Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The temporal stability of social responses to depressed and nondepressed individuals Joffe, Risha D. 1986

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 J63.pdf [ 3.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097054.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097054-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097054-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097054-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097054-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097054-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097054-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097054-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097054.ris

Full Text

THE TEMPORAL STABILITY OF SOCIAL RESPONSES TO DEPRESSED AND NONDEPRESSED INDIVIDUALS by RISHA D. JOFFE B.Sc. (Honours), The University of Calgary, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FEBRUARY, 1986 © Risha D. Joffe, 1986 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the findings of previous research addressing Coyne's (1976a) interactional model of depression. The nature and temporal s t a b i l i t y of the socia l responses e l i c i t e d by mildly depressed and nondepressed individuals were examined. One hundred and t h i r t y - f i v e female undergraduate volunteers were assigned, on the basis of Beck Depression Inventory scores to groups of depressed and nondepressed targets and nondepressed subjects. At Time 1, mildly depressed targets and nondepressed targets were randomly paired with individuals from the subject group. Measures of pre-interaction mood were taken, and each target-subject dyad carried out a 5-minute videotaped "getting acquainted" conversation. Following the conversation, the subject in each dyad completed questionnaires assessing self-reported reactions to her target partner. Approximately 3 weeks l a t e r , targets returned for a second ( i . e . , Time 2) interaction. Depression levels were reassessed at t h i s time and targets were divided into three groups: those who were depressed at Time 1 and remained depressed at Time 2 (n = 15), those who were nondepressed at Time 1 and remained nondepressed at Time 2 (n = 15), and those who were depressed at one time and nondepressed at the other time (n = 15). On this second occasion, targets were paired with new randomly assigned subjects; the procedures followed were i d e n t i c a l to those at Time 1. Within- and between-times analyses were carried out on subjects' verbal and nonverbal conversational responses, as well as on their post-interaction self-reports of emotional and cognitive responses to their partners. Results were not supportive of Coyne's inter a c t i o n a l model of depression and did not replicate the results of previous investigations. There were only minor differences i n subjects' i i responses to groups of depressed and nondepressed targets at Time 1 and across the two testing occasions. Depressed individuals were not responded to i n a more negative fashion than were nondepressed individuals i n terms of observed verbal and nonverbal behaviors or self-reported reactions. Results of t h i s investigation lead to the conclusion that s o c i a l responses to mildly depressed and nondepressed target groups are es s e n t i a l l y the same, and that these responses do not change over a 3-week i n t e r v a l , even though the moods of target individuals may change. The v a l i d i t y of laboratory investigations as tests of Coyne's interactional model i s questioned, and a "developing relationships" approach to assessing interactional patterns of depressed and nondepressed individuals i s proposed. i i i Table of Contents Page T i t l e Page i Abstract i i Table of Contents iv L i s t of Tables V L i s t of Figures v i L i s t of Appendices v i i Acknowledgements v i i i Introduction 1 Method 15 Results 22 Discussion 38 References 53 Appendix A 56 Appendix B 58 Appendix C 61 Appendix D 63 Appendix E 68 Appendix F 71 L i s t of Tables Number Description Page 1. Status of targets at Time 1 and Time 2 13 2. Means and standard deviations for BDI scores 24 of target and subject groups at Time 1 and Time 2 3. R e l i a b i l i t y coefficients of observational data 25 from 14 interactions 4. Means and standard deviations of MAACL change 27 scores on the 3 MAACL subscales for subjects interacting with depressed and nondepressed target individuals at Time 1 5. Pre- and post-interaction means and standard 31 deviations on MAACL subscales for Time 1 and Time 2 subjects 6. Means and standard deviations for subject groups 35 on the Mistrusting, Inhibited, and Agreeable subscales of the IMI at Time 1 and Time 2 7. Correlations between BDI scores of targets/subjects 39 and subjects' responses v L i s t of Figures Number Description Page 1. Subject groups' mean pre-interaction scores on 32 the Depression subscale of the MAACL at Time 1 and Time 2 2. Subject groups' mean post-interaction scores on 34 the Depression subscale of the MAACL at Time 1 and Time 2 v i List of Appendices Page Appendix A Consent form 56 Appendix B The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) 58 Appendix C Today form of the Multiple Affect and Adjective 61 Checklist (MAACL) Appendix D The Impact Message Inventory (IMI) 63 Appendix E The Future Interaction Questionnaire 68 Appendix F Bipolar adjective rating scales 71 v i i Acknowledgements I would l i k e to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Keith Dobson, for his generous and consistent guidance, assistance, and support throughout t h i s project. I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Demetrios Papageorgis and Dr. Jerry Wiggins, for their helpful input and congenial approach to serving on my committee. Further, I would l i k e to acknowledge the following: Elaine Conway, Vivien Escott, Jackie DiGeso, and Cindy Lopatka for data coding; E l s i e Cheung for as s i s t i n g with data analyses; and Elizabeth McCririck for typing t h i s thesis. V'IYI INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of studying interpersonal factors i n depression. Coyne (1976a, 1976b) proposed an interactional model of depression i n which the responses of others to the depressed individual are viewed as playing a c r i t i c a l role i n the maintenance and exacerbation of depressive behavior. According to Coyne, depression occurs i n response to s o c i a l stresses involving a "disruption of the s o c i a l space i n which the person obtains support and validation for his experience" (Coyne, 1976a, p. 33). Following such a disruption, the indi v i d u a l begins to display depressive behavior i n an attempt to e l i c i t needed support and reassurance. Although i n i t i a l communications of the depressed individual tend to e l i c i t supportive responses, persistent expressions of symptoms become increasingly aversive to others, and over time may evoke ind i r e c t h o s t i l i t y and non-genuine expressions of support. The depressed individual senses t h i s rejection and displays more symptoms i n e f f o r t s to draw forth supportive feedback from others. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , these e f f o r t s result in increasingly negative reactions and greater rejection from the s o c i a l environment. Consequently, additional depressive symptomatology i s displayed by the depressed i n d i v i d u a l . Thus, according to Coyne, an indi v i d u a l need only begin to display depressive behavior i n order to i n i t i a t e a downward depressive s p i r a l , described as a "mutually causative, deviation amplifying process i n the interaction of the depressed person with his environment" (Coyne, 1976a, p. 29). Once th i s process has begun, i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to abort. The self-perpetuating interactional system s l i p s beyond the control of the participants, ultimately resulting i n others either withdrawing from the depressed i n d i v i d u a l , or having him withdrawn through hos p i t a l i z a t i o n (Coyne, 1976a). 1 2 Coyne (1976b) conducted a study providing some i n i t i a l support for his proposed relationship between depression and the responses of others. In t h i s investigation, normal female undergraduate students participated i n 20 minute telephone conversations with either depressed or nondepressed psychiatric patient or normal control targets. As predicted, depressed targets e l i c i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more negative mood and rejection i n their partners than did nondepressed controls. However, observer rated measures of subjects' conversational behavior ( i . e . , a c t i v i t y l e v e l , approval responses, hope statements, and genuineness) did not distinguish between responses to depressed and nondepressed targets. Using these same measures, no s p e c i f i c conversational behaviors emitted by depressed targets were i d e n t i f i e d which could account for the negative mood induction and rejection these individuals e l i c i t e d . Thus, on the basis of these re s u l t s , Coyne concluded that negative mood induction i s the c r i t i c a l mediator i n the rejection of depressed individuals. He was unable, though, to draw any conclusions regarding differences i n the behavior of depressed and nondepressed individuals which could account for the d i f f e r e n t i a l mood induction and rejection of depressed individuals. Coyne proposed that the c r i t i c a l difference i n depressed and nondepressed in d i v i d u a l s ' behavior might be elucidated by a careful assessment of the verbal content of the i r responses. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , he suggested that the c r i t i c a l factors may be depressed individuals' tendency toward excessive self-disclosure and/or focusing on inherently depressing topics. There have been a number of more recent investigations empirically testing various aspects of Coyne's interactional model. These studies have involved attempts to replicate and extend Coyne's (1976b) findings of negative s o c i a l responses to depressed in d i v i d u a l s . Within t h i s general framework, the focus has been on two related problems. F i r s t , researchers have attempted to verify 3 Coyne's proposed mediating role of mood induction i n the negative s o c i a l responses to depressed individuals. Second, attempts have been made to iden t i f y the s p e c i f i c behaviors of these individuals which are responsible for e l i c i t i n g negative s o c i a l responses. Hammen and Peters (1978) used an innovative procedure to investigate s o c i a l responses to depression and to determine i f verbal content of depressed individuals' behavior i s the c r i t i c a l factor i n their e l i c i t a t i o n of negative responses. In their study, dyads consisting of same and opposite sex college students carried out brief 5 minute interactions over an intercom system. In each dyad, one subject was assigned the role of interviewer and was given a spe c i f i c l i s t of questions to ask his/her partner. The other subject was instructed to enact either a depressed or nondepressed r o l e . Content of the actors' responses was s t r i c t l y controlled. Depressed and nondepressed actors revealed i d e n t i c a l personal problems i n i d e n t i c a l sequence; the i r roles differed only i n terms of the presence or absence of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y depressed affect and attitudes. Consistent with Coyne's findings, depressed actors, r e l a t i v e to nondepressed actors, were more strongly rejected and e l i c i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more depression i n thei r partners. Thus, Hammen and Peters' results suggest that content variables (e.g., excessive self-disclosure and choice of depressing topics, as suggested by Coyne, 1976b) need not be viewed as c r i t i c a l for depressed in d i v i d u a l s ' e l i c i t a t i o n of negative s o c i a l responses. Winer, Bonner, Blaney, and Murray (1981) controlled content variables i n order to assess the s o c i a l impact of depressive behavior. I n i t i a l l y , undergraduate subjects read one of six transcripts simulating an encounter with another volunteer student. Four of the transcripts depicted different types of depressed personalities describing i d e n t i c a l series of adverse 4 events. The f i r s t displayed only the most common features of depression ( i . e . , sadness, low self-esteem, hopelessness, and fatigue). Each of the remaining three depressed personalities displayed these basic features plus one other type of symptom ( i . e . , g u i l t , anger, or dependence). Additionally, there were two control transcripts—one simulating a nondepressed personality describing the same series of adverse events, and the other simulating a nondepressed personality describing a series of positive events. Subjects completed measures of mood and acceptance/rejection after each of two imagined interactions with their given target. Following the i n i t i a l encounter, results were i n the direction of greater mood induction and rejection e l i c i t e d by depressed target groups; a l l four of the depressed target groups had s i m i l a r l y elevated scores. Following the second encounter, the four depressed groups were cle a r l y d i fferentiated from the two control groups on both induced mood and rejection. On the basis of these r e s u l t s , Winer et a l . (1981) concluded that the basic features of depression, and not reports of adverse events or associated anger, g u i l t , or dependence, were c r i t i c a l for e l i c i t i n g negative responses from others. Further, consistent with the i n t e r a c t i o n a l model (Coyne, 1976a), the continued expression of depressive symptoms i n a repeat encounter resulted i n a more negative rejecting response from others. Howes and Hokanson (1979) conducted an investigation to i s o l a t e subjects' responses to depressive interpersonal behavior per se from responses due to general d e f i c i t s i n functioning. Undergraduate subjects interacted with a same sex confederate for seven minutes under the pretense of waiting for an experiment to begin. Subjects interacted with confederates enacting one of three d i f f e r e n t roles—depressed (depressed interpersonal behavior, reports of serious d e f i c i t s i n functioning), physically i l l (normal interpersonal 5 behavior, reports of serious d e f i c i t s i n functioning due to i l l n e s s ) , and normal (normal interpersonal behavior, reports of few d e f i c i t s in functioning). No induced mood differences were found between groups. Nevertheless, depressed confederates were more rejected, and were described i n more negative terms and as having greater interpersonal impact than were confederates of the other two types. As w e l l , group differences were noted i n observer ratings of subjects' conversational behavior. Subjects interacting with depressed confederates responded with a higher rate of silences and d i r e c t l y negative comments, and a lower rate of overall verbal responding. The number of expressions of direct support made toward depressed confederates was equal to the number directed toward physically i l l confederates, but greater than that directed toward normal confederates. Howes and Hokanson present these results as supportive of a general negative s o c i a l response to depressive interpersonal behavior. On the basis of their findings of no d i f f e r e n t i a l mood induction, they challenged Coyne's (1976b) conclusion regarding the mediating effect of negative mood induction i n s o c i a l responding to depressed individuals. Instead, they propose a more "cognitive mediational process" whereby others' responses are mediated by i n i t i a l negative perceptions and assessments of the depressed i n d i v i d u a l . Gotlib and Robinson (1982) examined s o c i a l responses to depressive behavior i n a college student sample of mildly depressed and nondepressed females. Following 15 minute face-to-face interactions, subjects who interacted with depressed or nondepressed targets did not d i f f e r on either self-reported mood or acceptance/rejection of their partner. Group differences were apparent, however, on observer ratings of a number of verbal and nonverbal conversational behaviors. Subjects who interacted with depressed targets smiled less often, displayed less arousal and pleasantness 6 i n their f a c i a l expressions, talked about less positive and more negative topics, and made fewer statements of direct support to their partners. Subsequent analyses revealed differences i n the verbal and nonverbal behavior of depressed and nondepressed target individuals. Depressed targets talked about more negative content and offered fewer statements of direct support to their partners than did nondepressed targets. As w e l l , r e l a t i v e to nondepressed targets, depressed targets smiled less often, appeared less pleasant and aroused, used a greater number of "adaptors" (Ekman & Friesen, 1974), and had more monotonous speech. Thus, i n their examination of the effects of direct face-to-face interactions with mildly depressed individuals, Gotlib and Robinson supported the hypothesis that depressed individuals e l i c i t q u a l i t a t i v e l y different conversational responses from others than do nondepressed individuals. As w e l l , they i d e n t i f i e d potentially important differences i n the conversational behaviors of depressed and nondepressed individuals. A number of the observed subject and target group differences were evident i n the f i r s t 3 minutes of the interactions. However, on self-report measures, subjects who had conversed with depressed individuals did not report greater mood induction or rejection of their partner than did those paired with nondepressed individuals. I t i s possible that procedural variables ( i . e . , r e l a t i v e l y lengthy face-to-face contact) could have attenuated subjects' o v e r a l l post-interaction negative reactions to depressed individuals. That i s , i t may be less dissonance-arousing to reject one's partner i f the time spent together has been very b r i e f , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f no direct contact has been involved (e.g., Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Hammen & Peters, 1978). Strack and Coyne (1983) conducted an investigation of s o c i a l responses to mildly depressed and nondepressed female university students using procedures 7 very similar to those of Gotlib and Robinson. In t h i s case, however, both mood and rejection effects were found. Following 15 minute interactions, subjects paired with depressed targets were more anxious, depressed, and ho s t i l e than were those subjects paired with nondepresed targets. Further, the depressed targets were rejected by their partners. Contrary to Strack and Coyne's hypothesis, subjects who were led to believe that their responses would be made known to their target partners were no less l i k e l y to provide negative rejecting responses than were subjects who believed their responses to be c o n f i d e n t i a l . No assessment of subjects' or targets verbal and nonverbal behavior was conducted. In the most recent study, and only direct r e p l i c a t i o n of Coyne's (1976a) procedure, King and Heller (1984) found no differences in subjects' responses to depressed and nondepressed target groups i n terms of either induced mood or s o c i a l rejection e f f e c t s . Subjects did, however, perceive the depressed target groups as being sadder and having more problems than the nondepressed target groups. I t should be noted that, unlike i n Coyne's o r i g i n a l study, King and Heller used only subjects' self-reports to assess acceptance/ rejection of targets. No attempt was made to assess verbal and nonverbal behavior of subjects or targets. Thus, with the exception of King and Heller's recent study, results of the preceding investigations of s o c i a l responses to depression are generally supportive of Coyne's (1976a, 1976b) hypothesized negative s o c i a l response to depressed i n d i v i d u a l s . The robustness of these findings i s , however, somewhat questionable, and the processes through which these responses are e l i c i t e d remain i n s u f f i c i e n t l y understood. According to Coyne (1976b), negative mood induction i s the c r i t i c a l mediator i n the rejection of depressed individuals. While the notion of mood induction as a mediator of s o c i a l response does make 8 i n t u i t i v e sense, i t s v a l i d i t y i s questionable. F i r s t , investigations to date have not consistently reported the occurrence of induced mood eff e c t s , or even the necessity of these effects for the rejection of depressed individuals. Of more serious consequence, i n a l l these investigations, mood induction effects were assessed simply by having subjects complete a post-assessment mood inventory. I f subjects paired with depressed targets reported a more negative mood state than did subjects paired with nondepressed targets, mood induction was said to have occurred. Unfortunately, with t h i s post-test only design, one cannot rule out the p o s s i b i l i t y that the reported "induced" mood effects are i n a c t u a l i t y simply r e f l e c t i v e of i n i t i a l group differences i n mood. An adequate test of the mood induction hypothesis would require pre- and post-interaction assessments of the subjects' mood. Further, although there i s general agreement that i t i s the interpersonal behavior of depressed individuals which e l i c i t s negative s o c i a l responses, the sp e c i f i c variables responsible remain elusive. Coyne's (1976a) model implies that the c r i t i c a l differences i n the behavior of depressed and nondepressed individuals should be easily i d e n t i f i a b l e , but t h i s was not the case i n his early study (Coyne, 1976b). Although depressed individuals were rejected by others, Coyne was unable to distinguish between depressed and nondepressed individuals on any of the measures of conversational behavior. Youngren and Lewinsohn (1980) were equally unsuccessful i n their attempts to id e n t i f y problematic interpersonal behavior uniquely associated with depression. Although they found that observers rated depressed individuals more negatively than others on global measures of interpersonal s t y l e , they could not i d e n t i f y any s p e c i f i c depression-related d e f i c i t s on any of their measures of verbal and nonverbal behavior. More recently, Gotlib and Robinson (1982) were able to i d e n t i f y differences i n the verbal and nonverbal conversational behavior of 9 depressed individuals r e l a t i v e to nondepressed individuals. However, they were unable to specify which, i f any, of these behaviors were responsible for negative s o c i a l responses ( i . e . , verbal and nonverbal conversational responses). At present, i t i s unclear whether the negative s o c i a l responses to depressed individuals are e l i c i t e d by depressive symptomatology, as suggested by Coyne (1976a), or whether they occur i n response to more stable, enduring characteristics of depressed in d i v i d u a l s . Lewinsohn's Behavioral Theory of Depression (1974) implicates r e l a t i v e l y stable s o c i a l s k i l l s d e f i c i t s as a major reason for an i n d i v i d u a l receiving a low rate of positive reinforcement and/or a high rate of aversive experience i n s o c i a l interactions. Further, such unrewarding/punishing interactions are viewed as c r i t i c a l antecedents to depression. In a number of investigations, Lewinsohn and his colleagues (e.g., Libet & Lewinsohn, 1973; Lewinsohn & Shaffer, 1971; Lewinsohn, Weinstein, & Alper, 1970) have found depressed individuals as a group to be less s o c i a l l y s k i l l f u l than nondepressed individuals on a variety of measures. Unfortunately, the nature of these investigations has not permitted an adequate assessment of the s t a b i l i t y , or causal rol e , of s o c i a l s k i l l s d e f i c i t s i n depression. I t i s possible that the obtained s o c i a l s k i l l s d e f i c i t s are stable, perhaps preceding depressive episodes and even predisposing an individual to depression. However, i t i s equally possible that these d e f i c i t s arise as secondary symptoms of a depressive episode and dissipate with c l i n i c a l improvement. In recent writings, Lewinsohn intimates that the l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y i s l i k e l y the case (Lewinsohn & Arconad, 1981). Further, Coyne (1976a) points out that while depressed individuals may i n fact lack s o c i a l s k i l l s r e l a t i v e to nondepressed individuals, many of the observed d e f i c i t s i n the behavior of depressed individuals (e.g., narrow interpersonal 10 range, few interpersonal behaviors emitted) may simply be due to the fact that fewer people are w i l l i n g to interact with these in d i v i d u a l s . Longitudinal studies addressing the relationship between interpersonal behavior and depression are required i n order to d i r e c t l y assess these p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Gotlib and Beatty (1983) provide preliminary support for the operation of a r e l a t i v e l y stable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c — d e p r e s s i v e a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e — i n the e l i c i t a t i o n of negative rejecting s o c i a l responses. Depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l style refers to an explanatory style i n which negative outcomes are attributed to, or explained by, i n t e r n a l , stable, and global causes. Gotlib and Beatty investigated reactions to hypothetical depressed and nondepressed targets who either did, or did not, display a depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . Results indicated that the addition of a depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l style did not affect the negative reactions already e l i c i t e d by overtly symptomatic depressed targets. However, the presence of a depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l style i n normal individuals resulted i n the e l i c i t a t i o n of more negative s o c i a l responses. Gotlib and Beatty reasoned that since t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c played a role i n e l i c i t i n g negative s o c i a l responses to nondepressed ind i v i d u a l s , i t should, according to an i n t e r a c t i o n a l formulation, predispose such individuals to depression. Thus, they suggest that Coyne's (1976a) in t e r a c t i o n a l model be extended from exclusively a depression maintenance/enhancement model to one which can also account for the etiology of the disorder. This i s an interesting idea which i s c l e a r l y i n need of further investigation. Gotlib and Beatty's conclusions were based solely on subjects' reactions to an isolated imagined encounter with a hypothetical target i n d i v i d u a l . Thus, although they implicate depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e as a determinant of s o c i a l responses, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding either the s t a b i l i t y of the a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e displayed by an i n d i v i d u a l , or the s t a b i l i t y of the 11 s o c i a l reactions e l i c i t e d by such a s t y l e . Furthermore, while displays of a depressive a t t r i b u t i o n a l style may i n fact lead to negative s o c i a l reactions, i t has not been determined i f this does, as Coyne's model would suggest, lead to depression. Again, longitudinal studies are required. C l a r i f i c a t i o n of the s t a b i l i t y of s o c i a l responses to depressed individuals carries important implications for our understanding of the characteristics/behaviors of depressed individuals which are responsible for e l i c i t i n g negative responses from others, and more generally for Coyne's (1976a, 1976b) interactional model of depression. I f individuals are found to receive negative rejecting s o c i a l responses when i n a depressed state, and more positive accepting responses when i n a nondepressed state, i t would appear that some nonstable behavior i s responsible for e l i c i t i n g negative responses from others. This would be consistent with Coyne's (1976a) proposal that the depressive symptomatology i s the e l i c i t i n g behavior. However, such findings would present other troublesome implications for Coyne's int e r a c t i o n a l model. I f the depressive episodes are found to be time-limited, and the e l i c i t a t i o n of negative soc i a l responses i s found to be r e s t r i c t e d to periods of depression, i t would then seem that i n i t i a l displays of depressed behavior and the resulting negative responses of others are less l i k e l y to lead toward the impenetrable downward depressive s p i r a l that Coyne would have us believe. In contrast, i f individuals are found to e l i c i t negative rejecting s o c i a l responses when i n a depressed state as well as when i n a nondepressed state, Coyne's (1976a) statement that depressive symptomatology, per se, i s primarily responsible for e l i c i t i n g the negative responses would appear to be inaccurate. Instead, such results would suggest that the negative responses are e l i c i t e d by an enduring characteristic of the individual—one that i s not 12 influenced by depressed or nondepressed status. In terms of Coyne's inter a c t i o n a l model, i t would be d i f f i c u l t on the basis of such a finding to assess the causal role of the responses of others i n the development of depression. The demonstration of individuals i n a nondepressed state e l i c i t i n g negative s o c i a l responses without the resultant depressive s p i r a l would seem to c a l l into question the causal role of responses of others i n depression. Nevertheless, one cannot rule out the p o s s i b i l i t y that even i f an ind i v i d u a l i s not f a l l i n g prey to the depressive s p i r a l at the time of the assessment, his/her problematic interpersonal behavior i s acting as a vu l n e r a b i l i t y factor to depression. Prospective studies would be required i n order to adequately assess t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the nature and temporal s t a b i l i t y of the s o c i a l responses e l i c i t e d by depressed and nondepressed individuals. At Time 1, two groups of targets (mildly depressed and nondepressed university students) interacted i n dyads with nondepressed subjects (university students). At Time 2 (3 weeks l a t e r ) the same targets again carried out dyadic interactions with new, randomly assigned nondepressed subjects. Depression levels of targets were reassessed at t h i s time. Some of the targets were depressed at Time 1 and remained depressed at Time 2 (D-D targets). Others were nondepressed at both Time 1 and Time 2 (Nd-Nd targets). F i n a l l y , others were depressed on one occasion and not on the other occasion (D-Nd targets). For the purpose of data analyses, reactions e l i c i t e d by D-Nd targets when they were i n a depressed state were treated as Time 1 reactions, and the reactions they e l i c i t e d when i n a nondepressed state were treated as Time 2 reactions. Fifteen targets were included i n each group (see Table 1). Thus, this study included a modified r e p l i c a t i o n of Gotlib and Robinson's (1982) procedure comparing s o c i a l responses to depressed and Table 1 Status of Targets at Time 1 and Time 2 Abbreviation 3 Time 1 Time 2 D-D Depressed Depressed Nd-Nd Nondepressed Nondepressed D-Nd Depressed Nondepressed a_n = 15 for each group 14 nondepressed targets, although in the present study interactions were of a shorter duration. Further, this study served as an attempt to clarify whether the negative responses elicited by depressed individuals (a) occur only when these individuals are in a depressed state, and therefore are likely elicited by depressive symptomatology, or (b) are stable—occurring regardless of depressed or nondepressed status, and therefore are likely elicited by a more stable characteristic/behavior of these individuals. Since the present study does not include a predepression assessment of reactions to the majority of depressed targets, a finding of negative responses to D-Nd targets in both their Time 1 and Time 2 interactions would not be interpretable with certainty. Stable negative responses would likely reflect a reaction to some stable characteristic(s) that preceded the depressive episode. Alternatively, they could occur in response to some enduring characteristic/behavior that arose with, or because of, the depressive episode. This latter possibility would seem to be more plausible in the case of individuals who have gone through a major depressive episode than in the case of university students who have temporarily experienced mild depression. On the basis of Coyne's interactional model and related research, the following hypotheses were formulated. It was predicted that at Time 1, subjects interacting with depressed targets would respond more negatively than subjects interacting with nondepressed targets. Specifically, relative to subjects paired with nondepressed targets, subjects interacting with depressed targets were expected to display more negative and less positive verbal and nonverbal behavior, be more rejecting of their partners, and describe their partners in more negative terms and as having a greater interpersonal impact. As well, subjects interacting with depressed targets were expected to report a shift towards a more depressed, anxious, and hostile mood following the 15 interaction (as measured by pre-post interaction differences). No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were expected between the responses e l i c i t e d by D-D and D-Nd targets at Time 1. Predictions for the follow-up phase of the study were i n keeping with Coyne's (1976a) suggestion that negative s o c i a l responses are e l i c i t e d by depressive symptomatology. F i r s t , i t was predicted that at Time 2, D-D targets would e l i c i t more negative reactions than either D-Nd or Nd-Nd targets. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were expected i n subjects' responses to the D-Nd and Nd-Nd target groups at Time 2 on any of the behavioral or self-report measures. Thus, when i n a depression-free state, the D-Nd target group was expected to e l i c i t responses equally positive and accepting as those e l i c i t e d by the nondepressed target group. Further, i t was hypothesized that subjects' responses to D-D targets, and to Nd-Nd targets would not change s i g n i f i c a n t l y from Time 1 to Time 2. In contrast, i t was predicted that at Time 2, subjects' responses to the D-Nd targets would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y less negative/rejecting on a l l measures than were subjects' responses to these targets at Time 1. METHOD Subjects The sample consisted of 135 female undergraduate students at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The experimenter entered undergraduate psychology classes and b r i e f l y explained the nature of the experimental task and time commitment required. Interested students were asked to sign a consent form (see Appendix A) and to complete the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelsohn, Mock, & Erlbaugh, 1961; see Appendix B). Further p a r t i c i p a t i o n was arranged through telephone contact. Students were assigned to depressed and nondepressed experimental groups 16 on the basis of BDI scores. Groups were as follows: (1) Depressed t a r g e t s — t h i s group consisted of 30 female undergraduates who evidenced at least a mild l e v e l of depression as defined by a score of 10 or greater on the BDI. One hundred and five nondepressed ind i v i d u a l s , defined as receiving a score of 8 or less on the BDI, were randomly assigned to one of the following groups. (2) Nondepressed t a r g e t s — t h i s group consisted of 15 nondepressed female undergraduates. (3) Nondepressed s u b j e c t s — t h i s group consisted of 90 nondepressed female undergraduates. On a random basis, 45 subjects i n t h i s group were selected and assigned to partake i n dyadic interactions with depressed or nondepressed target individuals at Time 1. The remaining 45 nondepressed subjects took part i n dyadic interactions with depressed or nondepressed target individuals at Time 2. Precautions were taken to ensure that the target and subject i n each dyad did not know each other prior to participation i n the study. Apparatus Dyads interacted i n a room equipped with a coffee table, and 2 chairs approximately 3 feet apart and angled at 90 degrees from each other. Interactions were videotaped. Recording equipment consisted of a Hitachi video color camera (model VK-C830), a Hitachi Solid State video recorder (model VT-11AR), and a Sony color TV monitor used to view the records of the interactions. Measures Identical measures were used at Time 1 and Time 2. Measures of depression le v e l and pre-interaction mood were administered to subjects and targets prior to the interaction. Following the in t e r a c t i o n , measures of mood were again administered to subjects and targets. Subjects were also asked to complete post-interaction measures of the s o c i a l impact of the interaction and 17 acceptance/rejection of the target. Videotapes of interactions were rated by trained observers for verbal and nonverbal behaviors of the subjects. As w e l l , observers completed bipolar adjective ratings of subjects' mood, anxiety l e v e l , s o c i a l s k i l l , and f r i e n d l i n e s s . Depression l e v e l . The self-report Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck et a l . , 1961; Appendix B) was used to assess the number and severity of depressive symptoms. The respondent was instructed to complete the inventory in terms of how she had been fee l i n g over the preceding week. For each question, she was to choose among several response options graded i n terms of the severity of the symptom described. Psychometric properties of the BDI are generally very good. Beck (1972) reports high in t e r n a l consistency (Spearman-Brown corrected s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y = .93; Kruskal-Wallis item-total correlations = .31 to .68). The BDI correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with other self-report measures of depression (including the MMPI-D scale, Zung's Self-Rating Depression Scale, and Lubin's Depression Adjective Check L i s t ) , with c l i n i c i a n rating scales, and with a behavioral observation scale (see Rehm, 1976, 1981). Furthermore, the BDI i s sensitive to symptom change (Rehm, 1981). Mood. The 132 item Today form of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check L i s t (MAACL; Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965; Appendix C) was used to assess mood. Scores on the MAACL's three subscales—Depression, Anxiety, and H o s t i l i t y — w e r e examined separately. This checklist has been used i n a number of studies to assess the effects on mood of interacting with depressed and nondepressed targets (e.g., Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Coyne, 1976). The MAACL-Today form has been normed on college student and psychiatric samples. Internal r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are s i g n i f i c a n t and high (r = .79, .92, and .90 (n. = 46) for anxiety, depression, and h o s t i l i t y , respectively). 18 As would be expected for a scale measuring day-to-day fluctuations i n mood, test-retest correlations for psychiatric patients are high and s i g n i f i c a n t , while those for normal college students are low and nonsignificant. MAACL subscale scores are highly correlated with related self-report measures and with observer ratings. Subscale scores have been demonstrated to be sensitive to a variety of manipulations—including threat of examination, perceptual i s o l a t i o n , and psychoactive drugs. Significant changes i n subscale scores of college students over periods as brief as 20 minutes have been demonstrated i n response to f i l m and picture presentations (see Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965 for review). Social Impact Variables The Impact Message Inventory-Form I I (IMI; K i e s l e r , Anchin, Perkins, Chirico, Kyle, & Federman, 1975, 1976; Appendix D) was administered to subjects following the interaction to assess the a f f e c t i v e and cognitive impact of targets on subjects during dyadic interactions. This 90 item inventory was derived from Kiesler's communication theory of psychotherapy (Kiesler, Bernstein, & Anchin, 1977) and Lorr and McNair's (1967) Interpersonal Behavior Inventory. Scores are provided on 15 subscales that r e f l e c t 15 d i s t i n c t interpersonal styles (Dominant, Competitive, Hostile, M i s t r u s t f u l , Detached, Inhibited, Submissive, Succordant, Abasive, Deferent, Agreeable, Nurturant, A f f i l i a t i v e , Sociable, E x h i b i t i o n i s t i c ) . The 15 subscales have been shown to have a high le v e l of i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y (mean c o e f f i c i e n t s range from .80 - .99). Each subscale i s composed of s i x items describing possible reactions to another individual (e.g., "when I am with t h i s person she makes me f e e l I should be cautious about what I say or do around her"), and subjects indicate how well the statement represents the i r reaction by responding on a scale of 1 (not at a l l ) 19 to 4 (very much so). The score on each subscale i s the mean of the responses on the six subscale items. A score indicating an individual's o v e r a l l degree of interpersonal impact i s derived by averaging together the 15 subscale scores. Acceptance/rejection of target. The Future Interaction Questionnaire (Appendix E), developed by Winer, Bonner, Blaney, and Murray (1981), was used to assess subjects' willingness to engage i n future interactions with targets. The questionnaire consists of 13 items (e.g., "Would you be w i l l i n g to work on a job with t h i s person?" "Would you l i k e to s i t next to t h i s person on a 3-hour bus t r i p ? " ) to be answered on a 9-point scale ranging from " d e f i n i t e l y not/not at a l l " to " d e f i n i t e l y yes/very much". Items were taken from similar measures used by Coyne (1976a), Youngren and Lewinsohn (1980), and Gotlib and Robinson (1982). In previous research, t h i s questionnaire has been shown to be highly i n t e r n a l l y consistent (<^ . = .96; Gotlib & Beatty, 1983). Videotape Ratings Ratings of behavior and mood were completed by two coders blind to: hypotheses of the study, group membership, and time of testing. In order to assess interrater r e l i a b i l i t y , a randomly selected set of 14 interactions (15.56% of the t o t a l ) were rated by both coders. Verbal behaviors of subjects were assessed using a system developed by Howes and Hokanson (1979) and used by Gotlib and Robinson (1982). Video recordings of the interaction between subject and target were divided into units; each unit consisting of a single response ( i . e . , sentence or equivalent) on the part of the subject. Responses were categorized on the basis of content. Categories consist of: 1. Direct support - reassuring, sympathetic or empathetic remarks or any positive appraisal of the target i n d i v i d u a l or her attributes. 20 2. Conversation maintenance, positive content - favourable descriptions other than of the target i n d i v i d u a l , assessment or prediction concerning s e l f , hometown, weather, etc. 3. Conversation maintenance, neutral content - responses that have no evaluative content. 4. Conversation maintenance, negative content - negative evaluations other than of the target i n d i v i d u a l , descriptions or predictions concerning s e l f , the experiment, school, etc. 5. Direct negative - punishing or i n s u l t i n g remarks or other expressions of displeasure or disapproval d i r e c t l y related to the target i n d i v i d u a l . 6. Silence - no verbal response to a target individual's statement or question ( i . e . , defined by a silence of 5 seconds or greater following target's statement). Mean frequencies of each type of response according to condition ( i . e . , i nteraction with a depressed or nondepressed target at Time 1 and Time 2) were calculated. As w e l l , participants' t o t a l number of verbal responses and s i l e n t responses were t a l l i e d for the purpose of making comparisons across conditions. A number of nonverbal behaviors were assessed using a procedure developed by Youngren and Lewinsohn (1980), and used by Gotlib and Robinson (1982). Using a 10-second i n t e r v a l time-sampling procedure, subjects were assessed for: eye contact - proportion of inte r v a l s spent looking at the face of the target; smiling - mean rating based on a 3-point scale (1 = not smiling, 2 = s l i g h t l y smiling, 3 = smiling f u l l y or laughing); f a c i a l expression (pleasantness and arousal) - mean ratings based on a 7-point scale; and gestures - proportion of intervals using " i l l u s t r a t o r s and adaptors". I l l u s t r a t o r s are defined as any gestures accompanying speech which demonstrate what the i n d i v i d u a l i s verbally expressing. Adaptors are defined as any gestures which are unrelated to the individual's verbalization ( I . G o t l i b , personal communication, November 14, 1984). Immediately following their viewing of an int e r a c t i o n , coders rated the 21 subject on four 7-point bipolar adjective rating scales assessing mood, anxiety level, social s k i l l , and hostility/friendliness (see Appendix F). Procedure In the first phase of the study, the experimenter introduced both members of each dyad and seated them in the interaction room. Both members of the dyad completed the BDI and MAACL to assess level of depression and mood immediately prior to the interaction. Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to investigate the acquaintance process and that they would have five minutes in which to get acqainted. They were advised that their conversation would be videotaped. Participants were given an opportunity to ask questions, and were then left alone to converse for 5 minutes. Following the interaction, subject and target individuals were seated in separate locations in the large room in which the interactions took place. The subject completed the MAACL, the IMI, and the Future Interaction Questionnaire. The subject was then privately debriefed, questions were answered, and she was thanked for participating in the study. The target's questions were answered and she was thanked for her participation; however, debriefing did not take place at this point. Instead, the target was asked to return 3 weeks later to take part in the second phase of the study. Upon returning, her depression level was reassessed using the BDI. Individuals from the depressed target group who remained depressed at Time 2 (i.e., D-D targets) and those whose BDI scores dropped to 8 or below (i.e., D-Nd targets) were asked to partake in a second dyadic interaction with a new partner. Likewise, individuals from the nondepressed target group who remained nondepressed (i.e., Nd-Nd targets) and those who shifted to depressed status (D-Nd targets) completed the second phase of the study. The procedures followed in the second phase of the study were identical to those in the first phase. Following the completion of 22 post-interaction measures, both target and subject were completely debriefed. Any questions concerning the study were answered, and participants were thanked for taking part. Although 135 students (45 targets and 105 subjects were included i n the f i n a l version of t h i s study, an additional 100 students (44 targets and 60 subjects) participated on at least one occasion but were then eliminated from the study because they did not satisfy research design c r i t e r i a . Reasons for eliminating these participants included: targets receiving a BDI score of 9; depressed targets receiving BDI scores suggestive of severe depression—which would have made the depressed target group too d i s s i m i l a r to that i n Gotlib and Robinson's (1982) study to enable reasonable comparisons between the two studies; both members of a dyad receiving scores of 10 or above on the BDI; an excess of dyads i n which the target was depressed—necessitating the random elimination of a number of these dyads. RESULTS I n i t i a l l y , analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to compare BDI scores of target and subject groups, and interrater r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed for the two observers' ratings of the subjects' verbal and nonverbal behaviors i n the 14 videotaped interactions. Three major sets of analyses were then carried out. F i r s t , differences i n reactions to the depressed and nondepressed target groups at Time 1 were assessed using a series of 2 group multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs), followed by ANOVAs. Second, analyses of the s t a b i l i t y of reactions to the 3 target groups over time were conducted using a series of 3(group) by 2(time) MANOVAs, followed by ANOVAs. The .05 l e v e l of significance was used throughout. For the purpose of comparing results with those of previous investigations, even in cases i n which no o v e r a l l multivariate effect was found, the significance/ nonsignificance of following ANOVAs w i l l be reported. F i n a l l y , a set of 23 correlational tests of significance were conducted i n order to examine the relationship between target and subject individuals' levels of depression and the verbal and nonverbal responses they e l i c i t e d . Means and standard deviations of target and subject groups' BDI scores are presented in Table 2. ANOVAs were carried out i n order to compare BDI scores of the depressed and nondepressed target groups, as well as to compare the BDI scores of the nondepressed subject groups within and across times. The ANOVA on target groups' BDI scores revealed s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n BDI scores across groups, F(2, 84) = 133.52, £ < .01; and across times, F ( l , 84) = 23.36, 2_ < .001. Further, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t group by time i n t e r a c t i o n , F_(2, 84) = 15.92, _p_ < .001. This interaction can be accounted for by the sig n i f i c a n t drop i n BDI scores of individuals i n the D-Nd target group. The ANOVA on subject groups' BDI scores revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects for group, F_(2, 84) = .86, n.s.; or time, _F(1, 84) = 2.88, n.s.; however, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between these variables, F_(2, 84) = 4.31, j) < .05. Given that a l l subjects' BDI scores were within the range indicating an absence of depression, this interaction can be considered to be devoid of pra c t i c a l significance. Prior to the major sets of analyses, in t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s were computed for the observational data. Two coders, blind to the hypotheses of the study and to group membership of subjects, rated the behaviors of subjects from the videotaped interactions. A random sample of 14 interactions (15.56% of the to t a l ) were rated by both coders. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for each of the 14 interactions are presented in Table 3. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for the verbal behaviors, as well as for the nonverbal measures of eye contact, gestures ( i l l u s t r a t e r s and adaptors), and pleasantness, were a l l satisfactory. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for observers' ratings of subjects' arousal l e v e l , amount of smiling, mood, comfort, f r i e n d l i n e s s , and so c i a l 24 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for BDI Scores of Target and Subject Groups at Time 1 and Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Standard Standard Group Mean Deviation Mean Deviation D-D 15.20 2.81 15.00 3.36 Targets Nd-Nd 4.60 2.41 3.87 2.42 D-Nd 12.00 2.07 5.00 2.30 Partners of D-D Targets 1.60 1.35 3.87 1.81 Subjects Partners of Nd-Nd Targets 3.07 1.90 2.67 1.63 Partners of D-Nd Targets 2.20 2.34 2.33 2.02 Table 3 R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s for Observat ional Data from 14 Interact ions Nonverbal Measures Observers ' Impressions Gestures^ Subject Time Verbal Measures 8 Eye C o n t a c t b I l l u s t r a t o r s Adaptors P leasantness 0 A r o u s a l 0 S m i l i n g 8 Mood/Social S k i l l / Fr iend l iness/Coiuf or t 1 1 .66 1.00 1.00 1.00 .77 .27 .59 4 1 .80 1.00 .86 1.00 .93 .86 .74 - . 58 6 1 .71 .86 1.00 1.00 .72 .30 1.00 .85 32 2 .84 .86 1.00 1.00 .70 .80 1.00 .58 40 2 .83 1.00 1.00 1.00 .92 .73 .42 .32 42 2 .96 1.00 1.00 1.00 .73 .51 .46 - . 33 45 1 .87 .71 1.00 1.00 .89 .38 - . 1 6 .58 46 2 .87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - . 2 6 .32 .64 48 2 .87 1.00 1.00 1.00 .80 .80 .52 .58 71 1 .87 .86 1.00 1.00 .84 .86 1.00 .00 75 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .71 .85 - . 1 6 .58 76 1 .86 .86 .86 .86 .89 .41 .00 .41 84 1 .73 .86 1.00 1.00 .59 .27 .00 - . 33 85 1 .83 .86 1.00 1.00 .80 .94 .26 .87 Note: Type of r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t : a Kappaj ^Proportion Agreement c Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t ( r ) 26 s k i l l were less satisfactory. Results based on these ratings must therefore be interpreted with caution. The remaining analyses are presented i n three sections. F i r s t , analyses of Time 1 differences i n reactions to the depressed and nondepressed target groups are presented. I t i s this portion of the present investigation which serves as a s l i g h t l y modified rep l i c a t i o n of Gotlib and Robinson's (1983) assessment of so c i a l responses to mildly depressed and nondepressed individuals. In these analyses, only the Time 1 data from the Nd-Nd and D-D groups were used. Data from the D-Nd group were included only i n the second set of analyses. The second set of analyses address the s t a b i l i t y of responses to depressed and nondepressed individuals over time. In the t h i r d section, correlations between depression levels and so c i a l responses are presented. Time 1 Analyses Self-Report Measures Mood induction. A repeated measures 2(groups) by 2(pre-, post-interaction) MANOVA was used to assess pre- to post-interaction changes i n MAACL scores of subject groups interacting with the depressed and nondepressed target groups (see Table 4). Results indicated no si g n i f i c a n t multivariate effects attributable to: depressed/nondepressed status of the targets these subject groups interacted with, F_(l, 28) = 1.15, n.s.; differences i n scores between pre- and post-interaction completions of the MAACL, F_(l, 28) = 1.19, n.s.; or the interaction of group and pre- to post-interaction MAACLs, F ( l , 28) = .50, n.s. Subsequent univariate F_ tests revealed no si g n i f i c a n t main effects or interaction e f f e c t s , for any of the 3 MAACL sub scale scores. In order to more d i r e c t l y compare results of the present investigation with those of Gotlib and Robinson (1983), a 2(groups) MANOVA was conducted on post-interaction MAACL subscale scores of the two subject groups at Time 1. 27 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of MAACL Change Scores on the 3 MAACL Subscales  for Subjects Interacting with Depressed and Nondepressed Target Individuals at  Time 1 Subjects with Depressed Subjects with Nondepressed Target Individuals Target Individuals Mood Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Depression .07 2.89 .07 3.88 Anxiety -.07 2.76 -.80 2.34 H o s t i l i t y .93 2.34 .00 2.20 28 There was no multivariate effect attributable to subject group, F_(l, 28) = .78, n.s. Univariate tests revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two groups' post-interaction scores on any of the three MAACL subscales. Social impact. Subjects' cognitive and af f e c t i v e reactions to depressed and nondepressed targets were compared using scores on the Impact Message Inventory (IMI). A 2(groups) MANOVA was used to assess differences i n reactions to the two target groups on the 15 IMI subscales. The analysis revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t multivariate effect attributable to status of the target groups, F ( l , 28) = .99, n.s. Univariate F_ tests revealed no si g n i f i c a n t differences i n subjects' responses to the depressed and nondepressed target groups on any of the 15 IMI subscales. An overall impact score was derived from the responses of each subject by adding together their scores on each of the 15 IMI subscales and then dividing the sum by 15. A one-way ANOVA using these derived scores did not indicate any differences between the ov e r a l l impact of the depressed and nondepressed target groups on their partners, 1^(1, 28) = .09, n.s. Acceptance/rejection of target. A one-way ANOVA was carried out to assess subject groups' acceptance/rejection of their depressed or nondepressed partners. Each subjects' raw summed score on the Future Interaction Questionnaire was used i n t h i s analysis. Results indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reactions to the depressed and nondepressed target groups, £(1, 28) = .14, n.s. Thus, reactions to the depressed target group were no more or less accepting/rejecting than were responses to the nondepressed target group. Observational Measures Verbal behavior. A 2(groups) MANOVA was used to analyze the verbal observational data. Results indicated no multivariate effect attributable to the depressed/nondepressed status of the targets that the two subject groups 29 interacted with, _F(1, 28) = 1.36, n.s. Univariate F tests revealed no sig n i f i c a n t differences between subjects' responses to the groups of depressed and nondepressed targets on the t o t a l number of verbal responses, or on the spec i f i c verbal measures of direct support, conversation maintenance po s i t i v e , conversation maintenance neutral, conversation maintenance negative, or direct negative. There was, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the amount of si l e n t responses emitted by subject groups toward the depressed and nondepressed target groups, _F(1, 28) = 4.07, £ = .05. Further inspection of the data revealed that individuals i n the depressed target group received no si l e n t responses from thei r partners (mean = .00, s.d. = .00), while individuals i n the nondepressed target group received a very small proportion of s i l e n t responses (mean = .02, s.d. = .03). Thus, t h i s difference appears to be of l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l significance. Nonverbal behavior. A 2(groups) MANOVA was used to assess differences i n nonverbal behavior of the subject groups toward the depressed and nondepressed target groups. Results indicated no multivariate effect attributable to depressed/nondepressed status of the target groups, _F(1, 28) = .68, n.s. Univariate F_ tests revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n subject groups' responses to the depressed and nondepressed target groups on any of the nonverbal measures, including: eye contact, g e s t u r e s — i l l u s t r a t o r s and adaptors, smiling, pleasantness, and arousal. Bipolar adjective ratings. A 2(groups) MANOVA was conducted to assess differences i n observer ratings of subject groups' mood, anxiety l e v e l , s o c i a l s k i l l , and h o s t i l i t y / f r i e n d l i n e s s . Results indicated no multivatiate effect attributable to depressed/nondepressed status of targets these subject groups were interacting with, _F(1, 28) = .31, n.s. Univariate F_ tests revealed no s i g n i f i a n t differences between the two subject groups on any of 30 the bipolar adjective ratings. Analyses of S t a b i l i t y Over Time Self-Report Measures Mood induction. Pre- and post-interaction MAACL subscale scores for subject groups at Time 1 and Time 2 are presented i n Table 5. A 3(groups) by 2(times) by 2(pre/post-interaction) MANOVA was conducted on MAACL scores, with a repeated measures analysis on the pre/post-interaction variable. Results indicated no multivariate effect attributable to subject group, F_(2, 84) = .95, n.s.; time, F_(l, 84) = .50, n.s.; or the interaction of group and time, F_(2, 84) = 1.95, n.s. Subsequent univariate _F tests revealed only a s i g n i f i c a n t group by time effect for subjects' pre-interaction scores on the depression subscale of the MAACL, J_(2, 84) = 3.91, j>. < .05. This interaction i s portrayed i n Figure 1. There was a multivariate effect attributable to subjects' pre- vs. post-interaction completions of the MAACL, _F(1, 84) = 8.89, £ < .001. Univariate J? tests revealed s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n pre- and post-interaction scores on the depression subscale, F_(l, 84) = 4.89, £ < .05, and on the anxiety subscale, _F(1, 84) = 25.42, j) < .001. Further, the difference between pre- and post-interaction scores on the h o s t i l i t y subscale of the MAACL approached significance, F ( l , 84) = 3.76, j) = .056. In every instance, the scores revealed lower depression, anxiety, and h o s t i l i t y after the i n t e r a c t i o n . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t multivariate effects attributable to time by pre/post-interaction, F ( l , 84) = 1.42, n.s.; group by pre/post-interaction, F(2, 84) = .50, n.s.; or group by time by pre/post-interaction, F_(2, 84) = 1.40, n.s. Subsequent univariate F_ tests revealed only a s i g n i f i c a n t group by time by pre/post-interaction effect for scores on the anxiety subscale of the Table 5 Pre- and Post-Interaction Means and Standard Deviations on MAACL Subscales for Time 1 and Time 2 Subjects Depression Anxiety H o s t i l i t y Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post X Sx X Sx X Sx X Sx X Sx X Sx Subjects Interacting with Nd-Nd Targets Time 1 14.60 4.22 14.67 3.66 8.07 2.43 7.27 2.76 8.80 2.96 8.80 2.60 Time 2 12.60 5.07 11.53 4.53 7.87 2.45 5.67 2.35 7.93 4.06 7.07 2.37 Subjects Interacting with D-D Targets Time 1 12.07 5.32 12.13 5.53 5.93 3.10 5.87 2.95 7.27 3.06 8.20 2.21 Time 2 15.93 4.35 14.87 3.09 8.33 2.87 6.73 1.49 9.00 3.25 7.73 1.75 Subjects Interacting with D-Nd Targets Time 1 13.13 3.60 13.27 3.28 8.60 3.58 6.47 2.95 8.13 2.67 7.07 2.09 Time 2 14.00 4.39 12.93 4.35 7.40 2.35 6.47 1.68 8.33 2.26 7.47 2.72 32 0) l-i O o CO O l/i -O 3 CO c o •r-l tn cu 1J <u Q J O Time L e g e n d : • - S u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h D-D t a r g e t s B - S u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h Nd-Nd t a r g e t s - S u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h D-Nd t a r g e t s F i g u r e 1. S u b j e c t s g r o u p s ' mean p r e - i n t e r a c t i o n s c o r e s on t h e D e p r e s s i o n s u b s c a l e o f t h e MAACL a t Time 1 and Time 2. 33 MAACL, F(2, 84) = 3.03, _p_ = .05. Lastly, a 3(groups) by 2(times) MANOVA was conducted on subjects' post-interaction MAACL subscale scores. Results indicated no multivariate effects attributable to group, F(2, 84) = .60, n.s.; time, _F(1, 84) = .95, n.s.; or the interaction of group and time, F_(2, 84) = 1.70, n.s. Subsequent univariate F_ tests revealed a si g n i f i c a n t group by time interaction for subjects' post-interaction scores on the depression subscale of the MAACL, F_(2, 84) = 3.84, j) < .05. This interaction i s portrayed i n Figure 2. Social impact. A 3(groups) by 2(times) MANOVA was conducted to compare subject groups' cognitive and af f e c t i v e reactions to target groups on the 15 IMI subscales. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t multivariate effect attributable to group, F_(2, 84) = .42, n.s. Univariate F_ tests revealed no sig n i f i c a n t group effects for any of the 15 subscales. There was no si g n i f i c a n t multivariate effect attributable to time, F ( l , 84) = 1.42, n.s. Univariate F_ te s t s , however, revealed s i g n i f i c a n t differences between times i n subject groups' reactions on the following IMI subscales: M i s t r u s t f u l , T ( l , 84) = 4.07, _p_ < .05; Inhibited, F ( l , 84) = 6.55, _p_ < .01; and Agreeable, F ( l , 84) = 8.27, JD < .005. Further breakdowns revealed that at Time 2, subjects interacting with targets i n a l l three groups reported reactions r e f l e c t i v e of a more t r u s t i n g , uninhibited, and agreeable interpersonal style than did subject groups interacting with the target groups at Time 1 (see Table 6). F i n a l l y , results indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t multivariate effect attributable to the interaction of group and time, F_(2, 84) = .73, n.s. Subsequent univariate F_ tests revealed no si g n i f i c a n t group by time effects for any of the 15 IMI subscales. As i n the Time 1 analyses, an ove r a l l impact score was derived from the response of each subject by adding together the i r scores on each of the 15 IMI 16 15 14 -13 ' 12 11 Time L e g e n d : O - S u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h D-D t a r g e t s B - S u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h Nd-Nd t a r g e t s - S u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h D-Nd t a r g e t s F i g u r e 2. S u b j e c t g r o u p s ' mean p o s t - i n t e r a c t i o n s c o r e s on t h e D e p r e s s i o n s u b s c a l e o f t h e MAACL a t Time 1 and Time 2. 35 Table 6 Means and Standard Devia t ions for Subject Groups on the M i s t r u s t i n g I n h i b i t e d , and Agreeable Subscales of the IMI at Time 1 and Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Target Groups Interacted With X Sx X Sx M i s t r u s t i n g D-D 9.40 3.29 8. ,73 2.91 Nd-Nd 10.40 2.10 8. ,33 2.44 D-Nd 9.93 3.01 9. .13 2.70 Inh ib i ted D-D 9.60 3.66 7.93 1.79 Nd-Nd 9.60 2.00 8.13 2.33 D-Nd 9.47 2.75 8.60 1.80 Agreeable D-D 13.20 2.62 14.53 3.29 Nd-Nd 12.93 3.83 15.53 2.92 D-Nd 12.60 2.69 14.47 3.58 36 subscales and then dividing the sum by 15. A 2(group) ANOVA using these derived scores indicated no significant group e f f e c t , F_(2, 8A) = .13, n.s.; time e f f e c t , F_(l, 84) = .13, n.s.; or group by time int e r a c t i o n , F\2, 84) = .12, n.s. Acceptance/rejection of target. A 3(groups) by 2(times) ANOVA was carried out i n order to assess differences between subject groups within and across times i n their acceptance/rejection of target groups. As i n the Time 1 analysis, each subject's raw summed score on the Future Interaction Questionnaire was used i n the analysis. Results indicated no si g n i f i c a n t main effect for group, F(2, 84) = .41, n.s.; or for time, F ( l , 84) = 2.37, n.s. Further, there was no si g n i f i c a n t group by time i n t e r a c t i o n , F_(2, 84) = .98, n.s. Observational Measures Verbal behavior. A 3(groups) by 2(times) MANOVA was used to assess differences i n verbal behavior of subject groups toward the target groups. Results indicated no si g n i f i c a n t multivariate effects attributable to group, F_(2, 84) = .83, n.s.; time, F_(l, 84) = 2.09, n.s.; or the interaction of group and time, F_(2, 84) = 1.23, n.s. Univariate F_ tests revealed no si g n i f i c a n t differences between subject groups' responses within or across times on the to t a l number of verbal responses, or on any of the s p e c i f i c verbal measures ( i . e . , d i r e c t support, conversation maintenance pos i t i v e , conversation maintenance neutral, conversation maintenance negative, direct negative, s i l e n t responses). Nonverbal behavior. A 3(groups) by 2(times) MANOVA was carried out in order to assess for differences i n the nonverbal behavior of subject groups interacting with the 3 target groups at Time 1 and Time 2. Results indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t multivariate effects attributable to group, _F(2, 84) = .90, 37 n.s.; time, F_(l, 84) = 1.17, n.s.; or the interaction of group and time, F_(2, 84) = 1.18, n.s. Univariate F_ tests revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t group effect for eye contact, _F(2, 84) = 4.16, _p_ < >05. Subject groups interacting with individuals from the D-Nd target group displayed less eye contact o v e r a l l than did subject groups interacting with individuals from the other two target groups. Further, univariate F_ tests revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t group by time interaction for the number of i l l u s t r a t o r s displayed by subject groups, F X 2 , 84) = 3.47, j3 < .05. Breakdowns revealed that the number of i l l u s t r a t o r s displayed by subjects interacting with individuals from the D-D and Nd-Nd target groups at Time 2 were lower than the number displayed by subjects interacting with individuals from these target groups at Time 1. The number of i l l u s t r a t o r s displayed by subjects interacting with individuals from the D-Nd target group at Time 2 was higher than the number displayed by subjects interacting with individuals from t h i s target group at Time 1. I t should be noted, however, that the actual proportion of observation in t e r v a l s i n which i l l u s t r a t o r s occurred was extremely low, ranging from .00 to .06. Bipolar adjective ratings. A 3(groups) by 2(times) MANOVA was carried out i n order to assess differences i n observer ratings of subject groups' mood, anxiety l e v e l , s o c i a l s k i l l , and h o s t i l i t y / f r i e n d l i n e s s on the two occasions. There was no multivariate effect attributable to group, F{2, 84) = .92, n.s.; time, F_(l, 84) = 1.24, n.s.; or the interaction of group and time, F_(2, 84) = .38, n.s. Univariate _F tests revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t group, time, or group by time effects for any of the four rating scales. Correlational Analyses In a further procedure, corre l a t i o n a l analyses were carried out i n order to examine the relationships between (a) target individuals' BDI scores and the responses of their partners, and (b) subject individuals' BDI scores and 38 their own responses. The results of these corre l a t i o n a l analyses are presented i n Table 7. Target BDI scores correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with only two variables. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlation between targets' BDI scores and the number of i l l u s t r a t o r s displayed by subjects i n the interactions (r = -.19, £ < .05). Further, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t positive correlation between targets' BDI scores and observers' ratings of the subjects' comfort l e v e l i n the interactions (r_ = .19, £ < .05). Subjects' BDI scores correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the i r self-reports of pre-interaction mood, as measured by the depression, anxiety, and h o s t i l i t y subscales of the MAACL (r = .29, £ < .01; £ = .42, £ < .001; £ = .20, £ < .05; respectively). S i g n i f i c a n t correlations were also found between subjects' BDI scores and their post-interaction mood scores on the depression and anxiety subscales of the MAACL (£ = .25, £ < .01; £ = .35, £ < .001, respectively). Subjects' BDI scores also correlated with their scores on the H o s t i l i t y subscale of the IMI (r = .18, £ < .05), and with the number of adaptors used while interacting with the i r target partners (r = -.22, £ < .05). Further correlations were found between subjects BDI scores and observer ratings of their pleasantness (r = -.20, £ < .05), mood (r = -.46, £ < .001), comfort (r = -.22, £ < .01), and fr i e n d l i n e s s (r = -.32, £ < .001) while interacting with targets. DISCUSSION This study was conducted i n order to examine the nature of the s o c i a l responses e l i c i t e d by groups of mildly depressed (D) and nondepressed (Nd) indi v i d u a l s , and the s t a b i l i t y of the s o c i a l responses e l i c i t e d by these groups ( i . e . , D-D, Nd-Nd, and D-Nd groups) over time. Based on Coyne's (1976a) interaction model of depression and related research, i t was 39 Table 7 Correlations between BDI Scores of Targets/Subjects and Subjects' Responses Variable Target BDI Subject BE Self-Report MAACL - Pre-interaction depression scale -.08 .29** Pre-interaction anxiety scale -.12 .42*** Pre-interaction h o s t i l i t y scale -.11 .20* Post-interaction depression scale -.05 .28** Post-interaction anxiety scale -.13 .35*** Post-interaction h o s t i l i t y scale -.02 .07 IMI Scales - Dominant .10 .10 Competitive .16 .00 Hostile -.02 .18* Mistrusting -.01 .09 Detached .01 -.01 Inhibited .20 -.05 Submissive .05 -.00 Succorant .11 -.06 Abasive .09 -.12 Deferent -.02 .16 Agreeable -.13 -.05 Nurturant -.14 -.16 A f f i l i a t i v e -.10 .04 Sociable -.06 -.03 E x h i b i t i o n i s t i c .11 .05 Overall Impact .00 .01 Future Interaction Questionnaire Score .09 -.14 Behavioral Verbal - Direct Support .03 -.02 Conversation Maintenance Positive .07 -.03 Conversation Maintenance Neutral -.06 -.12 Conversation Maintenance Negative .09 .12 Direct Negative -.15 .03 Silence -.14 .06 Nonverbal - Eye Contact .08 .01 Smiling -.02 -.03 Pleasantness .12 -.20* Arousal .13 -.14 Gestures - I l l u s t r a t o r s -.19* -.01 Adaptors .05 -.22* Bipolar Ratings - Mood .12 -.46*** Comfort .19* -.22* Friendliness .16 -.32** Social S k i l l -.06 .04 Note: *p_ < .05; **p_ < .01; ***£ < .001 40 hypothesized that at Time 1, individuals in the D-D target group would e l i c i t more negative s o c i a l responses from their partners than would individuals i n the Nd-Nd target group. Reactions e l i c i t e d by the D-D target group, and by the Nd-Nd target group, were expected to be r e l a t i v e l y stable over the two occasions. Thus, consistent with the predicted Time 1 r e s u l t s , the D-D targets were expected to e l i c i t more negative s o c i a l responses at Time 2 than were the Nd-Nd targets. Further, i t was hypothesized that from Time 1 to Time 2, the responses e l i c i t e d by the D-Nd target group would s h i f t from being similar to those e l i c i t e d by the D-D target group on the f i r s t occasion to being s i m i l a r to those e l i c i t e d by the Nd-Nd target group on the second occasion. Results of the present investigation did not support the above predictions. At Time 1, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l differences i n responses to mildly depressed and nondepressed target groups i n terms of subjects' self-reported mood, acceptance/rejection of their partner, interpersonal reactions, or verbal and nonverbal conversational behaviors. The only i d e n t i f i e d difference i n subjects' responses to the two groups of targets was i n terms of the number of s i l e n t responses e l i c i t e d . The importance of t h i s group difference i n the rate of silence i s lim i t e d by the extremely low rate of occurrence of s i l e n t responses toward both target groups. Retest analyses revealed none of the predicted differences i n responses to the D-D, Nd-Nd, and D-Nd target groups. In f a c t , there was a great deal of s i m i l a r i t y i n the responses e l i c i t e d by a l l three target groups, and these responses were markedly stable over the two occasions. Mood induction effects did not discriminate meaningfully between subject groups either within or across times, however, there were a number of results worthy of mention. F i r s t , mood scores of a l l subject groups, regardless of 41 the D/Nd status of their partners, shifted from pre- to post-interaction i n a manner r e f l e c t i n g a reduction i n anxiety, depression, and to a lesser extent h o s t i l i t y . The s h i f t i n mood may r e f l e c t : a se n s i t i z i n g effect of having completed the pre-interaction MAACL, a general sense of r e l i e f upon having completed the videotaped i n t e r a c t i o n , or perhaps a mood-bolstering effect from having communicated with another i n d i v i d u a l . On the basis of t h i s investigation, i t i s not possible to say which, i f any, of these explanations accounts for the observed mood effect. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t group by time by pre-post interaction effect for the Anxiety subscale of the MAACL. Inspection of t h i s interaction reveals that subject groups int e r a c t i n g with the Nd-Nd and D-D target groups at Time 2 gave self-reports i n d i c a t i v e of a greater decrease i n anxiety from pre- to post-interaction than did those subject groups interacting with the same target groups at Time 1. The subject group interacting with the D-Nd targets at Time 2 gave reports i n d i c a t i v e of a smaller decrease i n anxiety from pre-to post-interaction than did the subject group interacting with t h i s target group at Time 1. These findings are not readily interpretable. Coyne's interaction model of depression would not predict such an interaction. F i n a l l y , when group differences i n mood induction were assessed using post-interaction MAACL scores, without taking pre-interaction mood scores into account (as was done i n a l l previous investigations of mood "induction"), a s i g n i f i c a n t group by time interaction was found for scores on the Depression subscale of the MAACL. While the actual interaction i s not th e o r e t i c a l l y meaningful, t h i s finding can be used to i l l u s t r a t e the importance of including a pre-interaction assessment of mood. In th i s case, the group by time effect for scores on the post-interaction depression subscale i s very similar to the si g n i f i c a n t group by time effect found for pre-interaction scores on t h i s 42 subscale. These r e s u l t s c l e a r l y imply that post-interaction mood scores should not be used i n i s o l a t i o n to indicate mood induction effects. In the present study, i t appears that post-interaction mood was a function of pre-interaction mood, and was not noticeably influenced by the brief interaction occurring between the two completions of the MAACL. No differences were found i n subject groups' self-reported acceptance/rejection of the three target groups either within one occasion or across the two occasions. Subjects' self-reports on the measure of targets' s o c i a l impact revealed no differences between target groups i n the af f e c t i v e and cognitive reactions they e l i c i t e d over the two testing occasions. At Time 2, however, a l l subject groups reported reactions r e f l e c t i v e of a more trusting, agreeable, and uninhibited interpersonal style than did subjects paired with the same target groups at Time 1. Perhaps t h i s difference can be attributed to subjects on the second occasion being affected by their target partners' f a m i l i a r i t y with the experimental procedure, and therefore f e e l i n g more comfortable than did subjects paired with the same targets on the f i r s t occasion. An assessment of observer ratings of subject groups' verbal and nonverbal behavior and general interpersonal style f a i l e d to i d e n t i f y meaningful differences between subject groups either between or within occasions. I t should be noted that r e s u l t s for the nonverbal variables of arousal and smiling, and for observers' impressions of subjects' general interpersonal style ( i . e . , mood, comfort, f r i e n d l i n e s s , and s o c i a l s k i l l ) , should be interpreted with caution given the less than id e a l i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for these variables. In summary, analyses based on the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of individuals into depressed and nondepressed groups showed none of the anticipated differences 43 in subjects' responses to groups of depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s , or to the same individuals over time as they shifted from depressed to nondepressed status. The relationship between depression and the s o c i a l responses e l i c i t e d was also assessed using c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses. Results of these analyses draw attention to the lack of relationship between target ind i v i d u a l s ' depression l e v e l s , as indicated by BDI scores, and the responses e l i c i t e d from thei r subject partners. Subjects' BDI scores correlated with a greater number of the dependent variables than did targets' BDI scores. However, even these relationships are not impressive given that most of the variables with which subjects' BDI scores were found to correlate with were also indices of mood and comfort l e v e l (e.g., pre and postinteraction MAACL subscale scores; observer ratings of subjects' pleasantness, mood, and comfort). Thus, t h i s study suggests that the interpersonal responses e l i c i t e d by mildly depressed individuals i s not profound, and i n fact i s no diff e r e n t from that e l i c i t e d by nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . Preceding studies i n the area have generally reported negative responses to depressed i n d i v i d u a l s ; however, there has been a lack of agreement regarding the s p e c i f i c negative responses e l i c i t e d . A number of investigators have found negative mood following exposure to depressed targets (Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978; Winer et a l . , 1981; Strack & Coyne, 1983). Others have reported an absence of such an effe c t (Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; King & Heller, 1984). Some investigators report that depressed targets, r e l a t i v e to nondepressed targets, are more rejected by their partners (Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978; Winer et a l . , 1981; Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Strack & Coyne, 1983). For example, Howes and Hokanson (1979) reported that their depressed targets were described by subjects i n 44 more negative terms and as having a greater interpersonal impact than were nondepressed targets. Gotlib and Robinson (1982), however, found s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n subjects' verbal and nonverbal behavior towards depressed and nondepressed target groups, but no group difference i n the rejection of targets. The current study also f a i l e d to reveal any difference i n the rejection of depressed and nondepressed targets. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to draw general conclusions regarding interpersonal responses to depressed ind i v i d u a l s on the basis of much of the existing l i t e r a t u r e . The inconsistencies i n the findings of these investigations may be accounted for by the wide variation in depressed target s t i m u l i and experimental procedures used across studies. As an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the problem, the s o c i a l responses to depressed individuals have been investigated through such diverse procedures as the reading of a transcript simulating a depressed person's responses, an intercom conversation with a confederate pretending to be depressed, and direct face-to-face interactions with a mildly depressed i n d i v i d u a l . According to Coyne's interaction model, an individual need only exhibit some depressive symptoms i n order to e l i c i t responses different from those e l i c i t e d by nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . By these standards, the targets and procedures used i n the present investigation should have been adequate to allow the emergence of any d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l responses to depressed and nondepressed individuals that might arise from a brief s o c i a l interaction. Thus, i n l i g h t of the findings of previous investigations, p a r t i c u l a r l y those of Gotlib and Robinson (1982) whose procedures were replicated with some modifications i n the present study, the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n response to the target groups i n the present study are surprising. The v a l i d i t y of the present findings must be assessed. In order to do so, 45 questions regarding the adequacy of this investigation as an approximate re p l i c a t i o n of Gotlib and Robinson's experimental procedure must be addressed. More generally, i t i s important to examine the adequacy of such "analogue" samples and laboratory procedures for investigating the int e r a c t i o n a l model of depression. I t was expected that r e s u l t s from the i n i t i a l phase of the present study would re p l i c a t e the findings of Gotlib and Robinson. There were, however, several minor methodological differences between the two studies that should be considered as possible reasons for the f a i l u r e to r e p l i c a t e . The most important of these differences, as well as the potential of each of these differences to account for the inconsistent results between the two studies w i l l be b r i e f l y discussed. In terms of subject variables, the selection c r i t e r i a for inclusion i n the various target and subject groups were different i n the two studies. Gotlib and Robinson included in d i v i d u a l s with BDI scores of 9 and above i n their depressed target group, and those with scores of 6 or below i n their nondepressed target group. The present investigation included individuals with BDI scores of 10 or above i n the depressed target group, and individuals with scores of 8 or below i n the nondepressed target and subject groups. BDI cutoff scores used i n research studies are somewhat a r b i t r a r i l y set. The cutoff scores used by Gotlib and Robinson, and i n the present investigation, are both c l e a r l y acceptable by research standards, and i t i s highly unlikely that t h i s minimal difference i n cutoff scores could account for the differences i n the r e s u l t s of the two studies. The number of subjects per group in the present study differed minimally from that of Gotlib and Robinson. While Gotlib and Robinson had 20 subjects per group, the present study had 15 subjects per group. I t i s not l i k e l y that 46 t h i s difference i n group size between the studies affected the obtained r e s u l t s . In the present investigation there were no signs of patterns/trends that even approached the s i g n i f i c a n t effects found by Gotlib and Robinson. Thus, the increase i n power that 20 subjects per c e l l would have created i s not l i k e l y to have appreciably changed the r e s u l t s . I t may be the case that the differences i n results were simply a function of the different samples of students used i n the two investigations. In both studies, subjects were female undergraduates enrolled i n Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s . However, i t i s conceivable that Gotlib and Robinson's findings, or the lack of such findings i n the present study, were due to the idiosyncratic characteristics of one or both of the r e l a t i v e l y small samples used. Further research would have to be conducted i n order to more thoroughly investigate t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . There were a number of procedural differences between the two studies that require consideration. F i r s t , whereas Gotlib and Robinson had target-subject pairs carry out 15 minute interactions, the target-subject pairs i n the present investigation conversed for only 5 minutes. This shorter t o t a l interaction time would at f i r s t seem to be a potential reason for the discrepant findings across the two studies. However, Gotlib and Robinson reported that differences i n conversational responses to their depressed and nondepressed target groups were evident i n the f i r s t 3 minutes of the interactions. Thus, i t would appear that the 5 minute interactions were of s u f f i c i e n t length to allow the emergence of differences i n conversational behavior towards the different target groups. The present investigation was not designed to exactly replicate Gotlib and Robinson's administration of questionnaire measures. However, the changes made should not have negatively affected the v a l i d i t y of t h i s study. As noted 47 e a r l i e r , pre- and post-interaction MAACL's were completed by subjects i n th i s investigation. While the addition of a pre-interaction measure r i s k s s e n s i t i z i n g subjects to the post-interaction MAACL, the benefits of including t h i s pre-interaction measure were judged to outweigh the possible negative consequences. I t was seen as c r u c i a l to ensure that i f mood effects were found to be present, they could be attributed to the subjects' interactions with targets. MAACL scores for a l l subjects did become somewhat less negative from pre- to post-interaction, however, th i s does not seem to r e f l e c t a s i g n i f i c a n t s e n s i t i z i n g effect of having completed the pre-interaction MAACL. Sign i f i c a n t correlations between subjects' BDI scores and their pre- as well as post- interaction MAACL scores suggest that the MAACL, l i k e the BDI, was picking up on a r e l a t i v e l y stable mood state. While Gotlib and Robinson had subjects and targets from each pair f i l l out post-interaction questionnaires i n separate rooms, subject and target pairs i n the present study remained i n the large interaction room, but completed questionnaires in r e l a t i v e privacy. Although t h i s situation was not i d e a l , i t i s u n l i k e l y to account for the lack of differences i n self-report responses to the target groups. Gotlib and Robinson f a i l e d to find differences i n subjects' self-reports even though they did separate their subject-target dyads after the interactions. Further, Strack and Coyne (1983) found that subjects gave similar responses on questionnaire measures of reactions to target partners regardless of whether or not they expected t h i s information to be shared with their partners. The behavioral coding scheme used by Gotlib and Robinson was used i n the present investigation to assess the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of subjects. Thus, differences i n the observational findings across the two studies cannot be attributed to differences i n the types of behaviors 48 assessed, or to differences i n the manner of assessing the specified behaviors. I t should be noted, however, that Gotlib and Robinson's nonverbal behavioral coding scheme does have some problems. In their procedure, nonverbal behaviors are time sampled on a rotating b a s i s — t h a t i s , coders are to observe only one type of nonverbal behavior at a time. In a f i v e minute time period, the occurrence or nonoccurrence of each nonverbal behavior i s sampled approximately seven times. This small number of observations for each behavior may simply be inadequate for providing a complete picture of subjects' behaviors. Further, Gotlib and Robinson assessed the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of their targets and confirmed that there were behavioral differences between the depressed and nondepressed target groups. In the present investigation, behaviors of the target groups were not assessed. There i s , however, no conclusive evidence that s p e c i f i c verbal and/or nonverbal behaviors of depressed individuals are accountable for the e l i c i t a t i o n of negative s o c i a l reactions (e.g., Coyne, 1976b; Youngren & Lewinsohn, 1980). Given that the target groups i n the present study are d i r e c t l y comparable to those of Gotlib and Robinson i n terms of sex, age, occupation, and BDI scores; there i s no a p r i o r i reason to believe that the equivalent target groups i n the two studies would d i f f e r with respect to their interpersonal behavior. In summary, while there were differences i n the procedures used i n the present investigation and those used by Gotlib and Robinson, these differences cannot reasonably account for the discrepancies i n the results obtained by the two studies. Consideration of the above issues leads to the conclusion that the present investigation was adequate as a r e p l i c a t i o n of Gotlib and Robinson's procedures, and should have allowed the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of differences i n responses to the depressed and nondepressed target groups i f , 49 in f a c t , r e a l differences were present. Previous research i n the area has f a i l e d to look at the temporal s t a b i l i t y of s o c i a l responses to depressed individuals. A major aim of the present investigation was to assess the s t a b i l i t y of s o c i a l responses to depressed and nondepressed target groups over time. Given the unexpected lack of differences i n responses to the target groups at Time 1, the a b i l i t y of the present investigation to document changes over time i n d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l responses to depressed and nondepressed target groups was minimized. Indeed, the results of the present study lead to the conclusion that s o c i a l responses to depressed and nondepressed target groups are e s s e n t i a l l y the same, and that these s o c i a l responses do not change over a three week i n t e r v a l , even though the mood of the targets may have a l t e r over t h i s time period. Further research addressing the s t a b i l i t y of s o c i a l responses to depressed individuals i s c l e a r l y necessary. I t i s important to consider the v a l i d i t y of the present investigation and other laboratory experiments as tests of Coyne's in t e r a c t i o n a l model of depression. Coyne proposed that the depressed in d i v i d u a l displays depressive behavior i n ongoing interactions with the s i g n i f i c a n t others i n his/her l i f e . These depressive behaviors i n i t i a l l y e l i c i t reassurance and supportive feedback. Over time, t h i s behavior becomes more aversive and the supportive behavior of others gives way to negative reactions and rej e c t i o n . Given the major tenets of t h i s model, a number of serious problems with the e x i s t i n g experimental l i t e r a t u r e i n support of Coyne's model can be i d e n t i f i e d . F i r s t , i n the present study (as well as i n that of Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Strack & Coyne, 1983), mildly depressed subjects, whose depression levels were determined by the i r BDI scores, were used as depressed target s t i m u l i . The fact that these targets were only mildly depressed would not have been 50 troublesome for the model i f i n fact these individuals could be shown to display depressive behavior. However, since the salient interpersonal behaviors of depressed persons have not been elucidated, i t i s not possible to confirm whether these targets actually displayed the depressive behavior c r i t i c a l for e l i c i t i n g negative interpersonal reactions. Further, since we do not have an understanding.of the c r i t i c a l behavioral differences between depressed and nondepressed individuals, i t i s even more d i f f i c u l t to reasonably support the use of target stimuli such as transcripts simulating a depressed i n d i v i d u a l , or confederates enacting a depressed r o l e . Strack and Coyne (1983) suggest that i n such investigations, "researchers may be merely exploring their and the subjects' preconceived notions about interactions involving depressed persons" (p. 799). Investigations would provide more v a l i d results i n the testing of the interactional model i f s e v e r e l y / c l i n i c a l l y depressed individuals were used as targets. Questions can be raised regarding the appropriateness of laboratory procedures i n which the i n i t i a l reactions of strangers to depressed targets are assessed i n an attempt to shed l i g h t on the i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of depression. Coyne (1985) argues that i t i s acceptable, even desirable, to investigate depressive i n t e r a c t i o n a l patterns by studying the emerging in t e r a c t i o n a l pattern between pairs of strangers. According to Coyne, t h i s i s the case because such interactions eliminate the confounding influence of the two individuals having a history of negative experiences with each other. However, given that the i n t e r a c t i o n a l model i s intended to describe the interactions over time of depressed individuals with the s i g n i f i c a n t others i n the i r s o c i a l environment ( i . e . , friends, family), i t would appear that a c r i t i c a l aspect of the model i s lacking i n laboratory investigations of strangers' reactions during and following brief meetings with depressed target 51 individuals. While such laboratory research t e l l s something about depressed persons' s o c i a l i n teractions, i t does not address the in t e r a c t i o n a l model, per se. Doerfler and Chaplin (1985) assert that research investigating interactions between strangers " f a i l s to address the central thesis of the [inter a c t i o n a l ] model ( i . e . , interactions that occur i n the context of established r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) " (p. 229). Further, the accumulated l i t e r a t u r e investigating the interactional model accepts the finding of negative, rejecting responses by strangers to depressed targets as supportive of the interactional model. However, the interactional model would c l e a r l y predict that i n a f i r s t encounter with a depressed i n d i v i d u a l , others would provide positive ( i . e . , reassuring and supportive) responses, and that only after repeated encounters would these responses become more negative and rejec t i n g . Thus, i t would seem that a finding of negative reactions to depressed targets, r e l a t i v e to nondepressed targets, i n a brie f i n i t i a l encounter would actually run contrary to the interactional pattern predicted by Coyne's model (see also Doerfler & Chaplin, 1985). On the basis of these substantial c r i t i c i s m s , Doerfler and Chaplin (1985) argue that the laboratory investigations generated by Coyne's interaction model of depression are examples of type 3 error, or i n other words, of research i n which "one conducts the wrong experiment and thus provides i l l u s o r y support for one's theoretical conjectures (Mahoney, 1978)" (Doerfler & Chaplin, p. 227). Doerfler and Chaplin's c r i t i c i s m s of the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e are well taken. However, as Coyne (1985) points out, their emphasis on examining inte r a c t i o n a l patterns i n the context of long established relationships ignores the influence of the history of past experiences shared by members of a longstanding dyad. I t i s time for researchers i n the area to integrate the 52 positions of Doerfler and Chaplin (1985) and of Coyne (1985), and move towards a different type of investigation of s o c i a l responses to depressed individuals. Responses to depressed and nondepressed targets should be studied i n the natural s o c i a l context, i n interactions between the target and individuals previously unknown to the target but who are l i k e l y to become s i g n i f i c a n t others i n the target's l i f e . Such developing relationships could be studied i n , for example, a group of new university dorm-mates, or a group of mothers of young children moving into a new co-op housing development. In th i s way, long term int e r a c t i o n a l patterns of depressed individuals could be assessed without the confound of shared interpersonal history. This "developing relationships" approach to assessing the interaction patterns of depressed individuals would allow investigators to more d i r e c t l y test Coyne's interaction model of depression. Using t h i s approach, assessments could be made of the changes, or lack of changes, i n the interpersonal behaviors and inte r a c t i o n a l patterns of individuals as their l e v e l of depression s h i f t s over time ( i . e . , from depressed to nondepressed status, or vice versa). Further, using t h i s approach, attempts could be made to i d e n t i f y the s p e c i f i c behaviors of depressed and nondepressed individuals that are c r i t i c a l for e l i c i t i n g d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l responses. One can be optimistic that using t h i s "developing relationships" research strategy, rather than the widely used but increasingly outdated "brief meeting between strangers" strategy, i t w i l l be possible to more successfully address questions regarding d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l responses to depressed and nondepressed in d i v i d u a l s , and the s t a b i l i t y of these responses over time. 53 REFERENCES Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J . , & Erbaugh, J . (1961). Inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, _4, 561-571. Beck, A. T. (1972). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Coyne, J . C. (1976a). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28-40. Coyne, J . C. (1976b). Depression and the responses 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. Doerfler, L. A., & Chaplin, w. F. (1985). Type I I I error i n research on interpersonal models of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 227-230. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Nonverbal behavior and psychopathology. In R. J . Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. New York: Wiley. Gotl i b , I. H., & Beatty, M. E. (1983). Negative responses to depression: The role of a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . Paper presented at the annual convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Gotl i b , I. H., & Robinson, L. A. (1982). Responses to depressed i n d i v i d u a l s : Discrepancies between self-report of observer rated behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 231-240. Hammen, C. L., & Peters, S. D. (1978). Interpersonal consequences of depression: Responses to men and women enacting a depressed r o l e . Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 322-332. 54 Howes, M. J . , & Hokanson, J . E. (1979). Conversational and s o c i a l responses to depressive interpersonal behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 625-634. Ki e s l e r , D. J . , Anchin, J . C , Perkins, M. J . , Chirico, B. M., Kyle, E. M., & Federman, E. J . (1976, 1976). The Impact Message Inventory. Richmond: V i r g i n i a Commonwealth University. K i e s l e r , D. J . , Bernstein, A. B., & Anchin, J. C. (1977). Interpersonal communication, relationship and the behavior. New York: Psychological Dimensions. King, D. A., & Heller, K. (1984). Depression and the responses of others: A re-evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 477-480. Lewinsohn, P. M., & Arconad, M. (1981). Behavioral treatment of depression: A s o c i a l learning approach. In J. F. Clarkin & H. I. Glazer (Eds.), Depression: Behavioral and directing intervention strategies. New York: Garland STPM Press. Lewinsohn, P. M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary  theory and research. New York: V.H. Winston & Sons. Lewinsohn, P. M., & Shaffer, M. (1971). The use of home observations as an in t e g r a l part of the treatment of depression: Preliminary report and case studies. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 37, 87-94. Lewinsohn, P. M., Weinstein, M. S., & Alper, T. (1970). A behaviorally oriented approach to the group treatment of depressed persons: A methodological contribution. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 4_, 525-532. Libet, J . M., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1973). Concept of s o c i a l s k i l l with s p e c i f i c reference to the behavior of depressed persons. Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 40, 304-312. 55 Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1967). The Interpersonal Behavior Inventory. Form 4. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America. Rehm, L. P. (1981). Assessment of depression. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A p r a c t i c a l handbook (2nd e d i t i o n ) . Toronto: Pergamon Press. Rehm, L. P. (1976). Assessment of depression. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A pr a c t i c a l handbook. Toronto: Pergamon Press. 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. Winer, D. L., Bonner, 0. T., Blaney, P. H., & Murray, E. J . (1981). Depression and s o c i a l a t t r a c t i o n . Motivation and Emotion, _5, 153-166. Youngren, M. A., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1980). The functional r e l a t i o n between depression and problematic interpersonal behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 333-341. Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check L i s t . San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Appendix A Consent Form 57 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY "GETTING ACQUAINTED STUDY" Consent Form This study i s about the process involved when 2 people are g e t t i n g to know each other. We are i n t e r e s t e d i n what people do when t a l k i n g w i t h a stranger f o r the f i r s t time, as w e l l as how they f e e l and what they t h i n k about the c o n v e r s a t i o n . One h a l f of the t o t a l number of student volunteers w i l l be asked to p a r t i c i p t e i n the study on only one occasion. This w i l l take approximately 30-40 minutes. The other h a l f of the student volunteers w i l l be asked to p a r t i c i p a t e on two occasions a few weeks apart. This group w i l l be asked to d e d i c a t e a t o t a l of 60-80 minutes to the study. I f a f t e r reading t h i s page you decide to p a r t i c i p t e , we ask that you f i l l out t h i s consent form and the attached mood inventory. We w i l l then phone you to arrange a time f o r you to p a r t i c i p a t e . When you come i n , you w i l l be introduced to your partner (another female student v o l u n t e e r ) , and you w i l l both be asked to f i l l out 2 b r i e f mood quest i o n n a i r e s . You and your partner w i l l then be l e f t alone f o r 7 minutes to get to know a l i t t l e about one another. T h i s b r i e f c o n v e r s a t i o n w i l l be videotaped. Afterwards, you w i l l be asked to complete 3 more s h o r t questionnaires d e s c r i b i n g your f e e l i n g s and impressions, and you w i l l have a chance to ask questions. At t h i s p o i n t , a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the study w i l l be given to p a r t i c i p a n t s who are r e q u i r e d on only one o c c a s i o n . These i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l then be f i n i s h e d p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. The researcher w i l l make arrangements f o r a second appointment w i t h students whose p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d on a second occasion. Upon coming i n f o r the second time, these p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l be asked to f i l l out pre and post c o n v e r s a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i d e n t i c a l to those used on the f i r s t occasion and c a r r y out another 7 minute i n t e r a c t i o n with a new p a r t n e r . The researcher w i l l then e x p l a i n , i n d e t a i l , the purpose of the study and w i l l answer any questions. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. R e f u s a l to p a r t i c i p a t e or withdrawl w i l l not a f f e c t your c l a s s standing. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n you provide w i l l be kept i n s t r i c t confidence. Your responses w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d by a coded number, and r e s u l t s of t h i s study w i l l be r e p o r t e d i n the form of group data only. I f you would l i k e more in f o r m a t i o n about t h i s study, now or i n the f u t u r e , please f e e l f r e e to c a l l Dr. K e i t h Dobson, Department of Psychology, UBC (228-6771) or Risha J o f f e , C l i n i c a l Psychology Graduate Student (228-5581 or 736-7188). " I have read over the d e s c r i p t i o n of the GETTING ACQUAINTED STUDY and hereby g i v e my consent to p a r t i c i p a t e . I acknowledge the r e c e i p t of a copy of t h i s consent form. Researcher Name Date 58-Appendix B The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Beck Inventory Leaves 59-60 not filmed; permission not obtained. See A.T. Beck, et a l . , "Inventory for Measuring Depress Archives of General Psychiatry k (1961): 561-71. Beck Inventory 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 a l l  the statements in each group before making your choice. 1. 0 I do not feel sad. 1 I feel sad. 2 I am sad a l l the time and I can't snap .out of i t . 3 I am so sad or unhappy that I, can't stand i t . 2. 0 I am not particularly discouraged about the future. 1 I feel discouraged about the future. 2 I feel I have nothing to look forward to. 3 I feel that the future is hopeless and that things cannot improve. 3. 0 I do not feel like a failure. 1 I feel I have failed more than the average person. 2 As I look back on my l i f e , a l l I can see is a lot of failures. 3 I feel I am a complete failure as a person. 4. 0 I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to. 1 I don't enjoy things the way I used to. 2 I don't get real satisfaction out of anything anymore. 3 I am dissatisfied or bored with everything. 5. 0- I don't feel particularly guilty. 1 I feel guilty a good part of the time. 2 I feel quite guilty most of the time. 3 I feel guilty a l l of the time. 6. 0 I don't feel I am being punished. 1 I feel I may be punished. 2 I expect to be punished. 3 I feel 1 am being punished. 7. 0 I don't feel disappointed in myself. 1 I am disappointed in myself. 2 I am disgusted with myself. 3 I hate myself. 8. 0 I don't feel I am any worse than anybody else. 1 I am critical of myself for my weaknesses or mistakes. 2 I blame myself a l l the time for my faults. 3 I blares myself for everything bad that happens. 9. 0 I don't have any thoughts of killing myself. 1 I have thoughts of killing myself, but I would not carry them out. 2 I would like to k i l l myself. 3 I would k i l l myself if I had the chance. 10. 0 I don't cry anymore than usual. 1 I cry more now than I used to. 2 I cry a l l the time now. 3 I used to be able to cry, but now I can't cry even though I want to. 59 60 11. 0 I am no more i rr i ta ted now than I ever am. 1 I get annoyed or i r r i t a t e d more easily than I used to. 2 I feel i rr i ta ted a l l the time now. 3 I don't get i rr i ta ted at a l l by the things that used to i r r i t a t e me. 12. 0 I have not lost interest in other people. 1 I am less interested in other people than I used to be. 2 I have lost most of my interest in other people. 3 I have lost a l l of my interest in other people. 13. 0 I make decisions about as well as I ever could. 1 I put off making decisions more than I used to. 2 I have greater d i f f i cu l ty in making decisions than before. 3 I can't make decisions at a l l anymore. 14. 0 I don't feel I look any worse than I used to. 1 I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive. 2 I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance that rake me look unattractive. 3 I believe that I look ugly. 15. 0 I can work about as v e i l as before. 1 It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something. 2 I have to push myself very hard to do anything. 3 I can't do any work at a l l . 16. 0 I can sleep as well as usual. 1 I don't sleep as well as I used to. 2 I wake up 1-2 hours ear l i er than usual and find i t hard to get back to sleep. 3 I wake up several hours ear l i er than I used to and cannot get back to sleep. 17. 0 I don't get more t ired than usual. 1 I get t ired more easi ly than I used to. 2 I get t ired from doing almost anything. 3 I am too t ired to do anything. 18. 0 My appetite i s no worse than usual 1 My appetite i s not as good as i t used to be. 2 My appetite i s much worse now. 3 I have no appetite at a l l anymore. 19. 0 I haven't lost much weight, i f any lately . 1 I nave lost more than 5 pounds. I am purposely trying to 2 I have lost more than 10 pounds. lose weight by eating less . 3 I have lost more than 15 pounds. Yes No 20. 0 I am no more worried about my health than usual. 1 I am worried about physical problems such as aches and pains; or upset stomach; or constipation. 2 I am very worried about physical problems and i t ' s hard to think of much else. 3 I am so worried about my physical problems, that I cannot think about anything else. 21. 0 I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex. 1 I am less interested in sex than I used to be. 2 I am much less interested in sex now. 3 I have lost interest in sex completely. 61 Appendix C Today Form of the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL) 62 CM this sheet you w i l l find words which describe different moods and feelings. C i r c l e the number of a l l which describe how you feel right now, at this moment. 1 active 34 devoted 67 interested 100 sat is f ied 2 adventurous 35 disagreeable 68 i rr i ta ted 101 secure 3 affectionate 36 discontented 69 jealous 102 shaky 4 afraid 37 discouraged 70 joyful 103 shy 5 agitated 38 disgusted 71 kindly 104 soothed 6 agreeable 39 displeased 72 lonely 105 steady 7 aggressive 40 energetic 73 lost 106 stubborn 6 a l ive 41 enraged 74 loving 107 stormy 9 alone 42 enthusiastic 75 low 108 strong 10 amiable 43 fearful 76 lucky 109 suffering 11 amused 44 fine 77 mad 110 sullen 12 angry 45 f i t 78 mean 111 sunk 13 annoyed 46 forlorn 79 meek 112 sympathetic IA awful 47 frank 80 merry 113 tame 15 bashful 48 free 81 mild 114 tender 16 b i t ter 49 friendly 82 miserable 115 tense 17 blue 50 frightened 83 nervous 116 t err ib l e 18 bored 51 furious 84 obliging 117 t e r r i f i e d 19 calm 52 gay 84 offended 118 thoughtful 20 cautious 53 gentle 86 outraged 119 timid 21 cheerful 54 glad 87 panicky 120 tormented 22 clean 55 gloomy 88 patient 121 understanding 23 complaining 56 good 89 predicted 122 unhappy 24 contented 57 good natured 90 pleased 123 unsociable 25 contrary 58 grim 91 pleasant 124 upset 26 cool 59 happy 92 polite 125 vexed 27 cooperative 60 healthy 93 powerful 126 warm 28 c r i t i c a l 61 hopeless 94 quiet 127 whole 29 cross 62 hostile 95 reckless 128 wild 30 cruel 63 impatient 96 rejected 129 w i l l f u l 31 daring 64 incensed 97 rough 130 wilted 32 desperate 65 indignant 98 sad 131 worrying 33 destroyed 66 inspired 99 safe 131 young Appendix D The Impact Message Inventory (IMI) 63a IMPACT MESSAGE INVENTORY (IMI - FORM I I - 1976) Copyright 1975, 1976 by Donald J . Kiesler Leaves 64^ -67 not filmed; permission not obtained. For further information, apply to Dr. Donald J . K i e s l e r , Department of Psychology, V i r g i n i a Commonwealth University, Richmond, V i r g i n i a , U.S.A. IMPACT MESSAGE INVENTORY (IMI - FORM I I - 1976) Name : Age: Sex: Subject Number: This inventory contains words, phrases and statements which people use to describe how they f e e l when i n t e r a c t i n g with another person. You are to respond to t h i s Inventory by i n d i c a t i n g how a c c u r a t e l y each of the f o l l o w i n g items describes your r e a c t i o n s to the person you have j u s t seen. Respond to each item i n terms of how p r e c i s e l y i t describes the f e e l i n g s t h i s person arouses i n you, the behaviors you want to d i r e c t toward her when she's around, and/or the d e s c r i p t i o n s of her that come to mind when you're with her. I n d i c a t e how each item describes your a c t u a l r e a c t i o n s by using the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e : l=Not at a l l , 2=Somewhat, 3=Moderately so, 4=Very much so. In f i l l i n g out the f o l l o w i n g pages, f i r s t imagine you are i n t h i s person's presence, i n the process of i n t e r a c t i n g with her. Focus on the immediate r e a c t i o n s you would be e x p e r i e n c i n g . Then read each of the f o l l o w i n g items and f i l l i n the number to the l e f t of the statement which best describes how you would be f e e l i n g and/or would want to behave i f you were a c t u a l l y , at t h i s moment, i n the person's presence. At the top of each page, i n bold p r i n t , i s a statement which i s to precede each of the items on that page. Read t h i s statement to y o u r s e l f before reading each item; i t w i l l a i d you i n imagining the presence of the person you have j u s t seen. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers since d i f f e r e n t people react d i f f e r e n t l y to the same person. What we want you t o i n d i c a t e i s the extent to which each item a c c u r a t e l y describes what you would be experiencing i f you were i n t e r a c t i n g r i g h t now with t h i s person. Please be sure to f i l l i n the one number which best answers how a c c u r a t e l y that item describes what you would be experiencing. For example, i f an item i s Somewhat d e s c r i p t i v e of your r e a c t i o n , f i l l i n the number 2 f o r Somewhat d e s c r i p t i v e . Thank you i n advance f o r your cooperation. The Impact Message Inventory was developed by Donald J . K i e s l e r , Jack C. Anchin, Michael J . P e r k i n s , Bernard M. C h i r i c o , Edgar M. K y l e , and Edward J . Federman of V i r g i n i a Commonwealth U n i v e r s i t y , Richmond, V i r g i n i a . © 1975, 1976 by Donald J . K i e s l e r 1 - Not at a l l 2 - Somewhat WHEN I AM WITH THIS 1. bossed around. 2. d i s t a n t from her . 3. A. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 14. 15. 16. 3 - Moderately so 4 - Very much so PERSON SHE MAKES ME FEEL 17. embarrassed for her 18. super ior to he r . important, enter ta ined . impersonal . l i ke an in t ruder , in charge, appreciated by h e r . part of the group when she 's around. c o l d . 1 2 , - forced to shoulder a l l the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 13. needed. complimented. as i f she 's the c l a s s clown, annoyed. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. _ f r u s t r a t e d because she won't defend her p o s i t i o n . _ loved . _ taken charge o f . de fens ive . cur ious as to why she avoids being a lone . dominant. welcome with her . as important to her as others in the group. l i k e an impersonal audience. uneasy. as though she should do i t h e r s e l f . admired. l i k e I'm just one of many f r i e n d s . 1 - Not at a l l 3 - Moderately so 2 - Somewhat WHEN I AM WITH THIS PERSON SHE I want to t e l l her to give someone e l s e a chance to make a d e c i s i o n . I should be cautious about what I say or do around her. I should be very gentle w i t h her. I want her to disagree w i t h me some t itne s. I could lean on her f o r support. I want to put her down. I'm going to intrude. I should t e l l her to stand up f o r h e r s e l f . I can ask her to ca r r y her share of the load. I could r e l a x and she'd take charge. I want to stay away from her. I should avoid p u t t i n g her on the spot. I could t e l l her anything and she would agree. I can j o i n i n the a c t i v i t i e s . I want to t e l l her she's obnoxious. I want to get away from her. 4 - Very much so MAKES ME FEEL THAT ... 17. I should do something to put her at ease. 18. I want to poi n t out her good q u a l i t i e s to her. 19. I shouldn't h e s i t a t e to c a l l on her. 20. I shouldn't take her s e r i o u s l y . 21. I should t e l l her she's o f t e n q u i t e i n c o n s i d e r a t e . 22. I want to show her what she does i s s e l f - d e f e a t i n g . 23. I should t e l l her not to be so nervous around me. 24. I could ask her to do anything. 25. I want to ask her why she c o n s t a n t l y needs to be with other people. 26. . I want to p r o t e c t myself. 27. I should leave her alone. 28. I should g e n t l y help her begin to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r her own dec i s i o n s . 29. I want to hear what she doesn't l i k e about me. 30. I should l i k e her. 1 - Not at a l l 2 - Somewhat WHEN I AM WITH THIS PERSON IT she wants to be the center of a t t r a c t i o n . she doesn't want to get involved with me. she i s most comfortable withdrawing i n t o the background when an issue a r i s e s . she want to pi c k my b r a i n . 3 - Moderately so 4 - Very much so APPEARS TO ME THAT ... 17. she's nervous around me, 18. 19. 20. she c a r r i e s her share of the load. 21, she wants me to put her on a 22. pedestal. she'd ra t h e r be alone. 23. she thinks she can't do anything 24. for h e r s e l f . her time i s mine i f I need i t . 25. she wants everyone to l i k e her. 26. she thinks i t ' s every person f o r 27. himself or h e r s e l f . she thinks she w i l l be r i d i c u l e d 28. i f she a s s e r t s h e r s e l f w i t h others. she would accept whatever I s a i d . 29. she wants to be h e l p f u l . she wants to be the charming one. she's c a r r y i n g a grudge. 30. whatever I d i d would be okay w i t h her. she t r u s t s me. she t h i n k s other people f i n d her i n t e r e s t i n g , amusing, f a s c i n a t i n g and w i t t y . she weighs s i t u a t i o n s i n terms of what she can get out of them. she'd r a t h e r be l e f t alone. she sees me as s u p e r i o r . she's genuinely i n t e r e s t e d i n me. she wants to be w i t h o t h e r s . she t h i n k s she's always i n c o n t r o l of t h i n g s . as f a r as she's concerned, I could j u s t as e a s i l y be someone e l s e . she thinks she i s inadequate she t h i n k s I have most of the answers. she enjoys being with people 68 Appendix E The Future Interaction Questionnaire (FIQ) OPINION SCALE What are your thoughts and opinions about the person you have just seen? Answer the following questions by c i r c l i n g one of the numbers on the 6-point scale given with each question. Consider the person i n comparison with other acquaintances that you have. Work quickly. Your f i r s t impression i s probably best. 1. Would you l i k e to meet t h i s person? 1 2 3 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes Would you ask t h i s person for advice? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 3. Would you l i k e to s i t next to t h i s person on a 3 hour bus t r i p ? 1 2 3 4 5 6__ d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 4. Would you be w i l l i n g to work on a job with t h i s person? 1 2 3 4 5 6__ d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 5. Would you be w i l l i n g to have t h i s person eat lunch with you often? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 6. Would you i n v i t e t h i s person to your home? 1 2 3 4 5 6__ d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 7. Would you be w i l l i n g to share an apartment with someone l i k e t h i s ? 1 2 3 4 5 6_ d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 8. Would you be w i l l i n g to have a person l i k e t h i s supervise your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6___ d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 9. How physically a t t r a c t i v e do you think t h i s person i s ? 1 2 3 4 5 6__ d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 10. How s o c i a l l y poised do you think t h i s person i s ? 1 2 3 4 5 6__ d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes69 OPINION SCALE, Cont 'd 70 11. How likely would i t be that this person could become a close friend of yours? 1 2 _3 4 5 6 definitely no definitely yes 12. How likely would you be to approve of a close relative dating a person with this kind of personality? 1 2 3 4 5 6 definitely no 4efinitely yes 13. How likely would you be to approve of a close relative marrying someone with a personality like this? 1 2 3 4 5 6 definitely no definitely yes Appendix F Bipolar Adjective Rating Seal Comfort: • j — - 3 £ 5 g -d i s t i n c t l y somewhat comfortable uncomfortable/ comfortable and r e l a x e d tense 72 Friendliness 1— ~ J j - -n o t i c e a b l y somewhat very h ° ! < ^ ^ iendly J £ J u n f r i e n d l * friendly 73 Mood 1 2 3 4 — § "7 v e t 7 average very " d happy 7h S o c i a l S k i l l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v < r y of average v e r v awkward l U ' ° ! - ? J l J • k i l l e d 75 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097054/manifest

Comment

Related Items