, results from research uti l izing these different measures are often treated as if the three sca les , and the constructs they are des igned to measure , are ana logous (e.g. Blatt & Zuroff, 1992; Nietze l & Harr is, 1990). Such an approach s e e m s warranted in light of recent research ev idence which has found that the D E Q , S A S , and PSI appear to measure quite s imi lar personal i ty features (Alden & Bie l ing, 1996; B laney & Kutcher, 1991). T h e s e f indings offer some justification for treating studies that employ these different measu res a s a coherent body of empir ical literature. Next, a summary of 8 research investigating these personal i ty features and their role in depress ion will be presented. Resea rch Ev idence A meta-analys is completed by Nietzel and Harr is (1990) examin ing the relat ionship between sociotropy, autonomy, and measures of depress ion found highly signif icant mean effect s i zes in the studies sampled. For sociotropy, the mean effect s i ze related to measures of depress ion (in terms of r) was computed to be .28, p_ < .0001. For autonomy, the mean effect s ize was .31, p_ < .0001. Stud ies investigating the role of these personal i ty features are quite diverse, but have general ly involved either an evaluat ion of d ia thes is-s t ress models of depress ion or the investigation of di f ferences between sociotropic and autonomous individuals. E a c h of these areas will be examined in subsequent sect ions. D ia thes is -St ress Mode ls of Depress ion Pe rhaps the most concer ted and coherent research efforts in this a rea have come in attempts tb link sociotropy and autonomy, negat ive life events, and depress ion. Resea rche rs examin ing life events and depress ion have sugges ted that speci f ic depressogen ic schemata may become act ivated when indiv iduals are confronted with personal ly meaningful stressful life events (Hammen, Ellicott, & Git l in, 1992; Hammen, Ellicott, Git l in, & Jam ison , 1989; Hammen, Marks, Mayo l , & deMayo , 1985; Rob ins , 1990; Rob ins & Block, 1988; S e g a l , Shaw, & Ve l la , 1989). Moreover , this type of diathesis-s t ress model incorporates the v iews of researchers who have emphas ized the role of stressful events in depress ion (Bi l l ings & Moos , 1982; C o y n e & Gotl ib, 1983; Kel ler, Lavor i , R ice , Cryel l , & Hirschfe ld, 1986). Accord ing to this d iathesis-st ress model , individuals who are sociot ropic would be vulnerable to depress ion when they suffer a perce ived loss within the interpersonal realm whereas individuals high in autonomy would be vulnerable if they exper ience an impediment to goal attainment in ach ievement realms (Beck, 1983; Hammen et a l . , 1989; Hammen et a l . , 1985; Robins, 1990; Rob ins & Block, 1988). Stud ies in this a rea have used a variety of methods including cross-sect iona l , longitudinal, and laboratory ana logue methods. They a lso differ in terms of the types of populat ions studied; some have used co l lege students whereas others have used cl inical ly dep ressed individuals. O n e recent study examined both symptom change and psychophys io log ica l responses to different types of st ressors (Al len, de L'Horne, & Trinder, 1996). Despi te these different des igns, populat ions, and measures , the results of this work are highly consistent. Most studies have been able to show a signif icant interaction of negat ive interpersonal events and sociotropy to predict symptoms of depress ion . However, these s a m e studies do not support the interaction of negat ive ach ievement events and autonomy to predict depress ion (Al len et a l . , 1996; Hammen et a l . , 1985; Hammen et al . , 1992; Rob ins & Block, 1988, Rob ins , 1990; Zuroff & Mongra in , 1987). It has been sugges ted that autonomous individuals are vulnerable to a broader range of negat ive events than previously thought (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992; Nietzel & Harr is, 1990), but this notion has not yet been empir ical ly examined. Th is as 10 yet unreso lved i ssue concern ing autonomy highlights the need to understand what these personal i ty features measure and to identify their psycholog ica l correlates. Re la t ionsh ip of Sociotropy and Autonomy to Other Var iab les R e s e a r c h e r s have sought to link a variety of var iables to sociotropy and autonomy or to dist inguish individuals who differ on these personal i ty features. Unl ike research that has sought to evaluate the d iathesis-st ress model , this work has not evo lved as clearly. Th is seems largely due to the great variety of var iables studied, the somet imes tenuous theoretical grounding of the work, and the fact that research is often not programmatic, result ing in isolated studies that are not repl icated. T h e s e difficulties have led to equivocal f indings that have not been fol lowed by further investigat ion or ref inements of methodology. R e s e a r c h on di f ferences between sociotropic or au tonomous individuals has examined famil ial background (Blatt, W e i n , Chevron , & Qu in lan , 1979; McCran ie & B a s s , 1984; S a d e h , Rub in , & Berman, 1993; Whif fen & Sassev i l l e , 1991), di f ferences in attributional style (Brewin & Furnham, 1987; Brown & S i lberschatz , 1989), different symptom presentat ion (Robins, Block, & Pese low, 1989; Rob ins & Luten, 1991), treatment outcome (Blatt, 1992; Pese low, Rob ins , Sanf i l ipo, Block, & F ieve, 1992), and personal i ty correlates (Cappe l iez , 1993; Mongra in , 1993; Pi lkonis , 1988; Ri ley & McCran ie , 1990; Zuroff, 1994). 11 Parenta l Rela t ionsh ips. R e s e a r c h on famil ial di f ferences has evo lved from the psychodynamic perspect ive of Blatt (1974), who emphas ized the role of object relat ions and attachments to signif icant others in the etiology of sociotropy and autonomy. Blatt highlighted the role of a strict mother f igure in the development of anacl i t ic (dependent) depress ion and descr ibed both parents as strict and demand ing of achievement in introjective (self-crit ical) depress ion. However, empir ical invest igat ions have proven to be inconclusive. It wou ld appear that the mother p lays a larger role in the development of dependency , a conc lus ion which is congruent with Blatt 's descr ipt ions (McCran ie & Bass , 1984; S a d e h , et a l . , 1993). However, these studies conflict in their conc lus ions i regarding what types of maternal behaviour result in dependency . It is more apparent that self-cri t icism is related to parental str ictness and an emphas is on achievement (Blatt, et a l . , 1979; M c C r a n i e & B a s s , 1984; S a d e h , et a l . , 1993; Whi f fen & Sassev i l le , 1991). However, s tudies in this a rea suffer from common methodological problems. First, this research is c ross-sect iona l and thus b iased recol lect ions or reporting of i i information about parents cannot be ruled out. S e c o n d , measu res examining these parental var iab les are typical ly not s tandard ized; each study appears to use newly constructed measures . Interestingly however, these studies do demonstrate significant assoc ia t ions between family background and development of spec i f ic personali ty styles. 12 Attributional R e s e a r c h . Both theory and research highlight the importance of internal, stable, and global attributions in depress i ves (Abramson, Se l igman, & Teasda le , 1978). Studies have a lso been conducted to compare the attributional style of sociot ropic and autonomous individuals (Brewin & Furnham, 1987; Brown & Si lberschatz, 1988). Resu l ts of both studies suggested that level of depress ion , sociotropy, and autonomy were posit ively related to both internal and global attributions. T h e s e assoc ia t ions lend some support to the notion that sociotropy and autonomy may serve as vulnerabil i ty factors by inf luencing attributions. However , the results do not support the predict ion that sociotropy and autonomy are assoc ia ted with unique, differential attributional styles. G e n d e r Ro les . Commonal i t ies between male and female gender role attributes and Blatt's descr ipt ions of self-cr i t ic ism and dependency have led researchers to examine the relat ionship between these personal i ty features and gender role attributes (Chevron, Quin lan, & Blatt, 1978; Zuroff, Moskowi tz , Wie lgus , Powers , & Franko, 1983). T h e s e studies demonstrated that competency, cons idered a des i rab le male trait, was negatively related to dependency in both men and women. Furthermore, warmth, a des i rab le female trait, w a s related to dependency in men and unrelated to dependency in women (Chevron et a l , 1978). Dependency has a lso been assoc ia ted with low levels of mascul ini ty and high levels of femininity (Zuroff et a l . , 1983). Thus , the 13 construct of dependency seems to be l inked to low levels of mascul ini ty and warmth whereas self-cr i t ic ism seems to be independent of gender role attributes. Differential Symptomatology. Another recent approach to val idate the constructs of sociotropy and autonomy has been to differentiate symptoms postulated by Beck (1983) to occur in one subtype or another (Robins, Block, & Pese low, 1989; Rob ins & Luten, 1991). Rob ins and his co l leagues (1989) studied dep ressed inpatients and outpatients who were c lass i f ied as sociotropic or autonomous on the S A S . B a s e d on theoretical descr ipt ions of sociotropic and autonomous symptom patterns (Beck, 1983), the authors p laced items from the BDI (Beck et a l . , 1961) and Hamil ton Rat ing S c a l e for Depress ion ( H R S D ; Endicott, Nee , C o h e n , F le iss , & Sarantakos , 1981) into two clusters. Soc io t rop ic symptoms were signif icantly related to sociotropy and negatively related to autonomy. Au tonomous symptoms were negat ively related to sociotropy, but they were not posit ively related to autonomy as had been predicted. The authors pointed out that prob lems with the autonomy subsca le of the S A S may have been respons ib le for lack of f indings with this subtype, a notion wh ich was fol lowed up in the s e c o n d study. T h e s e c o n d study in this ser ies uti l ized the PSI (Robins et a l . , 1994), and a more comprehens ive assessmen t of symptoms postulated by Beck (1983) to be related to sociotropy or autonomy (Robins & Luten, 1991). T h e s e researchers found a signif icant relat ionship between sociotropic cl in ical features and sociotropy scores , as wel l as a relat ionship between autonomy cl inical features and autonomy scores . T h e authors 14 pointed out that these results lend good support to the validity of the sociotropy / autonomy constructs and are in line with the f indings of research that has l inked speci f ic life events to the exper ience of depress ion . Therapy Outcome. R e s e a r c h e r s have a lso examined the relat ionship of sociotropy and autonomy to the outcome of psychotherapy. Blatt and his co l leagues have reported a ser ies of studies examin ing psychotherapy outcome and personal i ty factors, and another group of workers examined response to medicat ion in these personal i ty styles (Blatt, 1995; Blatt, Zuroff, Qu in lan , & Pi lkonis, 1996; P e s e l o w et a l . , 1992). Uti l izing data col lected in the N IMH Treatment of Depress ion Col laborat ive R e s e a r c h Program, Blatt examined the role of perfect ionism (self-criticism) on both the treatment a l l iance and ultimate outcome in therapy (Blatt, 1995; Blatt et a l . , 1996). Per fect ionism was negatively assoc ia ted with therapeut ic response in brief treatment for depress ion (Blatt 1995). Moreover, subsequent analys is suggested that the quality of the therapeutic a l l iance in perfectionist ic individuals was a signif icant predictor of improvement (Blatt et a l . , 1996). These f indings have led Blatt to conc lude that therapists need to be attentive to interpersonal aspec ts of the individual, and not al low d iagnos is to dominate dec is ions about how therapy is conducted. Another study which examined these personal i ty factors and treatment response was performed by P e s e l o w and co l leagues (Pese low et a l . , 1992). T h e s e authors examined response to ant idepressant medicat ion in a large sample of outpatients who 15 were either sociotropic, autonomous, high on both these d imensions, or low on both d imensions. They identif ied a differential response rate in the autonomous vs. the sociotropic groups: 7 4 % of the patients in the autonomous group responded to medicat ion whe reas only 3 9 % of patients in the sociotropic group responded to ant idepressants. Interestingly, the sociotropy / autonomy distinction was a better predictor of r esponse to medicat ion than the endogenous / non-endogenous distinction, previously thought to be predict ive of response to ant i -depressants (Pese low et a l . , 1992). T h e s e studies of personal i ty and treatment, a l though d iverse in their approaches, do sugges t that sociotropy and autonomy have signif icant cl inical implications. Moreover , this research highlights the potential role of interpersonal factors in therapy with these personal i ty types (Blatt, 1995; Blatt et a l . , 1996). Psycho log ica l Corre lates. A quest ion left unanswered to this point concerns sociotropy and autonomy themselves: what, speci f ical ly, are these constructs all about? O n e pathway toward understanding the mean ing of these personali ty features is to examine their relat ionship to es tab l i shed psycholog ica l measures. Th is research has examined numerous var iab les, with greater or lesser theoretical justif ication for doing so. A s a direct result, conc lus ions are often c louded by inconsistent or contradictory results from one study to the next. Nonethe less , this research provides va luab le insight into these personali ty features and their meaning in depress ion. 16 S o m e researchers have examined the assoc iat ion between sociotropy, autonomy, and es tab l ished measures of psychopathology. R i ley and M c C r a n i e (1990) found that self-cri t icism was assoc ia ted with overt cognit ive and affective s igns of depress ion, and that dependency was assoc ia ted with subt le behavioural manifestat ions such as passivity. Go ldberg and his co l leagues examined the relat ionship of personal i ty d isorders to sociotropy and autonomy (Goldberg, Sega l , Ve l la , & Shaw, 1989). Au tonomous individuals were found to have e levated scores on the negat iv ism, anxiety, and dysthymia subsca les of the M C M I (Mil lon, 1981) whereas sociotropic individuals were found to have elevated scores on the avoidant, dependent, anxiety, and dysthymia subsca les . Another group of researchers has attempted to relate sociotropy and autonomy to personal i ty disorders descr ibed in DSM-III-R (Ouimette, Kle in, Anderson , R i so , & L izardi , 1994). Sociot ropy w a s most c losely assoc ia ted with histrionic, dependent , and avoidant d iagnoses ; however, autonomy showed a more complex pattern of assoc ia t ions with a number of cont inua, including, sch izo id , obsess ive-compu ls ive , pass ive-aggress ive , and ant isoc ia l features. T h e s e studies suggest that sociotropy and autonomy do show relat ionships with var ious measures of psychopathology, but are not redundant with such measures . Moreover, they reinforce the complexity of the autonomy construct. Sociot ropy and autonomy may a lso be related to measures which have evolved from long-standing tradit ions within personal i ty psychology. Thus , these consructs have been examined in the context of trait measures of the "big f ive" personal i ty var iab les (i.e. neurot ic ism, extraversion, agreeab leness , consc ien t iousness , and openness to exper ience; Cappe l i ez , 1993; Mongra in 1993; Zuroff, 1994). Sociotropy was posit ively correlated with neurot ic ism, agreeab leness , extraversion, and lack of openness . Autonomy had posi t ive correlat ions with consc ient iousness, neurot ic ism, lack of extraversion, and lack of ag reeab leness . Thus, in terms of the "big f ive" factors of personal i ty, sociotropic indiv iduals are anxious, vulnerable, and warm, whereas autonomous individuals are dep ressed , pass ive , lacking in posit ive emot ion, and conscient ious. Taken together, studies examin ing the relat ionship of sociotropy and autonomy to estab l ished measures of psychopatho logy and personali ty suggest that sociotropic individuals can be descr ibed as dependent , anxious, pass ive, warm, agreeab le , and non-asser t ive. Au tonomous indiv iduals tend toward hostility, passivity, negat ive affect, irritability, and insensitivity to others. Certa in ly one aspect of these descr iptors which is very striking is the degree to which these character ist ics fall into the interpersonal domain. Indeed, these empir ical f indings are entirely congruent with theoret ical descr ipt ions of sociotropy and autonomy which highlight interpersonal behaviours in such individuals. In the next sect ion exist ing interpersonal models of depress ion are outl ined and a potential integration of sociotropy and autonomy is descr ibed. Interpersonal Models of Depression The role of interpersonal factors in depress ion has rece ived cons iderab le theoretical and empir ical attention. At least three different models concern ing the interpersonal behaviour of dep ressed individuals have been descr ibed. T h e first 18 explicit model that l inked interpersonal factors with depress ion evo lved from the behavioura l perspect ive of Lewinsohn and his co l leagues. T h e main tenet of this model is that dep ressed individuals d isplay a lack of soc ia l ski l ls both prior to and during their depress ive ep isode (Libet & Lewinsohn, 1973). Another perspect ive on interpersonal factors in depress ion comes from Beck 's cognit ive theory of depress ion . Th is theory sugges ts that depress ion is c a u s e d by negat ive schemata which b ias and distort a n individual 's percept ions of external events. Depress ives are thus subject to a variety of errors in thinking which lead them to negat ive evaluat ions of themse lves and their re lat ionships (Beck, 1983). A third and more comprehens ive interpersonal model of depress ion focuses on the response of others to the depress ive, as wel l as the consequences of others' responses for the depress ive . C o y n e (1976) descr ibed a cycl ical p rocess in which the behaviour of the depress ive elicits, over time, rejection from others. Coyne ' s model postulates that the dep ressed person is motivated to seek out reassurance and sympathy from others. T h o s e in the environment of the individual respond to such concerns directly. That is, they are support ive, helpful, and reassur ing. However, any support ive behav iour is simply met with further demands for reassurance. Th is communicates to the other that his or her response has not succeeded in the intended effect of assuag ing the depressed person's request for help. Wha t fol lows is a ser ies of amb iguous communicat ions. The non-depressed other, now frustrated by the lack of s u c c e s s of prev ious reassur ing behaviour and the continuing demands of the depress ive , may begin communicat ing at two, very different, levels. They may express support ive content but do so in a rejecting tone, or s ignal rejection with non-verbal cues . The depress ive , accurately perce iv ing the equivocal communicat ions of the other, becomes even more eager to test the non-depressed person and d isp lays more reassurance-seek ing to test the relat ionship. At this point, it becomes highly likely that the other will d i sengage from the dep ressed person. Th is confirms the depress ives ' susp ic ion about the other's non-genuine communicat ion, and p lunges them into greater d ist ress at the loss of an important soc ia l relat ionship. Such a rejection completes the feedback loop to the individual who now f inds him or herself in a "depress ive spi ra l " (Coyne, 1976a, p. 29). Depress ion and Interpersonal Reject ion Unl ike behavioural models which postulate a s imple skil l deficit in depress ion, Coyne ' s model involves a progression of events that are perhaps more difficult to capture with standard experimental methodology. Resea rche rs have largely focused on the component of the model that is most easi ly tested; that depressed persons elicit rejection from others. However, a comprehens ive review of studies examining rejection of depress ives was unable to reach definit ive conc lus ions. Al though a rejection effect is somet imes found, many other t imes it is not (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). A meta-ana lys is wh ich examined the literature on the interactional theory conc luded that the depression-re ject ion correlation was .26 ac ross all variet ies of studies, though varying from .18 to .61 depend ing on methodological factors (Segr in & Dil lard, 1992). T h e s e 20 reviewers conc luded that methodological factors p layed an important role in determining whether or not depress ion is assoc ia ted with rejection. T h e strongest f indings for rejection are made when long term interactions or relat ionships are s tudied (Marcus & Nardone, 1992; Segr in & Dil lard, 1992). However, some of this work c a n be cr i t ic ized on methodological grounds. First, studies of long term interactions usual ly involve married coup les with a dep ressed member. C o u p l e s identified for s u c h studies are likely to have an extensive previous history of negat ive interactions and a deteriorated relationship. Moreover, longitudinal studies such as these do not capture other very important events, including d ivorces and separat ions in couples with a d e p r e s s e d member. Final ly, these studies usual ly do not measure rejection, per se , but rather satisfact ion in the relat ionship (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). Another parad igm investigating long term interactions has avo ided some of these methodologica l confounds in a novel manner. Jo iner and his co l leagues have studied co l lege roommates, who are unacquainted at the outset of the studies and who are fol lowed longitudinal ly over the course of the academic year (Joiner & Metalsky, 1995; Joiner, A l fano, & Metalsky, 1992). Th is avoids the problems assoc ia ted with a history of diff iculties, and at the same time al lows interpersonal patterns to deve lop naturalist ically over time. Th is research has found that depress ion , and more specif ical ly, reassu rance-seek ing by depressed individuals, predicts rejection by roommates. In addit ion, dep ressed individuals induced more negative moods in their roommates (Joiner & Metalsky, 1995; Joiner, et a l . , 1992). T h e s e studies offer strong 21 support for Coyne ' s model regarding rejection, and they a lso support the contention that reassurance-seek ing may play a role in the depress ive interpersonal cyc le. A final paradigm evaluat ing the interpersonal model involves measur ing rejection of depressed persons after interactions with a stranger. Usual ly , these studies involve having dep ressed targets interact with non-depressed part icipants for a brief period and then a s s e s s i n g rejection of the targets. Th is paradigm has rece ived some crit icism for examining C o y n e ' s model on a too simplist ic level (Doerf ler & Chap l in , 1985). T h e s e authors point out that the model is both cycl ical and temporal ; the rejection process may take t ime to deve lop and is most likely to emerge in ongoing relat ionships. However, C o y n e (1985) has argued that a short-term parad igm does not suffer from the b iases of a prev ious negat ive relat ionship history, and that this approach may capture the incept ion of an emerg ing socia l phenomenon. The first study to examine rejection in this paradigm w a s carr ied out by Coyne (1976b). In that study, dep ressed female outpatients, non -depressed outpatients, and community volunteers were recruited to speak to female undergraduates on the telephone. Both targets and participants were told that the experiment was a study of the acquaintance p rocess and that they would be convers ing for twenty minutes. Part ic ipants were told to d i scuss whatever they wished, as long as this maintained anonymity. C o y n e measured three participant responses to the conversat ion: induction of negat ive mood, evaluat ion of targets on bipolar adject ives (e.g., good-bad), and wi l l ingness to engage in future interactions. Al l three measu res conf i rmed Coyne ' s hypotheses. Part ic ipants were more hostile, angry, and dep ressed after speak ing to 22 the depressed patients, and eva luated the depressed patients more negat ively than the community volunteers. Moreover , part icipants were less wil l ing to engage in future activit ies with depressed indiv iduals, specif ical ly, ask ing them for adv ice and sitting next to them on a bus trip (Coyne, 1976b). Overal l , the results from this study offered strong support for the interpersonal model . S ince the publ icat ion of this initial work, a number of researchers have attempted repl icat ions and modif icat ions of this study (Borden & Baum, 1987; Dobson , 1989; Got l ib & Rob inson , 1982; K ing & Heller, 1984; McN ie l , Arkowitz, & Pri tchard, 1987; Paddock & Nowicki 1986; Segr in , 1993; Strack & Coyne , 1983). Different populat ions have been used to test the model ; some researchers have cont inued to use depressed patients (e.g. K ing & Hel ler, 1984; McN ie l , et a l . , 1987) whereas others have used dysphor ic student targets to a s s e s s levels of rejection by others (e.g. Borden & Baum, 1987; Dobson , 1989; Strack & Coyne , 1983). Methodolog ica l variat ions have included use of face to face conversat ions (e.g., Borden & Baum, 1987, McN ie l et a l . , 1987) and te lephone conversat ions (e.g. K ing & Hel ler, 1984). Final ly, some studies have a s s e s s e d others' percept ions and actual behav iours thought to be related to depress ion (Gotl ib & Rob inson , 1982; Paddock & Nowicki , 1986). Despi te the numerous methodological changes and refinements, these studies have all invest igated the bas ic rejection tenet of Coyne ' s model. Wha t conc lus ions can be drawn from the results of these s tud ies? The most important issue, at least in terms of theoret ical implications for Coyne ' s model , is whether or not dep ressed indiv iduals elicit rejection in brief interactions with strangers. 23 Only two of the ten studies reviewed here found a rejection effect (Coyne, 1976b; Strack & C o y n e , 1983). T h e s e two studies used different populat ions; one examined dep ressed outpatients and the other dysphor ic undergraduates. In one study, part icipants and targets interacted face to face. In the other study, the interaction took p lace over the te lephone. Thus, these two studies were somewhat d iverse in their approaches yet they are the only studies to show a rejection effect. A second quest ion in this research concerns negat ive mood induction. Th is var iable was examined by all ten studies. Aga in , the same two studies that found a rejection effect, found signif icant di f ferences in the mood of part icipants who interacted with depressed targets (Coyne 1976b, Strack & Coyne , 1983). A third i ssue has to do with others' soc ia l percept ions of dep ressed individuals after a brief interaction. S e v e n of the ten studies located used a measure of soc ia l percept ion of target individuals. The Impact M e s s a g e Inventory (IMI; Kiesler, et a l . , 1976) was used in three studies (Borden & Baum, 1987; Dobson , 1989; McN ie l et a l . , 1987) and sets of bipolar adject ives a s s e s s i n g a positivity / negativity d imens ion were used in four s tudies (Coyne, 1976b; K ing & Heller, 1984; Rosenblat t & Greenberg , 1991; St rack & C o y n e , 1983). O n e study us ing the Impact M e s s a g e Inventory found that d e p r e s s e d individuals were seen as less soc iab le /warm than their non-depressed counterparts; however these depressed participants were a lso highly anx ious (Dobson, 1989). Leve l of anxiety may have accounted for the dif ferences in percept ion, a possibi l i ty wh ich becomes more likely when one cons iders that the other two studies using the IMI had negat ive f indings. Of the fou rs tud ies using bipolar rating sca les , 24 three found that dep ressed individuals were perce ived more negatively (Coyne, 1976b; King & Heller, 1984; Strack & Coyne , 1983). The final i ssue examined in these studies concerns the behaviour of dep ressed targets and the behaviour of participants with whom they interact. Th is issue was examined by four of these ten studies. Two studies examined behaviour in both participants and targets (Borden & Baum, 1987; Got l ib & Rob inson , 1982), one study examined the behav iour of part icipants only (McNie l , et a l . , 1987), and one study examined the behaviour of targets only (Paddock & Nowick i , 1986). One of the three studies which examined behavioural var iab les in part icipants found dif ferences between individuals who interacted with dep ressed versus non-depressed targets (Gotlib & Rob inson , 1982). Part ic ipants who interacted with depressed individuals demonstrated less support, fewer posit ive conversat ion-maintenance statements, smi led less, and were less pleasant. Two of the three studies that examined behaviour of dep ressed targets found dif ferences between these individuals and their non-depressed counterparts (Gotlib & Rob inson , 1982; P a d d o c k & Nowicki , 1986). Dep ressed targets showed less direct support to others, less conversat ion-maintenance, and engaged in more negat ive non-verbal behaviour and more negative paral inguist ic behaviours. Overa l l , f indings in each of these categor ies of var iab les (rejection, socia l perception, and behaviour) are not particularly robust. T h e postulate that depressed persons are rejected is least supported by the results of these studies. There is somewhat more, but by no means overwhelming, ev idence that depressed individuals 25 are perce ived more negat ively and that there are behavioural d i f ferences in dyadic interactions in wh ich a dep ressed member is present. Overa l l , the studies reviewed showed signif icant d i f ferences on less than one third of the dependent var iables examined. Wha t factor(s) might account for these equivocal f ind ings? Severa l methodologica l possibi l i t ies have been sugges ted to explain these inconsistencies. First, reviewers have pointed out that "depress ion" is def ined inconsistently from one study to the next (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). Th is results in studies using different, somet imes quest ionable, measures of depress ion . Future studies require wel l -def ined criteria for depress ion and psychometr ical ly sound measures of depress ive symptomatology. Another possibi l i ty concerns the types of interactions general ly studied. It has been suggested that the typical "getting acquain ted" tasks require only wel l -pract iced and rudimentary soc ia l ski l ls that could be reasonably wel l -handled by almost anyone (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). Future studies would be better se rved by us ing a task that requires greater depth and less pract iced modes of interaction. Final ly, it has been sugges ted that heterogeneity in depress ion may account for the inconsistent results in this research literature (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). In other words, individual d i f ferences in depress ives may obscure the hypothes ized rejection effect sugges ted by C o y n e ' s model . Discover ing the d imens ions important to the process of rejection shou ld clarify d iscrepant empir ical f indings and offer a further elaborat ion of Coyne ' s model . Marcus and Nardone suggest that the sociotropy / autonomy distinction may play an important role in interpersonal behaviour and "elicit 26 different types and degrees or rejection from others" (p. 443). Failure to consider this distinction, and thus homogenizing depression, could result in large within-group variances that might obscure any distinction between depressed and non-depressed individuals. The following section explores both theoretical and empirical interpersonal concomitants of sociotropy and autonomy, and then examines their implications for Coyne's interpersonal model. Interpersonal Concomitants of Sociotropy and Autonomy Beck (1983) describes many attributes of the sociotropic or autonomous depressive that fall within the interpersonal domain. The sociotropic person is described as fearful of rejection, needy, and eager to give up control to others. Such persons are thought to require continuous reassurance and to find such reassurance to be gratifying. On the other hand, the autonomous individual's concerns with preserving his or her independence, and defining his or her own boundaries also influences the person's interactions with others. In particular, Beck noted that autonomous individuals are not susceptible to social feedback, are decisive, and reluctant to give up control to others. They are also described as oblivious to the effect of their actions on other people and as non-empathic (Beck, 1983). Beck theorized that these attributes were pervasive and highly salient to others. He believed them to be exhibited both in the general social world and in the patient/therapist relationship (Beck, 1983). In fact, these characteristics were thought to have such a significant impact on the behaviour of the individual and subsequently in 27 the patient/therapist relat ionship, that c l in ic ians were adv ised to tailor therapy for e a c h subtype (Beck, 1983). Autonomous indiv iduals were thought to require a col laborat ive relat ionship in which they are a l lowed to set goals . Beck suggested that the patient's underly ing rigidity shou ld only be examined in the latter s tage of therapy, with a focus on creat ing an internal sense of f reedom. For sociotropic individuals, it was recommended that therapy be more structured and that helping and gu idance be emphas ized . Explanat ions and clari f icat ions by the therapist were thought to elicit a posit ive response (Beck, 1983). T h e dominant themes in therapy would appear to be "col laborat ion" for autonomous individuals and "gu idance" for sociotropic individuals. T h e writ ings of Blatt offer similar interpersonal descr ipt ions. In anacl i t ic depress ion , the individual was descr ibed as having an intense need to be cared for, protected, and soothed (Blatt, 1974). There are "cr ies for love" (p. 116) and fears of abandonment by others. Soc ia l support can result in a temporary sense of comfort, but all sat isfact ion is s e e n as coming from external sources. Th is dependence on others results in great apprehens ion about being abandoned , leading to an inability to express anger or d issat isfact ion for fear of losing this source of sat isfact ion. Introjective depress ion was character ized by strivings toward self-definit ion and autonomy. T h e relat ionships of these individuals were character ized by ambiva lence or hosti le feel ings toward others. T h e s e interpersonal character izat ions of Blatt and Beck, despi te their evolution from two distinct theoretical approaches , share many attributes in common. R e s e a r c h sugges ts that the interpersonal concomitants of the two personali ty features are indeed simi lar (Alden & Biel ing, 1996). The fol lowing sect ion provides a summary 28 of this research and other studies examining interpersonal correlates of sociotropy and autonomy. R e s e a r c h Ev idence A growing number of studies have examined the interpersonal correlates of dependency and self-cr i t ic ism (Zuroff & deLorimier, 1989; Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Zuroff & Stot land, 1995). In one study, dating preferences of undergraduate women who var ied in dependency and self-crit icism were examined (Zuroff & deLorimier, 1989). D e p e n d e n c y was assoc ia ted with desir ing a partner with a high need for intimacy and a low level of masculinity. Self-cr i t ic ism was assoc ia ted with desir ing a partner with high need for achievement and high masculinity. In terms of relat ionship harmony, self-cri t ical women were less satisf ied with their current relat ionship than were dependent w o m e n (Zuroff & deLorimier, 1989). In another study, daily interactions of indiv iduals who differed in dependency and self-cri t icism were examined. D e p e n d e n c y w a s assoc ia ted with more frequent and intimate interactions, whereas self-cr i t ic ism was assoc ia ted with the lack of p leasure in socia l interactions (Zuroff & Stot land, 1995). Final ly, adult attachment sty les of individuals who differed in dependency and self-cr i t ic ism have been examined (Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Dependency w a s assoc ia ted with an anxious attachment style, whereas self-crit icism was assoc ia ted with avoidant attachment concerns. Together, these results lend good support to the notion that sociotropic and autonomous individuals may have different 2 9 interpersonal concerns and needs in both intimate relationships and other social contacts. In order to further elucidate the interpersonal correlates of sociotropy and autonomy, Alden and Bieling (1996) sought to examine sociotropy and autonomy in an established interpersonal framework. Undergraduate volunteers completed measures of sociotropy and autonomy and the IIP-C, a circumplex-based measure of self-reported interpersonal problems (Alden, Pincus, & Wiggins, 1990). The results demonstrated that sociotropy was positioned in the octant of the interpersonal problem circle which reflects a combination of non-assertive and overly-nurturant interpersonal behaviour, generally labeled exploitable (Alden et al., 1990). Thus, high scores on sociotropy were associated with self-reported problems expressing anger towards others, asserting one's needs, and being taken advantage of by others. Autonomy was positioned in the Cold octant of the interpersonal problem circle. Thus, autonomy was associated with self-reported problems making long-term commitments, problems experiencing love and affection toward others, and distancing oneself from other people. Overall, this study also supported the notion that distinct interpersonal patterns are associated with sociotropy and autonomy. However, the findings are limited by exclusive reliance on self-report measures. One study has examined the reactions of sociotropic and autonomous dysphorics to a controlled social interaction (Bieling & Alden, 1996). In this study, undergraduate women were selected for a dysphoric (BDI > 12) sociotropic, dysphoric autonomous, non-dysphoric (BDI < 7) sociotropic group, and a non-dysphoric 30 autonomous group. Subjects part ic ipated in a therapy ana logue interaction with a confederate who acted either in a control l ing or non-directive fashion throughout the interaction. Resu l ts showed c lear interpersonal di f ferences between the two personal i ty style groups. The sociot ropic and autonomous part icipants had different cognit ive emot ional concerns dur ing the interpersonal task, perce ived the s a m e partner behaviour differently, and differed in l iking for their partner. Speci f ical ly , sociotropic part icipants were more motivated toward maintaining interpersonal re la tedness during the interaction, including getting a long with and p leas ing their partner. They a lso perce ived their partner as more approv ing and support ive. On the other hand, autonomous individuals were more l ikely to be motivated by self-definit ional concerns, such as their own objectives in the task, control l ing the interaction, and separat ing themselves from their partner. Most relevant to Coyne ' s model , results from this study showed di f ferences in others' responses to each of the groups. The confederates, who were bl ind to the part icipant's condit ion, exp ressed less l iking for the autonomous dysphor ic group. Moreover , addit ional ana lyses sugges ted that a combinat ion of dysphor ia and personal i ty resulted in less liking. Th is f inding corroborates a similar study (Zuroff, Moskowi tz , W ie lgus , & Powers , 1983) examin ing dif ferences between dependent and self-crit ical individuals participating in an interpersonal task. In this study, male and female co l lege students part icipated in a variety of tasks with male and female peers (Zuroff et a l . , 1983). There was a signif icant negative relat ionship between task 31 leadership and dependency in men. Moreover , there w a s a trend toward a negat ive assoc ia t ion between self-cri t icism and likability in women. Resu l t s from these studies do suggest that there are two distinct interpersonal patterns assoc ia ted with sociotropy and autonomy. Sociot ropic and autonomous individuals differ in their self-reported interpersonal problems, romantic preferences, attachment sty les, react ions to an interpersonal task, and in the responses they engender in others. Sociot ropic persons, wish ing to p lease others and concerned about approva l , strive to get a long well with others. They bel ieve that they s u c c e e d in this regard, perce iv ing their partner as p leased with them and as evaluat ing them posit ively. Indeed, they are judged to be more l ikable than their autonomous counterparts. A different p rocess seems to occur in autonomous individuals. Conce rned about their own goa ls and about maintaining control of their environment, they s e e others a s potentially avers ive intruders who may seek excess ive inf luence over them. Thei r behaviour culminates in expected rejection, confirming their or iginal distrust of others and tendencies to d is tance themselves from others. One would expect that this p rocess might lead to inc reased dysphor ic affect. The Present Study T h e s tud ies rev iewed above suggest that not all depress ives suffer similar levels of rejection from others. T h e s e data, though limited, imply that autonomous depress ives wou ld be particularly prone to elicit a negat ive react ion in others, whereas their soc iot ropic counterparts may be less suscept ib le to such negat ive responses . This difference, if found to exist in dep ressed patients, may indeed constitute an explanat ion for prev ious discrepant f indings. If individuals do respond differently to sociotropic and au tonomous depressed individuals, the interpersonal model of depress ion p roposed by C o y n e (1976a) may require refinement. To my knowledge, no studies have examined the responses of others to sociotropic and au tonomous depressed patients. P rev ious research examining responses to sociotropy and autonomy has studied either non-depressed col lege students (Zuroff et a l . , 1983) or dysphor ic students (Biel ing & A lden , 1996). There is. an ongoing debate over the adequacy of student samp les as ana logues for depress ives. W h e r e a s some have argued that most f indings in ana logue samples do appear to genera l ize to cl in ical samp les (Vredenburg, Flett, & Krames, 1993), there are fundamental d i f ferences between a d iagnos is of depress ion and self-reported symptoms of depress ion in students (Coyne, 1994). Popula t ions of students are clearly distinct in any number of demograph ic ways from a community sample of cl inical ly depressed indiv iduals (Coyne, 1994). W h e r e a s the former populat ion may be prone to transient ep i sodes of d ist ress that are al leviated by the diminution of a stressor, the latter suffers from ongo ing depress ive disorders that deep ly impair their psychosoc ia l functioning. There is no debate that cl inical ly dep ressed individuals are a preferable sample for research in depress ion . Clear ly , the di f ferences between dysphor ic students and indiv iduals with a depress ive disorder necess i ta te studying the latter sample. 33 The current study ut i l ized a cl in ical populat ion and a wel l es tab l ished measure of symptom severity. In addit ion, fol lowing the suggest ions of M a r c u s and Nardone (1992), a more involving, novel conversat ional task was used to better engage all part icipants in a col laborat ive task. The task used for the study w a s a therapy ana logue in which a confederate he lped participants toward a def ined goal , and was similar to one used in prev ious research (Biel ing & A lden , 1996). Moreover , such a task is consistent with the theoret ical descr ipt ions provided by B e c k (1983) that outline sociotropic and autonomous di f ferences in response to therapy situations. In order to provide a level of compar ison with past research , measures similar to those employed in prev ious studies were uti l ized. Thus, three c l a s s e s of var iables were a s s e s s e d . First, level of rejection of targets was a s s e s s e d after the interaction task. S e c o n d , soc ia l percept ions of others that were relevant to this type of interpersonal task and sociotropy and autonomy were examined. Third, both verbal and non-verbal behav iours of targets relevant to likability were coded by independent raters. T h e s e behaviours, which were der ived from testing in a pilot sample (descr ibed in the Dependent M e a s u r e s sect ion, p. 45), included attention to the task, difficulty in schedul ing p leasant events, appear ing re laxed and calm, s p e e c h intonation, smil ing, cheerful appearance , suggest ing opt ions for schedul ing, res is tance to suggest ions of assistant, and sel f -d isc losure. 34 Hypotheses Regarding rejection of target individuals, two specific hypotheses were made. First, I predicted that autonomy would be associated with rejection. This hypothesis is consistent with theoretical depictions, studies that have found an association between autonomy and rejection, and self report findings (Alden & Bieling, 1996; Beck, 1983; Bieling & Alden, 1996; Zuroff et al., 1983). Second, I predicted that depressed individuals would be rejected to a greater extent than non-depressed individuals. Such a prediction is consistent with Coyne's model and at least some past research (Coyne, 1976a, 1976b; Strack & Coyne, 1983). With regard to sociotropy, previous findings suggest that it is associated with greater self-reported warmth, but not necessarily rejection (Alden & Bieling, 1996; Bieling & Alden, In press, Zuroff et al., 1983). However, some theorists have suggested that sociotropy may be associated with higher levels of support seeking, and excessive reliance on others that does, indeed, result in rejection (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). Given these contradictory views, no specific prediction was made for sociotropy and rejection of target individuals. In terms of others' social perceptions, two hypotheses were made based on theoretical descriptions and previous research (Alden & Bieling, 1996; Beck, 1983; Bieling & Alden, In press). First, autonomy was hypothesized to be associated with insensitivity to others, negating other's suggestions, being action-oriented, and having more rigid goals in the task. Second, I predicted that sociotropy would be associated with striving to garner others' approval, trying to please others, deferring to other's 35 dec is ions, and desi r ing reassurance. No speci f ic predict ions were made about how depressed targets, as a group, would be rated on the soc ia l percept ion measures . Wi th regard to behaviours in the task, two speci f ic predict ions were made. First, autonomy was predicted to be related to fewer posit ive soc ia l behaviours in the interaction task. S e c o n d , I hypothes ized that dep ressed individuals would engage in fewer posi t ive soc ia l behaviours than non-depressed individuals in the interaction. No speci f ic predict ion w a s made about assoc ia t ions of sociotropy with posit ive or negative interaction behaviours. M e t h o d Overview D e p r e s s e d outpatients and non-depressed controls were a s s e s s e d on sociotropy and autonomy and then part icipated in a brief task in which a research assistant he lped them plan adapt ive life changes . Upon complet ion of the interaction, participants and the confederates completed measures in which they rated one another on a variety of d imens ions. Al l part icipants were then administered a structured diagnost ic interview, and debriefed. Participants Depressed Samp le . A total of 41 (29 women, 12 men) part icipants were recruited from two sources : an outpatient wai t ing list at the Heal th Psycho logy Cl in ic , Vancouve r Hospital , U B C , 36 and a posting at the Mood Disorders Clinic in the Department of Psychiatry, Vancouver Hospital, UBC (see Table 1 for details). Potential wait-list participants were contacted by telephone and were told about the details of the study. A laboratory appointment was booked if they were interested in taking part in the study. Potential volunteers who telephoned based on the posting were asked about their current mood problems, and were then invited to participate if they seemed initially appropriate. Table 1 - Recruitment Sources Source Total Potential Not willing or Screened out Total in Study Volunteers able to Participate (at telephone contact) by interview or BDI cutoff. Depressives Waiting List 42 4 4 34 Clinic Posting 14 5 2 7 Total 41 Control Community 51 2 8 41 Postings Total 41 37 Inclusion Cri ter ia for Depress ives . Part ic ipants were inc luded in the final sample if they: (1) met DSM-III-R criteria for either a current major depress ive ep isode or dysthymia accord ing to the S C I D interview, and (2) obtained a minimum score of 14 on the Beck Depress ion Inventory. U s e of such a BDI cut-off is common in research on interpersonal factors in depress ion and the minimum score used here is similar to one used in prev ious research (e.g., K ing & Heller, 1984, McN ie l , et a l . , 1987). In order for the samp le to be representative, part icipants who met criteria for a concurrent anxiety d isorder were a lso included in the sample, as were individuals currently using ant i -depressant medicat ion. Individuals with a d iagnos is of bipolar d isorder were not included. Deta i led character ist ics of the sample are d isp layed in Tab le 2. Control Sample . A total of 41 (29 women, 12 men) participants constituted the control sample. T h e s e individuals were recruited from posters p laced in community centers and l ibraries in the Vancouve r a rea . Potential volunteers were asked to contact the laboratory about a study on conversat ion. Individuals were sc reened over the te lephone for potential difficulties with mood, or history of such problems. Individuals without such a history were invited to participate and were schedu led for an appointment. Tab le 2 - S a m p l e Character is t ics 38 Var iab le Depress i ve Control x ! t A g e 37 .34 (10 .06 ) 35 .10(6 .81) 1.18 Marital Status S ing le Marr ied Divorced 4 4 % 3 7 % 1 9 % 6 3 % 2 5 % 1 2 % 3.81 Educat ion (Years) 14.37 (2.44) 15.07 (1.93) -1.46 Employment Status 1.71 Work ing 7 1 % 8 2 % Not Work ing 2 9 % 18% S C I D d iagnos is (frequency) M D E 6 1 % Dysthymia 4 6 % G A D 1 2 % Soc ia l Phob ia 5 % P a n i c D/O 5 % O C D 2 % History of any previous psychiatr ic contact 8 3 % 1 0 % 44 .14** Ant idepressant U s a g e 4 4 % 0% 23.06** BDI Sco re 23.44 (9.42) 3.95 (2.46) 12.82** 0 <.001 39 Inclusion Criteria for Control Group. Volunteers were included in the final sample if they: (1) did not meet a diagnosis for either a mood or anxiety disorder, and (2) reported few depression symptoms (BDI < 07). Experimenters The primary experimenter was a male graduate student, with prior clinical training in assessment and diagnosis. The experimenter was responsible for carrying out the experimental procedures, including giving instructions for the task, administration of measures, screening interviews, and debriefing procedures. The experimenter was blind with regard to participants' scores on the BDI, sociotropy, or autonomy. A second graduate student with previous training in structured clinical interviews served as a reliability rater on the diagnostic interviews. Confederates Two graduate student research assistants served as confederates. A male confederate interacted with male participants and a female confederate interacted with female participants. Both confederates were trained to enact the same scripted behaviours in the interaction (see Appendix A for script), and the duration of the interaction was monitored. Also, deviations from the script were recorded by the experiementer to ensure that the task was carried out consistently by the confederates. 40 Procedure Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants completed consent forms, a measure of depress ive symptomatology, and a measure of sociotropy and autonomy. Part ic ipants were then g iven the fol lowing instructions: Th is study concerns helping styles and the way in which people work together. W h a t we would like you to do today is to talk with a research assistant, and the two of you will be working on p leasant events schedul ing. Now, many people are very busy in their l ives, and don't a lways do as many fun or interesting things as they might like to. The idea for the task today is to take a look at your schedu le , and the kinds of things you like to do. T h e n you'l l work on adding some things in that might be fun or p leasant for you. The overal l idea is to reduce your level of s t ress and increase your genera l sense of sat isfact ion. Part ic ipants were then informed that the interaction would be v ideotaped and that the experimenter would observe the conversat ion from behind a one-way mirror. After complet ion of the conversat ion, the confederate and participant were separated to complete the dependent measures . After complet ing their sca les , participants were interviewed using the Structured Cl in ical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID; Spitzer, Wi l l iams, G ibbon , & First, 1990). Upon complet ion of the S C I D , all part icipants were told the nature of the experiment and 41 received information about the purpose of the study. A n opportunity for quest ions and feedback was g iven, and part icipants were then thanked and d ismissed . Experimental Task The task was based on the p leasant events schedul ing techniques deve loped by Lewinsohn for behavioural treatment of depress ion (Appendix B, MacPh i l l amy & Lewinsohn, 1971). Confedera tes worked with participants for the purpose of creating a schedu le with inc reased f requency of p leasant events. Th is necess i ta ted col laborat ion between part icipants and confederates toward a meaningful goal ; part icipants were required to engage in act ive conversat ion, examine options, suggest potential solut ions, and make personal ly relevant dec is ions. Th is type of task w a s se lec ted because it s e e m e d likely to elicit a variety of interpersonal behaviours from participants (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). A list of p leasant events and a weekly schedu le were provided. The confederate then ass is ted part icipants in the select ion of p leasant events and he lped them in fitting these to their schedu les . Diagnostic and Classificatorv Measures Structured Cl in ica l Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID; Spi tzer et a l . . 1990). T h e S C I D is a d iagnost ic instrument that is consistent with criteria from the Diagnost ic and Statist ical Manua l (DSM-III-R). The current study uti l ized the S C I D - N P (Nonpatient edition) which a l lowed for the d iagnos is of all Ax is I d isorders including: (1) mood syndromes (2) psychot ic sc reen ing (3) mood disorders (4) psychoact ive 42 subs tance use d isorders (5) anxiety d isorders (6) somatoform disorders (7) eat ing d isorders and (8) adjustment disorder. T h e S C I D w a s administered by an experimenter with prior cl inical exper ience and training in administrat ion of structured interviews. In order to confirm d iagnoses made by the experimenter, each interview was tape recorded and verif ied independent ly for d iagnost ic validity by a second rater. The overal l inter-rater agreement (kappa) for d iagnoses was .85. Beck Depress ion Inventory (BDI: Beck. W a r d . Mende lson . Mock. & Erbauqh. 1961). T h e Beck Depress ion Inventory (Appendix C) is an efficient and widely used measure of depress ive symptomatology, appear ing in over 500 studies (Steer, Beck, & Gar r i son , 1986). It is a 21-item sca le der ived from cl inical observat ions. T h e BDI has been shown to have high reliability and stability and has a lso been demonstrated to correlate highly with other self-report measures of depress ion and with c l in ic ians' ratings of depress ion (Beck, Steer, & Garb in , 1988). Pe rsona l Sty le Inventory. (PSI: Rob ins . Ladd, Welkowi tz . Blanev. Diaz. & Kutcher. 1994). T h e PSI cons is ts of two 24-i tem sets, one measur ing autonomy and the other sociotropy (Appendix D). Coeff icient a lpha for the autonomy sca le is .86, and for sociotropy .90. Test-retest reliabil i t ies for a period of between 5 and 13 weeks were .80 for the sociotropy sca le and .70 for the autonomy sca le (Robins et a l . , 1994). E a c h 43 scale contains three factors. These factors for sociotropy are: (1) Concern what others think (alpha .80), (2) Dependency (alpha .72), (3) Pleasing others (alpha .83). For autonomy the three factors are: (1) Perfectionism/Self-criticism (alpha .70), (2) Need for control (alpha .70), (3) Defensive Separation (alpha .80). Dependent Measures Desire for Future Interactions (Coyne. 1976b; Dobson, 1989: Segrin. 1993) This scale consists of 9 items which reflect a desire to engage in future interactions with the target person. Items were answered on a seven point Likert type scale with affirmative (very much) and negative (not at all) anchors. Alpha reliabilities for this scale have ranged between .87 and .96 in other studies (Dobson, 1989; Segrin, 1993). The current study used nine items related to future interactions. Items were: (1) To what extent would you like to meet this person again, (2) To what extent would you like to spend more time with them in the future, (3) To what extent would you like to work with this person in the future, (4) To what extent would you like to sit next to this person on a three hour bus trip, (5) To what extent would you like to invite this person to visit you, (6) To what extent would you be likely to ask this person for advice, (7) To what extent would you like sharing an apartment with this person, (8) To what extent would you like eating lunch with him or her often, (9) To what extent would you like having this person as a friend. For the present study, alpha reliabilities for the DFI scale were .97 across the two confederates. 44 Confederate Percept ions of Part ic ipants. Likert-type i tems were deve loped for rating part icipants intentions and perceived behaviour. Content for these 21 items included the types of behaviours bel ieved to be assoc ia ted with sociot ropy and autonomy that would be relevant in an interpersonal cooperat ive help ing task (Appendix E). D imens ions relevant to sociotropy and autonomy were der ived from empir ical and theoretical material (e.g., Beck, 1983; Blatt & Zuroff, 1992; Rob ins et a l . , 1994), and the interpersonal concerns of sociotropic and autonomous indiv iduals identif ied in a previous study (Biel ing and A lden , In p r e s s ) . T h e m e s for behav iours thought to be assoc ia ted with sociotropy were: needing others' help, requir ing reassurance , lack of assert ion, deferr ing to others to maintain a posit ive relat ionship, fear of rejection, and being p leased with others' input. Together, these items were des igned to a s s e s s the degree of the part icipants' interpersonal deference and the a lpha reliability for this item set was .79. T h e m e s for behaviours thought to be assoc ia ted with autonomy were: having speci f ic goa ls or standards, being less suscept ib le to others ' feedback, being less sensi t ive to others' needs, being action oriented, and be ing dogmat ic and decis ive. Together, these item a s s e s s e d the degree of self-orientation the participant d isp layed and the a lpha reliabil ity for this sca le was .88. Overa l l , the interpersonal deference scale, and the self-orientation sca les d isp layed a moderate negat ive correlat ion ( r = -.39) suggest ing that these sca les were not assess i ng redundant interpersonal percept ions. 45 Participant Behaviour. The conversations were videotaped and the behaviour of participants rated along a series of dimensions. The video camera was placed behind a one-way mirror, and the camera was focused on the participant throughout the pleasant events task. Behaviours related to liking of participants were identified rationally by three research assistants in a sample of undergraduates (N=30). Videotapes of pilot participants were subsequently coded by three trained raters along these rationally derived dimensions. Nine types of behaviours were found to be significantly related to liking (r's > .40) and could be coded with a high degree of inter-rater reliability (r's > .80) in the pilot sample. These dimensions were used in the present study and included: (1) attentiveness (2) ease of scheduling events, (3) smiling, (4) suggesting schedule options, (5) speech inflection, (6) resisting the confederate's suggestions, (7) appearing cheerful, (8) being disengaged from the task, and (9) self-disclosing. Two undergraduate raters (who were not involved in the initial derivation of the coding system) were trained using the videotapes of the undergraduate pilot participants and found to have a high level of agreement on the nine items (all r's greater than .80). The two raters then viewed each videotape and independently coded each participant along these nine dimensions. The average inter-rater reliability (pearson r) was .84 for the nine behaviours with a range of .73 to .92. Across the nine behaviours, the two coders were within one point on the seven-point scale in 90% of 46 the c a s e s . Thus , the behaviour ratings made by each coder were averaged for each of nine behaviours. T h e s e nine ratings were then submitted to a principal components analys is . A l though the ratio of the number of part icipants to the number of items was less than ideal, this ana lys is suggested the p resence of a s ingle factor, with an e igenva lue of 4 .01, that exp la ined 40.1 % of the var iance. Items with posit ive loadings inc luded attent iveness, e a s e of schedul ing, smi l ing, suggest ing schedu le options, s p e e c h inflection, and appear ing cheerful. Items with negat ive loadings included resist ing the confederate 's suggest ions, being d i sengaged from the task, and sel f -d isc los ing. T h e s e nine items were used to create a s ingle index of posit ive interactive behaviour, with a higher sco re indicating more posit ive behaviours. The a lpha reliability for this nine item overal l behaviour index was .81. Results Preliminary Analyses Part icipant Character is t ics. T h e two groups, dep ressed and controls, were compared on a number of demograph ic character ist ics uti l izing independent samples t-tests and ch i -square ana lyses where appropriate. The two groups did not differ on age, level of educat ion, employment status, or marital status (see Tab le 2 for statistical values). A s expected, part icipants differed markedly on psychiatr ic history, medicat ion usage, and BDI score. 47 The overal l BDI sco re in the depressed group w a s indicative of a moderate level of depress ion, whe reas the BDI score in the controls indicated no depress ion. Confedera te C h e c k s . In order to insure that the two confederates carr ied out the task in a simi lar manner, a between groups (confederate identity) multivariate ana lys is of var iance ( M A N O V A ) w a s carr ied out on script deviat ions and duration of the interaction . There were no signif icant di f ferences between the two confederates overal l , F (2, 79) = 1.69, p_ > .10. Inspection of the mean number of script deviat ions showed that the first confederate inc luded an average of 96 .10% of the script content, and the second confederate inc luded 95 .89% of the content. M e a n duration for the first confederate was 975s (sd=320s) compared to a mean of 830s (sd=340s) for the second confederate (this di f ference approached but did not reach statistical s igni f icance, p_ > .07). T h e s e a n a l y s e s and inspect ions of the means suggest that confederates were largely equivalent in their presentat ion of the script to participants. Part icipant Gender . Corre la t ions between participant gender and all of the major dependent and independent var iab les were calculated. Wi th one except ion, the correlat ions were non-significant and extremely low, ranging from .13 to .02, with a mean of .06. G e n d e r did correlate with interpersonal deference (r=.55, p_ < .001), which suggested that women 48 were rated more highly on this measure. Thus the effect of gender on this variable is reported in the Perceptions of Participants section in the analysis. Description of Independent Variables. These analyses were conducted in order to examine levels of sociotropy and autonomy in the depressed and control groups and to insure that these independent variables were not redundant. A between groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was carried out with sociotropy and autonomy as the dependent variables and depression status as the grouping variable. A main effect emerged for group, F (2, 79) = 7.44, rj < .01. Examination of the univariate values indicated a significant difference for both sociotropy and autonomy, F (1, 80) = 7.60, p_< .01 and F (1, 80) = 12.65, p_< .01, respectively. The means for these measures in each group are displayed in Table 3. Further descriptive statistics are available in Appendix F. Table 3. Means and standard deviations of sociotropy and autonomy scores in depressed and control groups. Depressed Controls Sociotropy 99.50 (19.36) 88.55 (16.5) Autonomy 94.05(18.69) 81.76 (11.85) Inspection of the means demonstrated that the depressed group scored higher on both sociotropy and autonomy than controls. Such a result is not surprising given the 49 correlat ion between depress ive symptoms and the PSI reported in val idat ion work (Robins, e t a l . , 1994). In order to ensure that the personal i ty var iables were not redundant, correlat ions were computed between sociotropy and autonomy in the overal l sample , and then in each of the two groups. Overa l l , sociotropy and autonomy were correlated at .44, p_ < .001. Th is correlat ion was .47, p. < .001 in the control group, and .32, p_ < .05, in the dep ressed group. Though these personal i ty d imensions shou ld ideal ly be independent (Robins et a l . 1994), these levels of correlat ions do not suggest a substant ial redundancy. Main Analyses Overview. For each of the major dependent var iables descr ibed below, two types of ana lyses were used . First, correlat ions between the speci f ic dependent measure and depress ion c lassi f icat ion (depressed vs. control), sociotropy, and autonomy were calculated. S e c o n d , in order to s imul taneously examine the role of mood and personal i ty and to understand the unique contribution of each of these var iables to var iance exp la ined in the dependent measures , regression equat ions were calculated. Order of entry for the predictors w a s b a s e d on theoretical considerat ions with the most powerful potential predictor entered initially to control for its effect, fo l lowed by the personal i ty var iab les of interest. Thus , in all equat ions, depress ion was entered first, 50 followed by sociotropy, autonomy, the interaction of sociotropy and depression, and the interaction of autonomy and depression. Desire for Future Interactions. The correlations between the rejection measure (DFI), and the independent variables are displayed in Table 4. There was a significant negative relationship between DFI and depression, as well as autonomy. Thus, both autonomy and depression were associated with rejection. Table 4. Correlations between desire for future interactions (DFI). sociotropy. autonomy, and depression. Sociotropy Autonomy Depression DFI -.13 -.35 -.51 ns p_< .01 p_< .001 The results of the regression analysis for the DFI are displayed in Table 5. Depression status significantly, and negatively (beta = -.51) predicted desire for future interactions in this analysis, accounting for 26% of the variance. Autonomy added significantly (beta = -.23) to the prediction of DFI, accounting for a further 4% of the variance. Finally the interaction of autonomy and depression significantly predicted a further 4% of the variance in DFI scores (beta = - .24). 51 Tab le 5. Hierarchical regress ion ana lyses predicting rejection from depress ion, sociotropy, autonomy, and interact ions. Step, and Entered Var iab le R 2 beta df F c h ang Desi re for Future Interactions 1. Depress ion .26 -.51 (1 ,80 ) 28.79, p_ < .001 2. Sociotropy .27 .03 (2, 79) .07 3. Autonomy .31 -.23 (3 ,78) 4.47, p_ < .05 4. Soc io , by Depress ion .31 -.02 (4, 77) .05 5. Auto, by Depress ion .35 -.24 (5, 76) 4.54, p_ < .05 The predict ive utility of the interaction between depress ion and autonomy suggested that autonomy had different consequences for des i re for future interactions (DFI) depending on depress ion status. Thus, in order to clarify the nature of the interaction, correlat ions between the DFI and autonomy were ca lcu la ted in each of the two groups (depressed and controls). There was a signif icant correlat ion between autonomy and des i re for future interactions in the depressed group, but not in the control group (r = - .39, p_ < .05 and r = 1 3 , ns, respectively). Thus autonomy was signif icantly assoc ia ted with rejection, but this was true only in the dep ressed group. Confedera te Percept ions of Part ic ipant 52 Interpersonal Deference. A s descr ibed earl ier, there w a s a posit ive assoc ia t ion between gender and percept ions of interpersonal deference (r = .55, p_ < .01). B e c a u s e of this, partial correlat ions between the independent and dependent var iab les were computed, control l ing for the effect of gender (see Tab le 6). There was a posit ive assoc ia t ion between sociotropy and perce ived interpersonal deference in the task. Tab le 6. Part ial correlat ions between interpersonal deference, sociotropy. autonomy, and depress ion . Sociotropy Autonomy Depress ion Interpersonal .31 -.01 -.02 Deference E < .01 ns ns The results of the regress ion equat ion for interpersonal deference are d isp layed in Tab le 7. On ly sociotropy signif icantly predicted interpersonal deference (beta=.35) 1. T h e addit ion of sociotropy to the equat ion resulted in a multiple R of .33, indicating that sociotropy accounted for 11 % of the var iance in interpersonal deference. The results of these ana l yses suggested that inc reased levels of sociotropy were assoc ia ted with greater perce ived interpersonal deference. 53 Tab le 7. Hierarch ica l regress ion ana lyses predict ing interpersonal deference from depress ion , sociotropy, autonomy, and interactions. Step, and Entered Var iab le R 2 beta df F C han g Interpersonal Deference 1. Depress ion .00 -.02 (1 ,80) .05 2. Sociot ropy .11 .35 (2 ,79) 9.78, p. < .001 3. Autonomy .13 - .15 (3, 78) 1.51 4. Soc io , by Depress ion .13 .08 (4, 77) .62 5. Auto, by Depress ion .15 .13 (5, 76) 1.02 Sel f -Or ientat ion. T h e correlat ions between the independent var iab les and self-orientation are reported in Tab le 8. There was a posit ive, signif icant assoc ia t ion between depress ion and self-orientat ion. No such relat ionship w a s found for autonomy or sociotropy. Tab le 8. Corre la t ions between self-orientat ion, sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ion . Sociotropy Autonomy Depress ion Self-or ientat ion -.06 .16 .41 ns ns p_< .001 In the regress ion ana lys is , only depress ion predicted self-orientation (beta=.41), account ing for 1 7 % of the var iance (see Tab le 9). There was a trend for sociotropy to 54 predict self-or ientat ion in a negat ive direction (beta=-20, p. < .07). Overal l , the regression and correlat ional ana lys is suggested that depress ion was assoc ia ted with a greater sel f - focus in the task. Tab le 9. H ierarch ica l regress ion ana lyses predicting self-orientation from depress ion, sociotropy. autonomy, and interactions. Step, and Entered Var iab le R 2 beta df F c h a n g Self-orientation 1. Depress ion .17 .41 (1 ,80) 16.43, p_ <.001 2. Sociot ropy .21 -.19 (2, 79) 3.59 3. Autonomy .21 .09 (3, 78) .70 4. Soc io , by Dep ress ion .23 -.12 (4, 77) 1.54 5. Auto, by Depress ion .24 .15 (5, 76) 1.56 Participant Behav iours . Corre la t ions between the dependent measures (the nine coded behaviours, and the overal l index of behaviours) and independent measures (sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ive c lassi f icat ion) are d isp layed in Tab le 10. G iven the exploratory nature of the coding sys tem, examinat ion of the pattern of correlat ions ac ross behaviours was of cons iderab le interest. However because the number of correlat ions to be examined was large, only those signif icant at the .01 level or better are descr ibed here. Depress ion w a s corre lated with being less attentive, less smi l ing, suggest ing fewer 55 Tab le 10. Corre lat ions between rated behaviours and sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ion . Sociot ropy Autonomy Depress ion Attentive -.12 - .30** - .34** Difficult to schedu le -.09 -.01 .27 Smi l ing -.07 - .30** - .53* * * Sugges ted schedu le opt ions -.12 - .30** - .30** Inflected speech -.09 -.21 - .46*** Res is ted assis tant 's suggest ions -.04 .03 .02 Cheerfu l - .10 - .33** - .55*** D isengaged -.00 .09 .27 Sel f -d isc los ive .07 .11 .33** Posi t ive Behav iour Index -.07 - .29** - .50*** Note, **p_<.01, ***p_<.001 56 schedule options, less voice inflection, appearing less cheerful, and being more disclosive. Autonomy was correlated with being less attentive, smiling less, suggesting fewer schedule options, and appearing less cheerful. Sociotropy displayed no significant correlations with any of the nine behaviours. The regression analysis for behaviours was performed with the overall behaviour index as the criterion. This was done for reasons of parsimony and to control for the Type I error associated with separate regression for each of the nine behaviours. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 11. Depression significantly and negatively predicted the behaviour index, with a beta weight of -.50, accounting for 34% of the variance. The only other significant predictor was the interaction between depression and autonomy, with a beta weight of -.28, which accounted for an additional unique 5% of the variance in the positive behaviour index. Table 11. Hierarchical regression analyses predicting positive behaviors from depression, sociotropy. autonomy, and interactions. Step, and Entered Variable R 2 beta df F c h a n g Positive Behavior Index 1. Depression .25 -.50 (1,80) 26.82, p_ < .001 2. Sociotropy .26 .08 (2,79) .66 3. Autonomy .28 -.18 (3, 78) 2.66 4. Socio, by Depression .29 .06 (4, 77) .47 5. Auto, by Depression .34 -.28 (5, 76) 6.16, p.< .05 57 T h e signif icant interaction sugges ted that the effect of autonomy on the posi t ive behaviour index var ied depend ing on whether or not an individual was dep ressed . In order to clarify the nature of the interaction, correlat ions between the posit ive behav iour index and autonomy were calculated in e a c h of the two groups (depressed and controls). The re was a signif icant negat ive correlat ion between autonomy and the posit ive behav ior index in the depressed group, but not in the control group (r = - .37, p_ < .05 and r = 1 6 , ns, respect ively). Thus , autonomy w a s assoc ia ted with fewer posit ive interactive behav iors , but this assoc ia t ion was signif icant only in the dep ressed group. Discussion Overview T h e s e f indings indicate that both depress ion and personal i ty impact on rejection and interpersonal behav iours in socia l interactions. Consis tent with Coyne ' s interpersonal theory, depress ion was assoc ia ted with rejection and fewer posit ive soc ia l behaviours. However , autonomy modif ied these effects, inf luencing both rejection and soc ia l behav iours in dep ressed individuals. Personal i ty and mood a lso inf luenced how part icipants were perce ived. Sociotropy was assoc ia ted with higher levels of interpersonal deference, whereas depress ion was assoc ia ted with higher levels of self-orientation. Overa l l , data from both subjective (rejection, percept ions) and objective (coded behav iours) sources suggested that an interplay of personal i ty and mood are 58 relevant to the interpersonal model of depress ion. E a c h speci f ic hypothesis will now be d iscussed in turn. Rejection, depression, and personality Both depress ion and autonomy had been predicted to be assoc ia ted with rejection, and this proved to be true. The correlat ion and regress ion ana lyses indicated that depress ion w a s strongly assoc ia ted with rejection. In addit ion, levels of autonomy were assoc ia ted with inc reased rejection, particularly when individuals were a lso depressed . Thus , a combinat ion of low mood and a high level of autonomy seem particularly l ikely to lead to this type of negative interpersonal outcome. Th is result paral lels f indings made previously in a student sample (Biel ing & A lden , 1996), and suggests that the c o n s e q u e n c e s of autonomy may partial ly depend on other factors in the individual. The robust rejection effect for depressed indiv iduals found in the present study is highly consistent with C o y n e ' s (1976a) theoretical model . E v e n after a relatively brief interaction (mean of approximately 14.5 minutes) there was c lear ev idence of rejection of dep ressed individuals. T h e s e results confirm the notion that di f ferences between depressed indiv iduals and normal controls are detectable upon an initial meeting and that the rejection effect postulated by C o y n e does not require longer or repeated interactions. However , this f inding is in the minority compared with the body of empir ical f indings descr ibed earlier. Th is leads to the quest ion of why a rejection effect was found here and not in other studies (see Marcus & Nardone, 1992, for a review). 59 Most likely, methodological factors, both in the task and participant select ion, account for this dif ference. C o m p a r e d to the standard "getting acquainted" conversat ion, the helping task used in the present study was perhaps more involving and personal . Part ic ipants were required to col laborate with another person in a dynamic fashion that required self-ref lect ion, express ion of one 's w ishes, and compromise. Moreover , unl ike the "getting acquain ted" situation it is unl ikely that part icipants had a set "script" that , they cou ld fol low (Marcus & Nardone, 1992). Another strength of this study was the use of a cl in ical sample. Al l dep ressed participants had a current d iagnos is of major depress ion or dysthymia, suppor ted by a sufficient level of depress ive symptoms. A number of past s tudies have used individuals who did not meet d iagnost ic criteria for a mood disorder or undergraduate students with mild levels of dysphor ia (e.g. Borden & Baum, 1987; McN ie l et a l . , 1987; Paddock & Nowicki , 1986). S u c h potentially heterogeneous groups may have obscured the depress ion effect. Depression. Personality, and Others' Perceptions The two hypotheses regarding the percept ions of part icipants in the task were partially supported. A s expected, sociotropy was assoc ia ted with greater perce ived interpersonal deference. Thus , sociotropy was assoc ia ted with appear ing to be concerned about getting a long in the interaction, and accomodat ing to the other person 's w ishes . Th is f inding is highly congruent with descr ipt ions provided by Beck (1983) regarding sociot ropic indiv iduals in a therapy context. However, despi te this higher level of perce ived interpersonal deference, sociotropy did not impact level of 60 rejection or behaviours. Th is is particularly interesting in light of some theoret ical descr ipt ions which suggest that sociotropy does, eventual ly, result in rejection (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). It may be that excess i ve deference and dependency c a u s e resentment which ultimately lead to socia l rejection. However, such a p rocess may take a greater length of time, or a greater level of intimacy to emerge. Th is may expla in why no relat ionship w a s found here between sociotropy and rejection, and offers an interesting avenue for research in long term interactions. Contrary to the second percept ion hypothesis, autonomy w a s not assoc ia ted with self-or ientat ion. However, there w a s a robust assoc ia t ion between depress ion and self-orientat ion. Thus , dep ressed indiv iduals were seen as being less sensi t ive to others and more se l f - focused. It is unc lear why autonomy was not corre lated with self-orientation. It is poss ib le that autonomy is not assoc ia ted with sal ient d i f ferences in perce ived behav iours and motivations. However, this conc lus ion is inconsistent with both the rejection and behavioural f indings involving autonomy. Thus , the lack of f indings regarding percept ions and autonomy are likely due to insensitivity in the part icular measure used for this study. Depression. Personality, and Behaviour T h e two hypotheses regarding behaviour in the interaction were supported. Cons is tent with predict ions, depress ion was assoc ia ted with fewer posit ive interpersonal behaviours. Correlat ional ev idence suggested that depress ive status w a s assoc ia ted with many of the coded behaviours including less attention to the task, 61 smil ing less , suggest ing fewer schedu le opt ions, hav ing less inflected speech , appear ing less cheerful , and engaging in se l f -d isc losure. A s predicted, autonomy w a s a lso assoc ia ted with fewer posit ive behav iours including being less attentive, smi l ing less, suggest ing fewer schedu le options, and being less cheerful . W h e n a s ingle, composi te index of behaviour was examined, autonomy was found to interact with depress ion , so that autonomy led to fewer posit ive behav iours in the dep ressed group, but not in the control group. Interestingly this interaction mirrors the f indings on desi re for future interact ions in which autonomy w a s assoc ia ted with rejection, but only in the depressed group. T h e s e behavioural assoc ia t ions may wel l explain why autonomy was assoc ia ted with rejection in the depressed group. The interaction may a lso expla in why rejection was not assoc ia ted with autonomy in the control group; in non-depressed part icipants, autonomy had no behavioural consequences . Moreover , the behavioural correlates of autonomy may expla in previous f indings in which autonomous dysphor ics, and self-crit ical students were rejected more than other groups (Biel ing, & A lden , 1996; Zuroff et a l , 1983). It is notable that the behavioural ratings were made independent of the interaction task. T h e behavioural coding w a s carr ied out by two independent raters whereas the des i re for future interactions measure was completed by the confederates. Moreover, the behav iour coding was done us ing v ideo tape, whereas the rejection data was taken from the interaction. That these two types of measures , from two distinct modali t ies, shou ld conform to the same pattern of results is suggest ive of a rel iable and robust effect. 62 The present f indings l inking fewer posit ive interpersonal behaviours to depress ion are a l so consistent with at least some past s tudies of the interpersonal model of dep ress ion (e.g. Got l ib & Rob inson , 1982; P a d d o c k & Nowicki , 1986). In those studies, d e p r e s s e d part icipants who engaged in brief interactions with others showed less direct support to others, less conversat ion maintenance, and engaged in more negat ive non-verbal behav iour and more negat ive paral inguist ic behaviours. These behav iours appear to be similar to those coded in the present study, al though they are somewhat less speci f ic . It seems that depress ion is assoc ia ted with a variety of negat ive interpersonal behaviours, and that these assoc ia t ions may be quite broad. One potentially interesting avenue for further explorat ion may be to examine which of these types of behav iours is most related to rejection. Implications for the Interpersonal Model T h e s e results have substant ive implications for the interpersonal model of depress ion. First, the results from the rejection, percept ions, and behaviour var iables offer good support for C o y n e ' s (1976) interpersonal model . Cons is tent with predict ions made by this mode l , d e p r e s s e d individuals were more likely to be rejected, were perce ived to be act ing in a sel f -centered manner, and engaged in fewer posit ive verbal and non-verbal behav iours than non-depressed individuals. Interestingly, this pattern of behaviour is highly consistent with more recent theoret ical formulat ions which highlight def ic ienc ies in respons iveness and pol i teness that may occur in depressed individuals (Segr in & Ab ramson , 1994). 63 T h e present f indings for the rejection and behavioural var iab les offer some degree of support for the inclusion of personal i ty factors in the interpersonal model of depress ion . Autonomy, in particular, is likely to be a va luable addit ion. T o the extent that a dep ressed individual is autonomous, they will engage in fewer posit ive interpersonal behaviours and exper ience a greater level of rejection. Th i s inc reased ability to predict rejection within dep ressed individuals represents a signif icant step toward greater specif icity in the model . However, this new specif ic i ty c a n best be regarded as an addit ion to the model rather than a revision. T h e s e results a lso highlight the dynamic, cycl ical nature of interpersonal behaviour. S o m e writers have emphas i zed the role of early learning exper iences and relat ionships with attachment f igures as foundat ions for excess i ve interpersonal re la tedness and self-definit ion (Blatt, 1974; Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). Thus , over the course of the individual 's development, the impact of these personal i ty styles on depress ion "may be partially attributable to the interpersonal envi ronments they seek, establ ish, and maintain" (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992, p. 538). In other words, ear ly learning and subsequent express ion of these personal i ty patterns can result in a develop ing, evolv ing interaction cyc le in which the individual 's fears and concerns are reinforced by their own behav iours and result ing negat ive exper iences. The results for sociotropy, autonomy, and depress ion in this interpersonal situation support the notion that the individual p lays a role in the ongo ing formation of their soc ia l context. Au tonomous and dep ressed individuals are likely to create soc ia l situations in wh ich their behaviour leads to rejection, result ing in further soc ia l isolation and mistrust. Sociotropy, and the interpersonal deference assoc ia ted with it, may result in an individual not hav ing their own needs met, or p lacing an excess i ve burden on others. T o il lustrate the potential impact of these personal i ty styles in ongo ing soc ia l relat ionships, comments made to the exper imenter during the cl inical interview and de -briefing may offer some degree of insight. The first set of remarks were made by a 54 -year old woman with an autonomy score of 115 (depressed mean 94) and a BDI of 23. During the S C I D she was asked a s tandard quest ion which was intended to sc reen for Gene ra l i zed Anxiety Disorder: I: In the last six months, wou ld you say you've been particularly nervous or anx ious? P: I'd say that I've been eas i ly irritable, not so much anxious but.. .people don't understand me. I don't suffer fools, and its like if somebody a s k s me someth ing I'm quite wil l ing to do it. But they start sort of, you know, what to me is a bunch of nonsense , and I..lose my pat ience. Th is has been a retreat from people; there are only certain people I want to be around. M y to lerance level is not very high. I'd just as soon be alone.. . . S o it has had an impact on my fr iendships, and I guess that if people are comfortable enough to want to do stuff aga in , they can contact me. I mean I have ca l led people.. . there's no response . Th is person 's responses indicate cons iderab le confl icts about relat ionships and limited motivation to be with others. The re are concerns that others may take advantage, and lack of to lerance for others "nonsense. " A s a result, there is a protective withdrawal 65 and lack of contact. O n c e the person feels more motivated to be soc ia l , there is a lack of response from others. Th is rejection makes it difficult for this woman to have posit ive socia l contacts, conf i rming the belief that people "don't understand." A second illustration is drawn from a de-brief ing with a 43-year old woman who scored 99 on autonomy and had a BDI of 27. In the informal d i scuss ion fol lowing the de-brief ing, the interviewer and participant are d iscuss ing the c a u s e s of depress ion : I: S o what do you think caused your depress ion . P: W e l l , I know what the cause is. I feel l ike a fai lure because I'm not ach iev ing things. I get into great despai r over that. A n d I am angry and frustrated with society. I: W o u l d you say that you feel lonely? P: Somet imes I feel lonely but a lot of the time I prefer to be by myself. I'm furiously... I mean I wont even let my father come and visit me, or wont let anybody stay with me because I'm afraid they will take advantage of me. I just can't cope with that basical ly..I 've not iced considerably, espec ia l l y in the last six, seven years, that I don't want to do anything for anybody. I feel very protective about my energy and my space . S o I'd say that I'm probably into extreme protect ionism. W h i c h has its dire consequences . . .o f lonel iness and . . .a more shut down life. Aga in , there is s t rong ev idence of negative feel ings about relat ionships, and a des i re to protect l imited energy for the self. However, there appear to be feel ings of lonel iness, 66 as wel l . T h e s e excerpts are brief, and non-systematic; however they offer some degree of il lustration of these p rocesses and their impact on the person 's exper ience. Caveats Although the present study represents an advance over previous research, there are severa l methodologica l i ssues that may limit the study's general izabi l i ty. The first concerns the measurement of sociotropy and autonomy. A s descr ibed in the introduction, at least three other measure of these constructs exist ( D E Q , S A S , and the D A S ) . Though the measure used in the present study is thought to be psychometr ical ly superior to these other measures , the majority of research completed in this a rea to date has used the D E Q . Whe the r or not f indings for sociotropy and autonomy would paral lel f indings for dependency and self-crit icism remains an empir ical quest ion. Inclusion of the D E Q would have provided such an answer and thus increase the general izabi l i ty of these f indings. A second concern for the present study is the measurement of percept ions and behaviours. A l though these measures were empir ical ly der ived and pi loted, other commonly used measu res of interpersonal percept ion (e.g. the IMI) would have resulted in addit ional information and general izabi l i ty. T h e final i ssue concerns gender effects. A l though general ly no significant gender effects were found, there was one except ion which was control led for in the subsequent ana lyses . However, because of the smal l percentage of men in the study, any between-groups compar isons would have been difficult to make. Future studies may wish to examine equal numbers of men and women. 67 Future Directions T h e present results suggest a number of future directions for researchers examining the interpersonal model of depression. First, the present results suggest that the type of interaction in which participants are engaged may strongly influence the strength of findings on behaviour and rejection. Determining which aspects of an interaction (e.g. collaboration, personalized content) are germane to the rejection phenomenon may tell us more about the various everyday social contexts in which this effect is likely to arise. Overall, the results of this study serve to encourage greater creativity in designing interpersonal situations for laboratory study. Outside of the interpersonal model, these findings may be of interest to clinicians and researchers examining process and outcome in psychotherapy. S o m e research examining sociotropy and autonomy and outcome/has suggested that autonomy is associated with response to antidepressant medication (Peselow et al., 1992). Beck (1983) also suggested that different forms of intervention might be required in sociotropic and autonomous depressives, and that the therapist's stance should be varied to suit the individual's personality style. T h e present findings reinforce these suggestions. In the structured helping task used in this study, sociotropy was associated with a greater perceived interpersonal deference. This might increase the level of rapport or therapeutic alliance, and ultimately impact the outcome of psychotherapy. Similarly autonomy, especially when combined with depression, may be associated with less positive interpersonal behaviours, 68 undermining the formation of a strong therapeut ic a l l iance, and perhaps lessen ing the posit ive impact of therapy. Ultimately, psychotherapy with autonomous depress i ves may n e e d to take into account the interpersonal style of the patient, and its consequent impact on the therapist. Thus , examining these personal i ty var iables in the context of p rocess or outcome studies is of cons iderab le interest and importance. Overall Summary T a k e n together, the results from this study offer c lear support for the interpersonal mode l of depress ion . However, this study a lso supports the inc lus ion of sociotropy a n d autonomy as a step toward bui lding a more comprehens ive explanatory model of interpersonal behaviour in depress ion . T h e s e personal i ty factors are part icularly attractive to c l in ic ians and researchers al ike because they go beyond symptomatology to focus on the motivational aspec ts of depress ive interpersonal behaviour. T h e personal i ty var iable of sociotropy, an investment in interpersonal re lat ionships, is detectable by others in a theoretical ly consistent manner. Autonomy, investment in self-str iving and achievement, is not only detectable by others, but leads to rejection and fewer posit ive soc ia l behaviours. Ultimately, these f indings enhance our unders tand ing of these personal i ty constructs and their consequences . 6 9 Footnotes 1 Because of the correlation between interpersonal deference and gender the regression analysis was repeated with participant's gender entered as the first predictor. All other predictor variables were entered in the same order as in the main analysis. For the regression involving sociotropy, gender was a predictor of interpersonal deference (beta = .51, F(1, 80) = 27.81, rj < .001) and accounted for 26% of the variance. However sociotropy continued to predict interpersonal deference (beta = .30, F(1, 78) = 9.31, p_ < 01), and accounted for a further 8% of the variance. Thus, women were rated as higher in interpersonal deference, but this did not negate or modify the effects of sociotropy on this variable. References Abramsbn, L. Y. , Seligman, M . E . P., & Teasdale , j . D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87, 49-74. Alden, L. E . , & Bieling, P. J . (1996). Interpersonal convergence of personality constructs in dynamic and cognitive models of depression. Journal of Research in Personality. 30,60-75. Alden, L. E . , Wiggins, J . S., & Pincus, A . (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment . 55, 521-536. Allen, N. B., de L. H o m e , D. J. , &Trinder , J . (1996). Sociotropy, autonomy, and dysphoric emotional responses to specific classes of stress: A psychophysiological evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105.25-33. Arieti, S., & Bemporad, J . R. (1980). T h e psychological organization of depression. American Journal of Psychiatry. 137. 1360-1365. Beck, A . T . (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P. J . C l a y t o n & J . E . Barnett (Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265-290). New York: Raven Press. Beck, A . T . , Epstein, N , Harrison R. P., & Emery, G . (1983). Development of the Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale: A measure of personality factors in psychopathology. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. •71 Beck, A . T . , Rush, A . J. , Shaw, B. F. & Emery. G . (1979V Cognitive Therapy of Depression. New York: Guildford Press. Beck, A . T , Steer, R. A . , & Garbin, M . (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77-100. Beck, A . T , Ward , C . H . , Mendelson, M . , Mock, J. , & Erbaugh, J . (1961). A n inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571. Bieling, P. J , , & Alden, L. E . (In press). Interpersonal patterns in dysphoria: T h e role of sociotropy and autonomy. Cognitive Therapy and Research. Billings, A . , & Moos , R. (1982). Psychosocial theory and research on depression: A n integrative framework and review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2. 213-237. Blaney, P ; H . , & Kutcher, G . S; (1991). Measures of depressive dimensions: Are they interchangeable? Journal of Personality Assessment . 56, 502-512. Blatt, S. J . (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 29 , 107-157. Blatt, S. J . (1995). T h e destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020. Blatt, S. J „ D'Affliti, J . P., & Quinlan, D. M (1976). Experiences of depression in young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383-389 Blatt, S. J. , Quinlan, D. M . , Chevron, E . S., McDonald , C . , & Zuroff, D. (1982). Dependency and self-criticism: Psychological dimensions of depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. . 50(1). 113-124. Blatt, S. J . , W e i n , S. J . , Chevron, E . , & Quinlan, D. M . (1979). Parental representations and depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 88, 388- 397. Blatt, S. J . , Schaffer, C . E . , Bers, S. A . , & Quinlan, D. M . (1992). Psychometric properties of the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire for adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment . 59, 82-98. Blatt, S. J. , & Zuroff, D. C . (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition: Two prototypes for depression. Clinical Psychology Review 12, 527-562. Blatt, S. J . , Zuroff, D. C , Quinlan, D. M . , & Pilkonis, P. A . (1996). Interpersonal factors in brief treatment of depression: Further analyses of the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Treatment Program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology., 64, 162-171. Borden, J . W . & Baum, C . G . (1987) Investigation of a social-interactional model of depression with mildly depressed males and females. Sex Roles, 17, 449-465. Bowlby, J . (1977). T h e making and breaking of affectional bonds: I. Aetiology and psychopathology in light of attachment theory. British Journal of Psychiatry. 130, 201 -210. 73 Brewin, C . R., & Furnham, A . (1987). Dependency, self-criticism, and depressive attributional style. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 26, 225-226. Brown, J . D. , & Silberschatz, G . (1989). Dependency, self-criticism, and depressive attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98(2), 187-188. Chevron, E . S., Quinlan, D. M . , & Blatt, S. J . (1978). S e x roles and gender differences in the experience of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 680-683. Cappeliez, P. (1993). T h e relationship between Beck's concepts of sociotropy and autonomy and the NEO-Personali ty Inventory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 32,78-80. Costa, P. T , & M c C r a e , R. R. (1985). T h e NEO-Personali ty Inventory manual. O d e s s a : F L : Psychological Assessment Resources. Coyne, J . C . (1976a). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28- 40. Coyne, J . C . (1976b). Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 186-193. Coyne, J . C . (1985). Studying depressed persons' interactions with strangers and spouses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 231-232. Coyne, J . C . (1994). Self-reported distress: Analogue or ersatz depression? Psychological Bulletin, 116. 29-45. 74 Dobson, K. S. (1989). Real and perceived interpersonal response to subcl inical^ anxious and depressed targets. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 13(1), 37-47. Doerfler, L. A . , & Chaplin, W . F. (1985). T y p e III error in research on interpersonal models of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94. 227-230. Gotlib, I. H . , & Robinson, L. A . (1982). Responses to depressed individuals: Discrepancies between self-report and observer rated behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 9_1, 231-240. Goldberg, J . 0. , Segal , Z . V . , Vella , D. D. , & Shaw, B. F. (1989). Depressive personality: Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory profiles of sociotropic and autonomous subtypes. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 193-198. Hammen, C , Ellicott, A . , & Gitlin, M . (1989). Vulnerability to specific life events and prediction of course of disorder in unipolar depressed patients. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 21_, 377-388. Hammen, C , Ellicott, A . , & Gitlin, M . (1992). Stressors and sociotropy/autonomy: A longitudinal study of their relationship to the course of bipolar disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 16. 409-418. Hammen, C , Ellicott, A . , Gitlin ; M . , & Jamison, K. R. (1989). Sociotropy/autonomy and vulnerability to specific life events in patients with unipolar and bipolar disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 154-160. 75 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. Horowitz, L. M . , Rosenberg, S. E . , Baer, B. A . , Ureno, G . , & Villasenor, V . S., (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885-892. Joiner, T . E . , Alfano, M . S., & Metalsky, G . I. (1992). W h e n depression breeds contempt: Reassurance seeking, self-esteem, and rejection of depressed college students by their roommates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 101, 165-173. Joiner, T . E . , & Metalsky, G . I. (1995). A prospective study of an integrative interpersonal theory of depression: A naturalistic study of college roommates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 778-788. Keller, M . B., Lavori, P . W . , Rice, J . , Coyell , W. , & Hirschfeld, R. M . A . (1986). T h e persistent risk of chronicity in recurrent episodes of non-bipolar major depressive disorder: A prospective follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 24-28. Kiesler, D. J . , Anchin, J . C , Perkins, M . J. , Chirico, B. M . , Kyle, E . M . , & Federman, E . J . (1976). T h e Impact M e s s a g e Inventory. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University. King, D. A . , & Heller, K. (1984). Depression and the response of others: A re-evaluation. J p j j m a l p f j A b ^ ^ 7 6 Libet, J. , & Lewinsohn (1973). T h e concept of social skill with special reference to the behaviour of depressed persons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40 ,304-312 . MacPhillamy, D. J. , & Lewinsohn, P. M . (1971). Pleasant Events Schedule . Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon. Marcus, D. K. & Nardone, M . E . (1992). Depression and interpersonal rejection. Clinical Psychology Review. 12, 433- 449. McCranie , E . C , & Bass, J . D. (1984). Childhood family antecedents of dependency and self-criticism: Implications for depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 3-8. McNiel , D. E . , Arkowitz, H . S., & Pritchard, B. E . (1987). T h e response of others to face- to-face interaction with depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 341-344. j • Millon, T . (1981). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, M N : National Computer Systems. Mongrain, M . (1993). Dependency and self-criticism located within the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 15; 455-462. Mongrain, M . , & Zuroff, D. C . (1989). Cognitive vulnerability to depressed affect in dependent and self-critical college women. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 240-251. 77 Nietzel, M . T . , & Harris, M . J . (1990). Relationship of dependency and achievement/autonomy to depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 279-297. Ouimette, P. C , Klein, D. N. , Anderson, R., Riso, L. P., & Lizardi, H . (1994). Relationship of sociotropy/autonomy and dependency/self-criticism to DSM-III-R personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 743-749. Paddock, J . R., & Nowicki, S. (1986). Paralanguage and the interpersonal impact of dysphoria: It's not what you say but how you say it. Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 29-44. Peselow, E . D. , Robins, C . J . , Sanfilipo, M . P., Block, P., & Fieve, R. R. (1992). Sociotropy and autonomy: Relationship to antidepressant drug treatment response to and endogenous- nonendogenous dichotomy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 479-486. Pilkonis, P. (1988). Personality prototypes among depressives: T h e m e s of dependency and autonomy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 2, 144-152. Riley, W . T . , & McCranie , E . W . (1990). T h e Depressive Experiences Questionnaire: Validity and psychological correlates in a clinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 523-533. Robins, C . J . (1990). Congruence of personality and life events in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 393-397. ' ' 7 8' Robins, C J. , & Block, P. (1988). Personal vulnerability, life events, and depressive symptoms: A test of the specific interactional model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54, 847-852. Robins, C . J . , & Block, P. (1988). Cognitive theories of depression viewed from a diathesis- stress perspective: Evaluations of the models of Beck and of Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale . Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 297-313. Robins, C . J . , Block, P., & Peselow, E . D. (1989). Relations of sociotropic and autonomous personality characteristics to specific symptoms in depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 86-88. Robins, C . J . , Ladd, J . , Welkowitz, J . , Blaney, P. H . , Diaz, R , & Kutcher, G . (1994). T h e Personal Style Inventory: Preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment , 16, 277-300. Robins, C . J . , & Luten, A . G . (1991). Sociotropy and autonomy: Differential patterns of clinical presentation in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 74- 77. Rosenblatt, A . , & Greenberg, J . (1991). Examining the world of the depressed: Do depressed people prefer others who are depressed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 620-629. Sadeh, A . , Rubin, S. S., & Berman, E . (1993). Parental relationship representations and experiences of depression in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 192-204. Segal , Z . V , Shaw, B. F., & Veila , D. D. (1989). Life stress and depression: A test of the congruency hypothesis of life event content and depressive subtype. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21, 389-400. Segrin, C . (1993). Interpersonal reactions to dysphoria: T h e role of relationship with partner and perceptions of rejection. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 83-97. Segrin, C , & Abramson, L. Y. (1994): Negative reactions to depressive behaviors; A communications theories analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 655-668. Segrin, C , & Dillard, J . D. (1992). T h e interactional theory of depression: A meta-analysis of the research literature. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11_, 43-70, Spitzer, R. L , Williams, J . B. W . , Gibbon, M . & First, M . B. (1990). User's Guide for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R. Washington, D C : American Psychiatric Press. ' . Steer, R. A . , Beck, A . T . , & Garrison, B. (1986). Applications of the Beck Depression Inventory. In N. Sartorius & T . A . Ban eds.), Assessment of Depression. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. . . . . 8 0 Strack, S. & Coyne , J . C . (1983). Social confirmation of dysphoria: Shared and private reactions to depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 798-806. Viglione, D. J . , Clemmey, P. A . , & Camenzuli , L. (1990). T h e Depressive Experiences Questionnaire: A critical review/Journal of Personality Assessment , 55, 52-64. Vredenburg, K., Flett G . L , & Krames, L. (1993). Analogue versus clinical depression: A clinical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 327-344. Welkowitz, J . , Lish, J . D. , & Bond, R N. (1985). T h e Depressive Experiences Questionnaire: Revision and validation. Journal.of Personality Assessment , 49, 89-94. Whiffen, V . E . , & Sasseville, T . M . (1991). Dependency, self-criticism, and recollections of parenting: Sex differences and the role of depressive affect. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10. 121-133. Zuroff, D. C . (1994). Depressive personality styles and the five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment , 63, 453-472. Zuroff, D. C , & deLorimier, S. (1989). Ideal and actual romantic partners of women varying in dependency and self-criticism. Journal of Personality, 57, 825-846. Zuroff, D. C . & Fitzpatrick, D. K. (1995)! Depressive personality styles: Implications for adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 18,253-365. 81 A p p e n d i c e s Append ix A P L E A S A N T E V E N T S T A S K - S C R I P T S o the idea here is for us to try to come up with some p leasant things that you could add in to your dai ly or week ly routine. T h e s e fun activit ies shou ld be things that you think you cou ld fit in your schedu le without increasing your s t ress level, and you shouldn't feel that these are things you have to do. Y o u shou ld do these things just for fun and enjoyment, O K ? [go get schedu les ] Somet imes it's real ly hard for people to come up with new ideas for interesting kinds of activit ies that they cou ld do. S o , I have a list of p leasant activit ies that we can use to help us a long. A n y ques t ions? I think that the best way to approach this task is to do it in a coup le of steps. I guess the first thing we n e e d to know is how your dai ly schedu le looks, and what kinds of things you are a l ready doing, including things like work or schoo l , or any other activit ies that take up time in your day. O n c e we s e e what's a l ready there, we can try to add some things that you might like to do. Does that s e e m o k ? Al l right, I guess first of all I'll g ive you this schedule , the t imes are a long here and the days a long here. M a y b e you can just take a minute or two to c ross off those t imes when you're a l ready busy throughout the week. 82 [subject completes schedule ] Ok. S o that he lps us to get a feel for what t imes you have avai lab le . Now, the next thing I'd like for us to do is to go over this list of activit ies. T h e list is made up of a whole bunch of things that s o m e people f ind to be enjoyable activi t ies or past imes. Not all of the things on here will appea l to you, but there are probably some things which you might f ind p leasant or enjoyable. I'd like to go over the list, I'll just give you each item, and maybe you can tell me whether that's something you might like to do or not. O n c e we've gone over the list we' l l try to fit those things into your schedu le . How about [first through last item]? [Check off items which are agreed to.] [If they say " yes " to ten items stop.] [If they say " yes " to less than f ive items on first list, go to s e c o n d list and cont inue until you get five.] S o let's start with [first item]. Do you think that's something you could do or are there things that might interfere with [item one]? W h e n do you think would be a good time to do that? Wha t about [second item]. Do you think there's anything that might interfere with that or keep you from doing [second item]? W h e r e might that one fit on the schedu le? 83 [Cont inue cyc le through to last item, e a c h time ask ing "What about...what cou ld interfere...and when?" ] Ok, so that's all the things you p icked out. Do you think that this is a reasonab le plan, or are there some activit ies that you might not like to do or others that you would like to a d d ? Ok, great. S o , now that we're done with that I'll go and get [experimenter]. It w a s n ice meeting you. Append ix B 1. G o i n g to a movie 2. L is tening to mus ic 3. Go ing to a bookstore 4. S leep ing late 5. P lann ing a trip 6. Buy ing someth ing for myself 7. Be ing at the b e a c h 8. Redecora t ing my living s p a c e 9. Do ing art work 10. G o i n g to a sports event 11. R e a d i n g a novel or story 12. G o i n g to a bar 13. Boat ing 14. C a m p i n g 15. P lay ing ca rds 16. Do ing puzz les , c rosswords 17. P lay ing tennis 18. Woodwork ing or carpentry 19. Wri t ing stor ies, poems 20. Hik ing or explor ing 21 . Learn ing a foreign language 22. P lay ing a musical instrument 23 . Sk i ing 24. Tak ing a bath 25. P lay ing bi l l iards or pool 26. P lay ing c h e s s or checkers 27. Bowl ing 28. G o i n g to a park 29. Buy ing something for my family 30. Photography 31 . Be ing in the mountains 32. See ing beautiful scenery 33. Eat ing good meals 34. G o i n g to a museum or exhibit 35. Hav ing peace and quiet 36. Vis i t ing fr iends 37. Meditat ing or doing yoga 38. Runn ing , jogging, or aerob ics 39. Hav ing coffee or tea with f r iends 40. Doing volunteer work Append ix C 85 On this questionnaire are groups of statements. Please read each group of statements carefully. Then pick out the one statement in each group which best describes the way you have been feeling the PAST WEEK, INCLUDING TODAY! Circle the number beside the statement you picked. If several statements in the group seem to apply equally well, circle each one. Be sure to read all the statements In each group before making your choice. 1. 0 I do not feel sad. 12. 0 I have not lost interest in other people. 1 1 feel sad. 1 1 am less interested in other people than 1 used to be. 2 1 am sad all the lime and 1 can't snap out of it. 2 1 have lost most Of my interest in other people. 3 1 am so sad or unhappy that 1 can't stand it. 3 1 have lost all of my interest in other people. 2. 0 I am not particularly discouraged about the future. 13. 0 1 make decisions about as well as 1 ever could. 1 I feel discouraged about the future. 1 1 put off making decisions more than 1 used to. 2 I feel I have nothing to look forward to. 2 1 have greater difficulty in making decisions than before. 3 I feel that the future is hopeless and that things cannot 3 1 can't make decisions at all any more. improve. 14. 0 1 don't feel 1 look any worse than 1 used to. 3. 0 I do not feel like a failure. 1 1 am worried that 1 am looking old or unattractive. 1 I feel I have failed more than the average person. 2 1 feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance 2 As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of failures. that make me look unattractive. 3 I feel I am a complete failure as a person. 3 1 believe that I look ugly. 4. 0 I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to. 15. 0 1 can work about as well as before. 1 I don't enjoy things the way I used to. 1 It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something. 2 I don't get real satisfaction out of anything anymore. 2 1 have to push myself very hard to do anything. 3 I am dissatisfied or bored with everything. 3 1 can't do any work at all. 5. 0 I don't feel particularly guilty. 16. 0 1 can sleep as well as usual. 1 1 feel guilty a good part of the time. 1 1 don't sleep as well as 1 used to. 2 1 feel quite guilty most of the time. 2 1 wake up 1 -2 hours earlier than usual and find it hard to get 3 1 feel guilty all of the time. back to sleep. 3 1 wake up several hours earlier than 1 used to and cannot get 6. 0 1 don't feel I am being punished. back to sleep. 1 1 feel 1 may be punished. 17. 2 1 expect to be punished. 0 1 don't get more tired than usual.' 3 1 feel 1 am being punished. 1 1 get tired more easily than I used to. 2 1 get tired from doing almost anything. 7. 0 1 don't feel disappointed in myself. 3 1 am too tired to do anything. 1 1 am disappointed in myself. 18-2 1 am disgusted with myself. 0 My appetite is no worse than usual. 3 1 hate myself. 1 My appetite is not as good as it used to be. 2 My appetite is much worse now. 8. 0 1 don't feel 1 am any worse than anybody else. 3 1 have no appetite at all any more. 1 1 am critical of myself for my weaknesses or mistakes. 19. 2 1 blame myself all the time for my faults. 0 1 haven't lost much weight, if any lately. 3 1 blame myself for everything bad that happens. 1 1 have lost more than S pounds. 2 1 have lost more than 10 pounds. 9. 0 1 don't have any thoughts of killing myself. 3 1 have lost more than 15 pounds. 1 1 have thoughts of killing myself, but 1 would not carry them out. 1 am purposely trying to lose weight by eating less. Yes • No L. 2 1 would like to kill myself. 20. 3 1 would kin myself if 1 had the chance. 0 I am no more worried about my health than usual. 1 I am worried about physical problems such as aches and 10. 0 I don't cry any more than usual. pains, or upset stomach, or constipation. 1 I cry more now than 1 used to. 2 I am very worried about physical problems and it's hard.to 2 1 cry all the time now. think of much else. 3 1 used to be able to cry, but now 1 can't cry even though 1 3 I am so worried about my physical problems, that 1 cannot want to. think about anything else. 11. 0 I am no more irritated now than 1 ever am. 21. 0 1 have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex. 1 1 get annoyed or irritated more easily than 1 used to. 1 1 am less interested in sex than 1 used to be. 2 1 feel irritated all the time now. 2 1 am much less interested in sex now. 3 1 don't get irritated at all by the things that used to irritate me. 3 1 have lost interest in sex completely. (BDI-52E) Appendix D 86 Here a re a number o f s ta tements about p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . P l e a s e read each one c a r e f u l l y , and I n d i c a t e whether you agree a number. or d i s a g r e e , and to v h a t e x t e n t , by c i r c l i n g S t r o n g l y Di sagree D i s a g r e e S l i g h t l y D i s a g r e e S l i g h t l y Agree Agree S t r o n g l Agree 1. I o f t e n put o t h e r p e o p l e ' s 1 needs b e f o r e my own. 2 3 4 5 6 2 . I t end to keep o t h e r 1 p e o p l e a t a d i s t a n c e . 2 3 4 S 6 3. I f i n d I t d i f f i c u l t to be 1 s e p a r a t e d from people I l o v e . 2 3 4 5 6 4 . I am e a s i l y b o t h e r e d by o t h e r 1 p e o p l e making demands o f me. 2 3 4 5 6 5 . I am v e r y s e n s i t i v e to the 1 e f f e c t s I have on the f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r p e o p l e . 2 3 4 5 6 6 . I d o n ' t l i k e r e l y i n g on 1 o t h e r s f o r h e l p . 2 3 4 5 6 7 . I an v e r y s e n s i t i v e to 1 c r i t i c i s m by o t h e r s . 2 3 4 5 6 8. I t b o t h e r s me when I f e e l 1 t h a t I am o n l y average and o r d i n a r y . 2 3 4 S 6 9 . I worry a l o t about h u r t i n g 1 o r o f f e n d i n g o t h e r p e o p l e . 2 3 4 5 6 10. When I ' m f e e l i n g b l u e , I d o n ' t 1 l i k e to be o f f e r e d sympathy . 2 3 4 5 6 11 . I t i s h a r d f o r me to b r e a k 1 o f f a r e l a t i o n s h i p even i f i t I s making me unhappy. 2 3 4 5 6 12. I n r e l a t i o n s h i p s , p e o p l e 1 a r e o f t e n too demanding o f one a n o t h e r . 2 3 4 5 6 13 . I am e a s i l y persuaded by 1 o t h e r s . 2 3 4 5 6 14. I u s u a l l y v iew my per fo rmance 1 2 3 4 5 6 as e i t h e r a complete s u c c e s s o r a complete f a i l u r e . 87 S t r o n g l y S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Strong Di sagree D i s a g r e e Di sagree Agree A g r e e Agree 15. I t r y to p l e a s e o ther people too much. 16. I d o n ' t l i k e people to invade my p r i v a c y . 17. I f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t i f I have to be a l o n e a l l day . 18. I t i s h a r d f o r me to take I n s t r u c t i o n s from people vho have a u t h o r i t y over me. 19. I o f t e n f e e l r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s o l v i n g o t h e r p e o p l e ' s p r o b l e m s . 20 . I o f t e n h a n d l e b i g d e c i s i o n s w i t h o u t t e l l i n g anyone e l s e about them. 2 1 . I t i s v e r y h a r d f o r me to get o v e r t h e f e e l i n g o f l o s s when a r e l a t i o n s h i p has ended. 22 . I t i s h a r d f o r me to have someone dependent on me. 2 3 . I t i s v e r y Important t o me t o be l i k e d o r admired by o t h e r s . 24 . I f e e l b a d l y about m y s e l f when I am n o t a c t i v e l y a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h i n g s . 25 . I f e e l I h a v e to be n i c e t o o t h e r p e o p l e . 26 . I t i s h a r d f o r me to expres s a d m i r a t i o n o r a f f e c t i o n . 2 7 . I l i k e to b e c e r t a i n t h a t t h e r e i s somebody c l o s e I can c o n t a c t i n case something u n p l e a s a n t happens to me. 28 . I t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r me to make a l o n g - t e r m committment to a r e l a t i o n s h i p . 88 - 3 -S t r o n g l y S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y S t r o n g ! Di sagree D i s a g r e e D i s a g r e e Agree Agree Agree 29 . I am too a p o l o g e t i c t o o t h e r p e o p l e . 30 . I t i s h a r d f o r me t o open up and t a l k about my f e e l i n g s and o t h e r p e r s o n a l t h i n g s . 31 . I am v e r y c o n c e r n e d w i t h how peop le r e a c t t o me. 32. I have a h a r d t ime f o r g i v i n g m y s e l f when I f e e l I h a v e n ' t worked up to .my p o t e n t i a l . 33. I get v e r y u n c o m f o r t a b l e when I 'm n o t s u r e w h e t h e r . o r not someone l i k e s me. 34. When making a b i g d e c i s i o n , I u s u a l l y f e e l t h a t a d v i c e from o t h e r s i s i n t r u s i v e . 35. I t i s h a r d f o r me t o say " n o " to o t h e r p e o p l e ' s r e q u e s t s . 36 . I r e s e n t i t when p e o p l e t r y to d i r e c t my b e h a v i o r o r a c t i v i t i e s . 37 . I become u p s e t when something happens to me and t h e r e ' s nobody around to t a l k t o . 38 . P e r s o n a l q u e s t i o n s f rom o t h e r s u s u a l l y f e e l l i k e a n i n v a s i o n o f my p r i v a c y . 39 . I am most c o m f o r t a b l e when I know my b e h a v i o r i s what o t h e r s e x p e c t o f me. 40 . I am v e r y upse t when o t h e r peop le o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t e r f e r e w i t h my p l a n s . 4 1 . I o f t e n l e t p e o p l e t a k e advantage o f me. 89 S t r o n g l y S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Strong D i s a g r e e D i sagree D i s a g r e e Agree Agree Agree 42. I r a r e l y t r u s t the a d v i c e 1 2 3 4 5 6 o f o t h e r s when making a b i g d e c i s i o n . 43 . I become v e r y upset when a 1 2 3 4 5 6 f r i e n d breaks a date o r f o r g e t s to c a l l me as p l a n n e d . 44. I become upset more than most 1 2 3 4 5 6 p e o p l e I know when l i m i t s a r e p l a c e d on my p e r s o n a l independence and freedom. 45. I j u d g e m y s e l f based on how 1 2 3 4 5 6 I t h i n k o t h e r s f e e l about me. 46 . I become upse t when o t h e r s 1 2 3 4 5 6 t r y t o i n f l u e n c e my t h i n k i n g on a p r o b l e m . 47 . I t i s h a r d f o r me to l e t 1 2 3 4 5 6 p e o p l e know when I am angry w i t h them. 48. I f e e l c o n t r o l l e d when o t h e r s 1 2 3 4 5 6 h a v e a say i n my p l a n s . 90 Append ix E Percept ions of Part ic ipants Self-or ientat ion items (All i tems rated on 1 [not at all] - 7 [very much] Likert sca le) My partner s e e m e d to have their own objectives in this task. My partner was more concerned about their own goa ls rather than mine in this task. My partner didn't s e e m to respond to my suggest ions. I felt that my partner didn't want to take any direction from me. M y partner wasn' t very sensi t ive to my efforts. I found my partner irritating and hard to get a long with. My partner wanted to get through this task quickly. My partner s e e m e d somewhat brusque or abrupt. My partner negated my suggest ions. My partner wanted to make their own dec is ions. Interpersonal deference descr iptors (All i tems rated on 1 [not at all] - 7 [very much] Likert scale) M y partner needed help and encouragement . I felt that my partner was trying hard to get a long with me. My partner wanted reassurance from me. My partner looked to me for accep tance of their suggest ions. My partner did not assert their pre ferences but deferred to mine. My partner didn't s e e m to want to take the initiative. M y partner wanted me to like them. My partner w a s concerned about how I wou ld evaluate them. My partner took pa ins to be agreeab le . My partner greeted my suggest ions with p leasure and approval . My partner really appreciated my help. Appendix F Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variables Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables Entire Sample Depressed Controls (N=82) (n=41) (n=41) Variables DFI 3.58(1.19) 2.97(1.11) 4.19 (.94) Interpersonal Deference 41.94(9.60) ' 41.71 (11.00) 42.17(8.11) Self-Orientation 32.01 (9.19) 35.78(9.12) 28.24(7.65) Positive Behaviour Index 16.42(5.08) 13.89(3.98) 18.95(4.83) Note. DFI=Desire for future interactions. Means are followed by standard deviations in brackets. 9 3 Intercorrelations of Dependent Measures Variables DFI Interpersonal • Self- Positive Deference Orientation Behaviour Index DFI Interpersonal .08 — Deference Self-Orientation -.72** -.39** Positive Behaviour-Index .71** .04 -.63' Note. ** p. <.001. DFI=Desire for future interactions 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items