Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Feb 25.
Published in final edited form as: J Affect Disord. 2025 Feb 25;378:90–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2025.02.079

Negative Affective Responsivity to Daily Stressors in Young Adults: the Influence of Depressive Symptom Severity

Ashley M Darling 1,*, Heejung Jang 2,*, Erika FH Saunders 3, David M Almeida 4,5, Jacqueline Mogle 2, Jody L Greaney 1,6
PMCID: PMC12478596  NIHMSID: NIHMS2062130  PMID: 40015650

Abstract

Background:

Evidence suggests that adults with major depressive disorder appraise daily stressor events as more severe and report stronger stressor-related negative emotions than non-depressed adults. Despite the growing number of young adults (~18–25 yrs) experiencing depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal clinical diagnosis, limited studies have examined whether current depressive symptom severity influences affective responsivity to daily stressors in young men and women. We tested the hypotheses that greater depressive symptom severity would be related to greater negative stressor appraisal characteristics and greater affective responsivity to daily stressors but not to stressor exposure frequency. We further hypothesized that the relations between depressive symptom severity and daily stress processes would be sensitized in young females compared to males.

Methods:

Depressive symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and daily stress processes (8-day daily dairy) were assessed in 235 young adults (18–30 yrs; 166 females).

Results:

Greater depressive symptom severity was related to greater likelihood of daily stressor exposure, intensity of feelings of anger and shame following a stressor event, and negative and positive affective responsivity to daily stressors. Self-reported biological sex moderated the association between depressive symptom severity and positive (but not negative) affective responsivity to daily stressors.

Limitations:

Causality cannot be established from this daily diary study design

Conclusions:

These data demonstrate that daily stressors are more pervasively reported and worsen negative affect to a greater extent in young adults currently experiencing more severe symptoms of depression, which may contribute to an increased risk of developing future chronic disease.

Keywords: depression, daily stress, affective responsivity, positive affect, negative affect

INTRODUCTION

Young adulthood is marked by major changes in social roles (e.g., financial independence, obtaining educational and occupational skills, cultivating romantic relationships, etc.) that often result in encountering more frequent naturally occurring stressful events and situations during routine everyday life (e.g., argument with a partner, work deadlines) (Almeida et al., 2023; Arnett, 2000; Stawski et al., 2008). Indeed, daily stressors—a unique domain of psychosocial stress defined as the routine challenges of day-to-day living and the unexpected small hassles that disrupt everyday life—are pervasive and ubiquitous, occurring on ~45% of all days in young adults (Almeida, 2005; Almeida et al., 2023; Almeida et al., 2002; Greaney et al., 2021; Greaney et al., 2020). In response to experiencing a daily stressor, an individual performs multiple appraisal processes to determine whether or not the event threatens their well-being, and if so, what resources they have to overcome it (Lazarus, 1984). The extent to which an individual perceives the stressor to be threatening or less controllable is associated with its perceived severity (Fassett-Carman et al., 2019; Lebois et al., 2016); exposure to more severe stressors during everyday life, in turn, corresponds a stronger affective response (Garrison and Schmeichel, 2022; Stawski et al., 2008). To obtain a more reliable and precise estimate of the affective response to daily stressors and its impact on health and well-being, several recent studies have started operationalizing affective responsivity to daily stressors as the magnitude of the difference in affect on days with at least one daily stressor occurrence compared to affect on stressor-free days within an individual (Almeida, 2005; Greaney et al., 2021; Robinette et al., 2021; Witzel and Stawski, 2021). Conceptually, this has important clinical implications: accumulating evidence suggests that amplified negative and positive affective responsivity to daily stressors (i.e., greater negative affect and reduced positive affect on stressor days compared to stressor-free days) predict the future development of depressive symptoms and affective disorders (Charles et al., 2013; Zhaoyang et al., 2020).

Stress system dysfunction—including dysregulated affective dynamics and emotional processing—is a hallmark pathological feature of major depressive disorder (MDD) (Gold and Chrousos, 2002), an affective disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood and/or anhedonia that causes significant functional impairment in daily life (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). MDD typically first manifests during emerging adulthood (18–25 yrs), with symptoms frequently recurring in an episodic manner throughout the lifespan (Frank and Thase, 1999; Kessler et al., 2005). Alarmingly, recent data suggest prevalence rates for depressive disorders of up to ~25–30% in young adults (2022; Goodwin et al., 2022). Compounding these statistics, a growing number of young adults are experiencing depressive symptoms even in the absence of a formal clinical diagnosis and demonstrate enough impairment during routine life that their illness is distressing but not yet unmanageable (i.e., subclinical depression) (2022; Chen et al., 2023; Handy et al., 2022; Sheehan, 2004). Importantly, depressive symptoms are associated with disturbed psychosocial function and poorer quality of life, even in those with milder manifestations of illness who are not functionally incapacitated in their daily lives (Judd et al., 1994; Rugulies, 2002; Steffen et al., 2020). However, our understanding of whether and how the presence or severity of depressive symptoms regardless of categorical diagnosis influences affective responsivity to daily stressors in young adults remains limited. Given only a fraction of adults experiencing depressive symptoms will be formally diagnosed with depression (Faisal-Cury et al., 2022), but implementation of symptom screening is currently recommended as a part of routine preventative care (Force et al., 2023), this is a meaningful line of inquiry.

A body of literature documents diminished affective reactivity to both positive and negative stimuli in adults with MDD (i.e., emotion context insensitivity) (Bylsma, 2021; Rottenberg et al., 2005). It is important to note, however, that the majority of this evidence is derived from studies assessing emotional reactivity to laboratory-based stimuli over very brief timescales (e.g., seconds-to-minutes) in adults meeting diagnostic criteria for MDD (Bylsma, 2021; Rottenberg and Hindash, 2015; Sun et al., 2022). In contrast, although comparatively limited, the studies that have examined affective dynamics during everyday life in young adults clinically diagnosed with MDD report a distinctly different pattern of affective responsivity to positive and negative daily events (Bylsma et al., 2011; Greaney et al., 2021; Greaney et al., 2019; Sheets and Armey, 2020). That is, even though young adults with depression—either in the midst of a current depressive episode or in remission—do not appear to report a greater frequency of daily stressor events (Greaney et al., 2021; Peeters et al., 2003; Sheets and Armey, 2020), they do appraise daily stressors as more severe and experience a greater intensity of negative emotions during a daily stressor exposure (Bylsma et al., 2011; Greaney et al., 2019). In line with this, there is some evidence for heightened negative affective responsivity to daily stressors in young adults with depression (Greaney et al., 2021; Myin-Germeys et al., 2003; Sheets and Armey, 2020), though this is not a universal finding (Peeters et al., 2003). Together, these findings are largely consistent with the stress generation theory (Hammen, 1991), which posits that the neurobiology of depression influences behavior and cognitive patterns (e.g., coping, decision-making), thereby increasing the likelihood of experiencing a higher rate of stressful events during everyday life, particularly within interpersonal domains. However, the extent to which the presence of current depressive symptoms across a spectrum of severity—independent of a clinical diagnosis of depression—influences negative or positive affective responsivity to daily stressors in young adults remains incompletely understood. The framework for this line of inquiry is consistent the recommendations put forth by the National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria (Cuthbert and Insel, 2013).

Compared to young men, young women are twice as likely to have a single depressive episode and 4 times as likely to have recurrent depression (Kendler et al., 2003; Kessler et al., 2005). There is also evidence for gender differences in daily stress processes (Asselmann et al., 2017; Darling et al., 2024; Graves et al., 2021; O’Hara et al., 2014; Pettit et al., 2010). For example, young women experience more stressor events during routine everyday life than young men and also perceive those stressors to be more severe, thereby resulting in stronger stress-related negative emotions (Asselmann et al., 2017; Darling et al., 2024; Graves et al., 2021; O’Hara et al., 2014; Pettit et al., 2010). Confirming and extending this, we were recently the first to demonstrate exaggerated negative and also positive affective responsivity to daily stressors in young women compared to young men (Darling et al., 2024). The notable sex differences in both the prevalence of depressive disorders and in the vulnerability to daily stressors underscore the importance of examining whether the association between depressive symptom severity and daily stressor processes is further amplified (i.e., even steeper) in young women.

Given this background, we hypothesized that greater depressive symptom severity would not be related to the self-reported frequency of daily stressor exposures but would be associated with 1) greater negative stressor appraisal processes (e.g., stressor severity, lower control, etc.) and 2) greater affective responsivity to daily stressors (i.e., a larger magnitude of change in negative and, separately, positive affect on stressor days compared to stressor-free days). We further hypothesized that the relation between current depressive symptom severity and daily stress processes would be sensitized in young women compared to young men.

METHODS

All experimental procedures and protocols were approved by The Institutional Review Board at The University of Texas at Arlington (2020–0912, 2019–0266), and the investigation was conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, except for registration in a public database prior to recruitment. Verbal informed consent was obtained voluntarily from all participants prior to participation. Data are available via the NIMH National Data Archive; analysis scripts are shared via the Open Science Framework (link: https://osf.io/w7gfk/?view_only=c56c4dde97974bae82fca80e8da90c43).

Participants

Young adults (18–30 yrs) were recruited from The University of Texas at Arlington campus and the surrounding Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex using common means of study advertisement (e.g., posting recruitment fliers in community locations, lecture hall presentations, social media avenues, etc.). Young adults lacking reliable access to an internet-connected device (required for completion of daily stress surveys described below) or an inability to comply with study procedures were excluded from participation. At study enrollment, and following verbal informed consent, all participants (n=235) completed a self-report basic sociodemographic questionnaire [race and ethnicity (using NIH categories), age, biological sex, student status (yes/no), academic year if a student (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, other)], and current on-campus living situation if a student (yes/no)]. This information was used only to better describe the sample (Table 1), not to determine study eligibility.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics.

Characteristic All (n=235) Females (n=166) Males (n=69)
Age (yrs) 21 ± 3 21 ± 2 22 ± 4*
Current student (yes) 189 (80%) 133 (80%) 56 (81%)
Race
 White 93 (40%)
 Black or African American 31 (13%)
 Native American or Alaska Native 18 (7%)
 Asian 77 (33%)
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2 (1%)
 Bi-racial/Multi-racial 14 (6) %
Ethnicity
 Hispanic or Latino 70 (30%)
 Not Hispanic or Latino 164 (70%)
Open in a new tab

PHQ-9, patient health questionnaire-9.

*

p<0.05 vs Females.

Assessment of Daily Stress Processes

Young adults completed a web-based version of the Daily Inventory of Stressful Events (DISE) every evening for 8 consecutive days to assess objective (e.g., frequency, stressor type) and subjective appraisal characteristics (e.g., severity, intensity of emotions) of daily stressors (Almeida et al., 2002; Greaney et al., 2021). The DISE is a daily diary-based approach for the assessment of daily stress processes across the lifespan that has been extensively validated in the NIH/NIA National Study of Daily Experiences (Almeida et al., 2023; Charles et al., 2013; Chiang et al., 2018; Piazza et al., 2013; Sin et al., 2015a; Sin et al., 2015b; Sin et al., 2016). Participants received an automated text message at 5p each evening that contained a URL for that day’s DISE (accessible until 11:59p) and a personalized text message follow-up reminder at 9p each evening. To further facilitate compliance, a tiered monetary compensation structure was utilized, as is standard in our laboratory. This sampling timeframe (once/day for 8 consecutive days) was selected for consistency with both the ongoing NIH/NIA Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study (a national longitudinal study examining daily stress processes across the lifespan) (Ryff et al., 2019), as well as previous investigations in our laboratory (Darling et al., 2024; Greaney et al., 2021; Greaney et al., 2019; Greaney et al., 2020).

The DISE consists of stem questions followed by structured probes asking whether any of six naturally occurring daily stressors occurred in the past 24 hours (yes/no): argument, argument avoidance, stressful event at work or school, stressful event at home, network stress (i.e., stressful event that happened to a friend or relative), or any other stressful event. For each stressor subtype endorsed, participants also rated subjective stressor severity (0=not at all to 3=very) and how much control they felt they had (0=none at all to 3=a lot) (Cerino et al., 2024), as well as the intensity of four emotions (anger, nervousness/anxiety, sadness, shame) they may have experienced during the stressor (0=not at all to 3=very). To operationalize daily stressor exposure, each survey day was classified as either a “stressor day” (i.e., day on which at least one stressor was reported) or a “stressor-free day” (i.e., day on which no stressors were reported). In addition to the frequency of stressor days, the total number of stressors reported per day were aggregated to derive the total number of stressors experienced across all survey days for each participant. To operationalize daily stressor appraisal characteristics, stressor severity, control, and emotion intensity ratings were separately averaged across all reported stressors, as well as for each stressor subtype, for each participant. Reliability is not typically computed for binary indicators. Following the guidelines for intensive, nested measurements (Hox, 2017), we calculated reliability for stressor severity (0.59), control (0.71), and the four stressor-related emotions [anger (0.65), nervousness/anxiety (0.71), sadness (0.76), and shame (0.78)].

Assessment of Daily Affect

To assess daily affect, participants rated how often they experienced 13 positive emotions (in good spirits, cheerful, extremely happy, calm and peaceful, satisfied, full of life, close to others, like you belong, enthusiastic, attentive, proud, active, and confident) and 14 negative emotions (restless or fidgety, nervous, worthless, so sad nothing could cheer you up, everything was an effort, hopeless, lonely, afraid, jittery, irritable, ashamed, upset, angry, and frustrated) throughout the day using a 5-point Likert scale (0=none of the time to 4=all the time) (Kessler et al., 2002; Mroczek and Kolarz, 1998). All positive and negative affect item ratings were averaged to calculate daily positive and negative affect, respectively (Charles et al., 2013; Greaney et al., 2021; Greaney et al., 2020).

Because positive and negative affect were assessed daily, we computed the reliability of these measures following standard guidelines for repeated measures (Hox, 2017). The reliability of positive affect was 0.94 and negative affect was 0.83. To operationalize affective responsivity, positive and negative affective responsivity to stressors was quantified as the effect of exposure to any daily stressor on positive and negative affect using multilevel modeling with random effects (Charles et al., 2013; Greaney et al., 2021; Sin et al., 2016).

Single Assessment of Depressive Symptom Severity

On the first DISE survey day, depressive symptom severity was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a valid and sensitive measure based on the diagnostic criteria for Diagnostic Statistics Manual-5 (DSM-5) depressive disorders (Kroenke et al., 2001; Spitzer et al., 1999). Participants rated the frequency of the nine core symptoms of depression over the previous two weeks on a 4-point Likert scale (0=not at all to 3=nearly every day). Responses were added to derive a total score (possible range 0–27); severity was classified as none (0–4), mild (5–9), moderate (10–14), moderately severe (15–19), or severe (20–27) (Spitzer et al., 1999). The PHQ-9 has been used to quantify depressive symptom severity across a continuum of function in young adults, even in the absence of a diagnosed depressive disorder (Bachle et al., 2015; Clarke et al., 2009; Greaney et al., 2021).

Data analysis and statistical approach

Analyses were performed with Stata 14.2 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). Data analyses were conducted in a series of steps. First, descriptive statistics and summary scores for all participants and days were calculated. Second, because all daily diary data were nested (days at level 1 nested in persons at level 2), multilevel modeling was used for substantive analyses (Hox, 2017). Multilevel mixed-effects regression models were utilized to examine how depressive symptom severity was associated with indices of daily stressor exposure (frequency of stressor days, total number of stressors, and presence/absence of each subtype of stressor) using multilevel logistic regressions (Stata command melogit). We conducted linear multilevel mixed-effects regressions with a restricted maximum likelihood estimator (REML) (Stata command mixed) to model how depressive symptom severity relates to negative stress appraisal characteristics (e.g., severity, control, and stressor-related emotion variables) and affective responsivity to daily stressors. A two-way interaction was entered to determine whether depressive symptom severity, self-reported biological sex, or the combination of these two variables (i.e., interaction) predicted daily stressor exposure or appraisal characteristics. If the interaction between depressive symptom severity and biological sex was not significant, the final model only included the main effects for depressive symptom severity and biological sex.

To examine affective responsivity, we included the two- and three-way interaction terms among stressor exposure, depressive symptom severity, and biological sex to determine whether depressive symptom severity, biological sex, or their combination moderated the relation between daily stressor exposure and positive and negative affect.

All models included age, self-reported biological sex (1=female, 0=male), student status (1=student, 0=not a student), self-reported ethnicity (1=Hispanic/Latino, 0=not Hispanic/Latino), and self-reported race (White, Black, Asian, AI/Alaska native, other) as covariates (Greaney et al., 2021; Piazza et al., 2013). Data were missing for 1 participant for race and 2 participants for ethnicity, and these participants were excluded from analyses that included race or ethnicity. Odds ratios are reported for binary outcomes (daily stressor exposure), and unstandardized estimates are reported for models with continuous outcomes (appraisal characteristics, affect). Continuous predictor variables were grand mean-centered to aid in the interpretation of coefficients. Significance was set at p<0.05. Because the current data are secondary analyses from a larger parent study, post hoc power analyses were not conducted (Zhang et al., 2019).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics

Demographic characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1. Young adults (n=235) were 21±3 years, predominately female (70.6%), and a majority were university students (80.4%; Table 1). The sample was racially and ethnically diverse (Table 1). PHQ-9 scores ranged from 0 to 26, with a mean score of 9±7 (Table 2).

Table 2.

Correlations of daily stressor appraisal characteristics, depressive symptom severity, positive affect, and negative affect.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean (SD)
1. Stress severity – 1.97 (0.72)
   Ndays 791
2. Anger 0.29* – 1.31 (0.95)
   Ndays 791 792
3. Nervousness 0.49* −0.02 – 1.52 (0.99)
   Ndays 791 792 792
4. Sadness 0.39* 0.25* 0.34* – 1.24 (1.02)
   Ndays 791 792 792 792
5. Shame 0.22* 0.10* 0.35* 0.43* – 0.74 (0.91)
   Ndays 791 792 792 792 792
6. Control −0.18* −0.07* −0.08* −0.09* 0.11* – 1.40 (0.98)
   Ndays 791 792 792 792 792 792
7. PHQ-9 0.08* 0.22* 0.05 0.08* 0.18* 0.05 – 8.77 (6.83)
   Ndays 783 784 784 784 784 784 1,717
8. Positive Affect −0.20* −0.19* −0.18* −0.13* −0.16* 0.10* −0.39* – 1.75 (1.00)
   Ndays 791 792 792 792 792 792 1,717 1,739
9. Negative Affect 0.36* 0.33* 0.34* 0.36* 0.36* −0.01 0.46* −0.48* – 0.65 (0.62)
   Ndays 791 792 792 792 792 792 1,717 1,739 1,739
Open in a new tab

Total number of daily assessments = 1,739. Positive and negative affect were separately averaged across all interview days for each participant. PHQ-9, patient health questionnaire-9.

*

p <0.05.

On average, participants completed 7.3±1.4 surveys (out of 8 possible), with only 24 (10.2%) participants completing fewer than 6 surveys. Participants experienced at least one daily stressor on 46±28% of surveyed days (range: 0–100%), with an average of 5±4 total stressors across the 8-day survey timeframe (range: 0–20). Across the 8-day survey timeframe, participants reported an average daily positive affect of 1.8±0.8 (range: 0.1–4.0) and daily negative affect of 0.7±0.6 (range: 0.0–2.4). Summary scores for stressor severity, as well as the intensity of each stressor-related emotion, in the full sample are presented in Table 2. Correlations between daily stressor appraisal characteristics, depressive symptom severity, and daily positive and negative affect are also provided (Table 2).

Depressive symptom severity and daily stress processes

In contrast to the hypothesis, greater depressive symptom severity was associated with a greater frequency of exposure to daily stressors (Table 3; both p<0.05), as well as greater likelihood of experiencing each subtype of daily stressors, with the exceptions of argument and network stressors (i.e., stressors that occur to close friends or family; Table 3). Additionally, as hypothesized, depressive symptom severity was associated with higher appraisals of anger and shame during daily stressor exposure (Table 4). Greater depressive symptom severity was also associated with lower positive affect (b=−0.06, SE=0.01, p<0.001) and greater negative affect (b=0.03, SE=0.004, p<0.001) on stressor-free days (Table 5, Model 1). As expected, positive affect was lower (b=−0.30, SE=0.03, p<0.001) and negative affect was higher (b=0.37, SE=0.02, p<0.001) on days participants experienced at least one daily stressor compared to stressor-free days (i.e., affective responsivity to daily stressors; Table 5). Although there was no evidence for the hypothesized association between depressive symptom severity and positive affective responsivity to daily stressors (p=0.28; Figure 1A), as predicted, depressive symptom severity was related to greater negative affective responsivity to daily stressors (b=0.01, SE=0.003, p<0.001; Table 5 and Figure 1B).

Table 3.

Effect of depressive symptom severity on daily stressor exposure.

Variable Number of Stressorsa
 Stressor Day
 Argument
 Argument Avoidance
b (SE) 95% CI Odds Ratio 95% CI Odds Ratio 95% CI Odds Ratio 95% CI
PHQ-9 0.02 (0.01)* 0.01, 0.03 1.04* 1.01, 1.07 1.01 .98, 1.04 1.04* 1.02, 1.07
Age −0.01 (0.01) −0.04, 0.01 0.98 0.92, 1.05 1.02 0.95, 1.07 0.99 0.92, 1.07
Female 0.25 (0.07)* 0.11, 0.39 1.91* 1.32, 2.78 1.81* 1.26, 2.60 1.57* 1.03, 2.38
Student −0.05 (0.09) −0.22, 0.13 0.76 0.47, 1.23 0.73 0.50, 1.06 0.83 0.49, 1.39
Hispanic/Latino −0.10 (0.10) −0.28, 0.09 0.77 0.47, 1.27 0.83 0.56, 1.24 0.82 0.49, 1.40
Race (ref: White)
 Black −0.16 (0.11) −0.38, 0.06 0.77 0.43, 1.37 0.83 0.50, 1.36 1.18 0.64, 2.17
 Asian −0.25 (0.09)* −0.43, −0.08 0.47* 0.30, 0.74 0.78 0.53, 1.14 0.69 0.42, 1.14
 AI or Alaska Native 0.001 (0.14) −0.27, 0.27 0.96 0.47, 1.93 1.27 0.72, 2.24 1.39 0.66, 2.93
 Other −0.07 (0.13) −0.33, 0.19 1.17 0.59, 2.34 1.61 0.98, 2.66 1.16 0.57, 2.35
PHQ-9 x Female -- -- 1.06* 1.00, 1.11 1.08* 1.02, 1.14 -- --
Work Stress
 Home Stress
 Network Stress
 Other Stress
 
 Odds Ratio
 95% CI
 Odds Ratio
 95% CI
 Odds Ratio
 95% CI
 Odds Ratio
 95% CI
PHQ-9 1.04* 1.02, 1.07 1.04* 1.00, 1.08 1.03 0.99, 1.07 1.05* 1.01, 1.08
Age 0.94 0.87, 1.01 0.96 0.86, 1.07 0.94 0.84, 1.05 0.96 0.87, 1.07
Female 1.44 0.95, 2.16 2.42* 1.28, 4.56 1.49 0.81, 2.75 1.33 0.74, 2.39
Student 1.42 0.83, 2.43 0.83 0.41, 1.69 0.64 0.32, 1.30 1.26 0.59, 2.69
Hispanic/Latino 0.76 0.46, 1.26 0.98 0.48, 2.01 0.92 0.45, 1.87 0.85 0.42, 1.74
Race (ref: White)
 Black 0.60 0.32, 1.10 0.92 0.40, 2.15 0.27* 0.09, 0.85 0.48 0.18, 1.25
 Asian 0.43* 0.26, 0.70 0.61 0.30, 1.22 0.64 0.32, 1.29 0.71 0.37, 1.39
 AI or Alaska Native 0.53 0.24, 1.19 0.80 0.29, 2.25 1.21 0.47, 3.14 1.04 0.37, 2.91
 Other 0.63 0.31, 1.27 0.49 0.16, 1.50 0.92 0.34, 2.47 0.46 0.14, 1.46
Open in a new tab

Multilevel logistic regressions were performed.

a

Multilevel mixed-effects regression was conducted. PHQ-9, patient health questionnaire-9; AI, American Indian.

*

p<0.05. ICCs for empty models ranged from .09 (argument) to .28 (stressor day).

Table 4.

Effect of depressive symptom severity on daily stressor appraisal characteristics.

Variable Stressor Severity Control Anger Nervousness/Anxiety Sadness Shame
PHQ-9 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.03 (0.01)* 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)*
Age −0.001 (0.01) −0.001 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) −0.003 (0.02)
Female 0.18 (0.08)* −0.30 (0.11)* 0.22 (0.10)* 0.36 (0.11)* 0.36 (0.12)* 0.09 (0.10)
Student −0.04 (0.09) −0.001 (0.14) −0.14 (0.12) 0.14 (0.14) −0.01 (0.15) 0.07 (0.13)
Hispanic/Latino 0.15 (0.09) 0.02 (0.14) −0.11 (0.12) 0.10 (0.14) 0.24 (0.15) 0.04 (0.13)
Race (ref: White)
 Black 0.04 (0.11) −0.03 (0.16) −0.10 (0.14) −0.10 (0.16) 0.21 (0.17) −0.03 (0.15)
 Asian 0.01 (0.09) 0.09 (0.13) 0.07 (0.11) −0.15 (0.13) 0.31 (0.14)* −0.02 (0.12)
 AI or Alaska Native −0.02 (0.14) −0.16 (0.20) 0.01 (0.16) −0.15 (0.20) 0.18 (0.21) −0.17 (0.19)
 Other −0.08 (0.12) 0.08 (0.19) 0.20 (0.16) −0.41 (0.18) −0.18 (0.20) −0.38 (0.17)*
Intercept 1.63 (0.18)* 1.89 (0.26)* 1.04 (0.23)* 0.90 (0.26)* 0.45 (0.27) 0.54 (0.24)*
Open in a new tab

Multilevel mixed regressions were conducted and included a random intercept. Data are b(SE). PHQ-9, patient health questionnaire-9; AI, American Indian.

*

p<0.05. ICCs for empty models ranged from .15 (stressor severity) to .30 (shame).

Table 5.

Effects of daily stressor exposure, depressive symptom severity, and biological sex on positive and negative affect.

Positive Affect
 Negative Affect
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Stressor Day (SD) −0.30 (0.03)* −0.21 (0.06)* −0.20 (0.06)* 0.37 (0.02)* 0.26 (0.04)* 0.26 (0.04)*
PHQ-9 −0.06 (0.01)* −0.05 (0.01)* −0.04 (0.01)* 0.03 (0.004)* 0.04 (0.003)* 0.03 (0.01)*
Female −0.12 (0.11) −0.07 (0.11) −0.08 (0.11) 0.09 (0.05) 0.03 (0.06) 0.03 (0.06)
SD × PHQ-9 0.01 (0.01) −0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.003)* 0.02 (0.01)*
SD × Female −0.13 (0.07) −0.14 (0.07) 0.16 (0.05)* 0.15 (0.05)*
PHQ-9 × Female −0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.01)
SD × PHQ-9 × Female 0.02 (0.01)* −0.01 (0.01)
Intercept 2.33 (0.26)* 2.17 (0.18)* 2.18 (0.19)* 0.41 (0.09)* 0.45 (0.09)* 0.44 (0.09)*
Open in a new tab

Multilevel mixed regressions were conducted and included a random intercept. Coefficients are unstandardized. For continuous variables, coefficients reflect the change in the outcome for one unit change in the predictor. For categorical variables, coefficients reflect the difference between the reference group and the remaining category. Covariates (age, student status, and race/ethnicity) were controlled for in all the models. PHQ-9, patient health questionnaire-9. Data are b(SE).

*

p < 0.05. ICC for PA = .67; ICC for NA = .49.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Greater depressive symptom severity is related to greater negative affective responsivity to daily stressors. Individual data (n=199) and multilevel model estimates of positive affective responsivity (A) and negative affective responsivity (B) to daily stressors at each patient health history questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score. All models include age, student status, and race/ethnicity as covariates.

Depressive symptom severity, self-reported biological sex, and daily stress processes

Although males were slightly older than females (Table 1; p=0.01), there were no differences in depressive symptom severity between the sexes (PHQ-9 scores: 8±7 males vs 9±6 females, p=0.44). Females reported a higher frequency of exposure to daily stressors (b=0.25, SE=0.07; OR=1.91, 95%CI [1.32, 2.78]) and a greater likelihood of arguments (OR=1.81, 95%CI [1.26, 2.60]), avoided arguments (OR=1.57, 95%CI [1.03, 2.38]), and home stressors (OR=2.42, 95%CI [1.28, 4.56]) compared to men (Table 3). Females also reported greater stressor severity (b=0.18, SE=0.08), lower stressor control (b=−0.30, SE=0.11), and greater anger (b=0.22, SE=0.10), nervousness/anxiety (b=0.36, SE=0.11), and sadness (b=0.36 SE=0.12) during a daily stressor compared to men (Table 4). Negative (b=0.16, SE=0.05, p=0.003), but not positive (b=−0.13, SE=0.07, p=0.06), affective responsivity to daily stressors was amplified in young females compared to young males (Table 5).

We next examined whether depressive symptom severity and self-reported biological sex interacted to predict daily stressor exposure or appraisals. Consistent with our original hypotheses, there was a significant two-way interaction for exposure to any self-reported stressor exposure (p=0.05), such that females with greater depressive symptom severity reported more daily stressors compared to males with the same degree of depressive symptom severity. This was particularly evident for daily exposure to arguments (p=0.007): females with greater depressive symptoms were three-times more likely to report an argument compared to males with the same degree of severity of depressive symptoms (OR=3.00; 95%CI [1.74, 5.17]). All other two-way interactions for daily stressor exposure were not significant (all ps>0.09). Unexpectedly, there were no significant two-way interactions for daily stressor appraisal characteristics (p>0.14).

When examining the three-way interactions among depressive symptom severity, biological sex, and daily stressors, greater depressive symptom severity was associated with blunted positive affective responsivity in females. That is, counter to the original hypothesis, females experiencing greater depressive symptoms paradoxically had smaller reductions in positive affect on daily stressor days compared to stressor-free days (b=0.02, SE=0.01, p=0.04; Table 5 and Figure 2A). In contrast, biological sex did not moderate the relation between depressive symptom severity and negative affective responsivity to daily stressors (p=0.20; Table 5 and Figure 2B).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

In women, greater depressive symptom severity is related to blunted positive affective responsivity. Multilevel model estimates of positive affective responsivity (A) and negative affective responsivity (B) to daily stress at each patient health history questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score separately in young women and men. All models include age, student status, and race/ethnicity as covariates.

DISCUSSION

The present study highlights several novel findings describing how the severity of depressive symptoms in young adults are associated with aspects of daily stress processes known to influence overall health and well-being. First, greater depressive symptom severity was associated with self-reporting a greater frequency of daily stressor exposure and a greater intensity of anger and shame during a daily stressor event. Second, the severity of depressive symptoms was positively related to negative (but not positive) affective responsivity to daily stressors in young adults, even when controlling for demographic characteristics known to influence both daily stress processes and depressive symptoms (e.g., biological sex, student status). Third, in young females, negative affective responsivity to daily stressors was amplified compared to young males. Lastly, contrary to our original hypothesis, greater depressive symptom severity was associated with blunted positive affective responsivity to daily stressors in young females, but gender did not influence the relation between depressive symptoms and negative affective responsivity to daily stressors. Taken together, these data demonstrate that daily stressors are more pervasive and worsen negative affect to a greater extent in adults currently experiencing more severe symptoms of depression. These data also suggest that young females are more vulnerable to daily stress than young males; in particular, the severity of concurrent symptoms of depression appears to exacerbate these effects through their impact on exposure to arguments. This study adds to the growing body of literature linking depressive disorders to enhanced vulnerability to daily stressors in young adults (Bylsma et al., 2011; Greaney et al., 2021; Greaney et al., 2019; Sheets and Armey, 2020), which may be one mechanism increasing their risk of developing overt psychiatric illnesses and/or additional clinical comorbidities (e.g., cardiovascular disease) in the future.

Most studies that have assessed daily stress processes in adults with depression have categorically classified participants based on meeting clinical diagnostic thresholds (Bylsma et al., 2011; Greaney et al., 2019; O’Hara et al., 2014; Peeters et al., 2003; Sheets and Armey, 2020). These studies generally report no differences in the frequency of self-reported daily stressor events between young adults with MDD and their healthy non-depressed counterparts (Greaney et al., 2019; Peeters et al., 2003; Sheets and Armey, 2020). However, one methodological shortcoming of these studies is their lack of consideration of depression across a larger spectrum of functioning (i.e., as a continuous variable) based on current depressive symptom severity. Here, in contrast both to these previous studies and, thus, our original hypothesis, we show that greater depressive symptom severity is associated with self-reporting a greater frequency of daily stressors in young adults experiencing depressive symptoms across a continuum of severity, independent from whether or not they have been clinically diagnosed. The reason(s) for this somewhat unexpected finding is not readily apparent, but potential explanations include differences in the characterization of depression (categorical versus dimensional), the sampling timeframes for the assessment of daily stressor exposure (once/day versus up to 10-times/day), and/or the approach for defining a stressor event (free-form input versus selection from pre-determined subtypes). Interestingly, the current findings appear consistent with a study reporting that depressive symptom severity is positively related to the frequency of interpersonal daily stressors in middle-aged adult outpatients with MDD undergoing cognitive therapy and thus reporting lower symptom severity (Parrish et al., 2011). Outcomes from our analyses examining the frequency of exposure to six different subtypes of daily stressors are largely in agreement with the findings for any stressor. That is, we also detected a link between symptom severity and greater self-reported exposure to interpersonal daily stressors (i.e., argument and argument avoidance); interestingly, we also observed this positive association with non-interpersonal stressors as well. Certainly, one potential explanation for these findings is the pronounced negativity bias evident in adults with depression, characterized in part by an expectation of negative events and outcomes (Gotlib and Joormann, 2010). In line with this, and as put forth by the stress generation theory (Hammen, 1991), there is evidence that cognitive-affective symptoms of depression predict the likelihood of experiencing a higher rate of stressful events particularly within interpersonal domains (Liu and Alloy, 2010; Safford et al., 2007). Extending this, our data raise the intriguing possibility that this theoretical framework may also apply to how often young adults with more severe current depressive symptoms perceive that a daily stressor event in general, and an interpersonal stressor in particular, has occurred. Collectively, these findings underscore the importance of considering both a conventional diagnostic categorical classification of depression and a dimensional approach across a larger spectrum of functioning when examining daily stress processes.

In addition to stressor exposure, greater depressive symptom severity was also positively associated with several (but not all) negative appraisal characteristics of daily stressors. Specifically, greater depressive symptom severity was related to experiencing a greater intensity of anger and shame during the daily stressor event, but was not related to stressor severity or feelings of control, anxiety, or sadness. These findings are broadly consistent with those from studies likewise reporting a greater intensity of negative emotions and unpleasantness related to daily stressors in adults diagnosed with MDD and either in the midst of a current depressive episode or in remission (Bylsma et al., 2011; Greaney et al., 2019; Sheets and Armey, 2020). We interpret these data as indicating that the severity of current depressive symptoms is positively related to the intensity with which some negative emotions are experienced during daily stressors. Interestingly, adults with depression often use increased avoidance and denial-based coping strategies for alleviating stress (Orzechowska et al., 2013), both of which are also paradoxically associated with greater intensity of disgust and anger in response to stressful encounters (Folkman and Lazarus, 1988). Although coping was not assessed in the current study, whether and how specific coping styles influence the association between depressive symptom severity and negative appraisal characteristics—and whether interventions aimed towards employing more active coping styles de-sensitize this link—warrants future investigation.

In addition to immediate changes in emotions, daily stressor exposure also had a greater impact on negative affect throughout the day in adults currently experiencing depressive symptoms of greater severity. Moreover, our novel findings show that symptom severity is positively related to greater negative affective responsivity to daily stressors in young adults. This confirms previous reports of greater negative affect on daily stressor days in adults with depression (Greaney et al., 2021) and extends these findings by providing estimates of negative affective responsivity to daily stressors across a continuum of symptom severity. Our data demonstrate that negative affect on stressor days was ~30% greater in adults with a PHQ-9 score of 10 [a score associated with the highest sensitivity and specificity for a diagnosis of major depression (Kroenke et al., 2001)] compared to those with a score of 0. This is clinically important given the well-established link between amplified negative affective responsivity to daily stressors and detrimental future mental and physical health outcomes. Specifically, a one-unit change in negative affect on stressor days compared to stressor-free days is associated with a 10% increase in the risk of developing a chronic disease and a 2x greater risk of mortality (Chiang et al., 2018; Piazza et al., 2013). The present findings suggest that greater negative affective responsivity to daily stressors may thus be one potential mechanism underlying increased future chronic disease risk in young adults experiencing depressive symptoms, and, if so, further highlight the utility of implementing intervention strategies targeting negative affective responsivity to daily stressors (e.g., mindfulness-based approaches) in young adulthood in order to reduce future disease risk in those who are most susceptible.

Somewhat surprisingly, our data demonstrate that depressive symptom severity is not linked to greater declines in positive affect on days with a daily stressor. Although positive and negative affect are distinct dimensions that only weakly correlate with one another (Cacioppo and Berntson, 1999; Watson et al., 1988), positive affect does have implications for overall health and well-being. Indeed, greater daily positive affect is associated with reduced risk of future stroke, disability onset, and mortality independent from the effects of negative affect (Blazer and Hybels, 2004; Ostir et al., 2000; Ostir et al., 2001). In this way, blunted positive affective responsivity to daily stressors (i.e., a relatively smaller change in positive affect on daily stressor days compared to stressor-free days) may serve in a protective role, perhaps buffering against the commensurately large daily stressor-related change in negative affect. This speculation merits prospective investigation. Nevertheless, our data indicate that daily positive affect on stressor-free days is 60% lower in adults with a PHQ-9 score of 10 compared to adults experiencing no current symptoms of depression. This may suggest a floor effect, such that further reductions in positive affect on stressor exposure days are not detectable with the affect scales used in the present study.

Interestingly, however, adding self-reported biological sex to our statistical models as a moderator revealed an association between greater depressive symptom severity and attenuated positive affective responsivity to daily stressors in females but not in males. These findings were somewhat unexpected given the evidence that greater depressive symptom severity is associated with less use of positive reframing in response to stress in women (Kelly et al., 2008), but, as above, these findings may simply be indicative of a floor effect. The influence of biological sex did not extend to the association between depressive symptom severity and negative affective responsivity to daily stressors. We posit that this may be due to females having greater negative affective responsivity to daily stressors than males, independent of depressive symptom severity. Indeed, we recently were the first to demonstrate that negative affective responsivity to daily stressors is exaggerated in young females compared to young males (Darling et al., 2024). When considered collectively, it appears that young women are more emotionally vulnerable to minor stressful events that occur during routine everyday life. Although beyond the scope of the present study, future investigations should consider gender-specific role expectations, socialization, and learned coping strategies as potential underlying reasons for these sex differences (Mauvais-Jarvis et al., 2020).

Limitations

There are several limitations to the present study that warrant consideration. First, the sample was predominantly university students; therefore, the current findings may differ for individuals not enrolled in higher education or for middle-aged and older adults. Second, we acknowledge that a determination of causality/directionality cannot be established from this daily diary study design. It is well-established that stress exposure and the ensuing dysregulated emotional response precipitates the development of depression in some, but not all, individuals (Heim and Nemeroff, 2001). Regardless of the directionality, these constructs may compound on one another exacerbating their detrimental influence on affective regulation. To address this, as well as to disentangle same-day (concurrent) and carryover (lagged) effects, temporally-sensitive future studies are needed. Third, the reliability of stressor severity scores was unexpectedly lower than general guidelines for the assessment of individual differences. Given that our primary interest was in understanding day-to-day fluctuations in daily stress processes rather than stable person-level variance, it is unclear whether this may have impacted study conclusions. This possibility warrants future investigation. Lastly, although the effectiveness of coping strategies to mitigate stress are inherently captured in the within-person derivation of positive and negative affective responsivity slopes in our analyses, we did not specifically assess coping strategies. Regardless, the results of this study provide novel insight into how depressive symptom severity is related to daily stress processes in young adults, which likely has important implications for future psychobiological health outcomes.

Perspectives

Daily stressors are ubiquitous in everyday life, and the resulting frustrations and irritations may aggregate over time to initiate and accelerate the development of more serious stress-related chronic diseases (McEwen and Stellar, 1993). The current findings add to the growing body of literature highlighting increased exposure and exaggerated affective responsivity to the naturalistic stressors encountered during routine everyday life as a potential mechanism of increased cardiovascular disease risk in in young adults displaying pronounced disturbances in daily affect consistent with persistent symptoms of depression (Bylsma et al., 2011; Greaney et al., 2021; Greaney et al., 2019; O’Hara et al., 2014; Sheets and Armey, 2020). Understanding this link is especially important given the growing number of young adults experiencing clinically significant depressive symptoms but either not reaching the diagnostic threshold for depressive disorders, not seeking treatment, or both (Chen et al., 2023; Greenberg et al., 2021; Handy et al., 2022; Sheehan, 2004). Because MDD is recurrent in nature (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the cyclic surges in the severity of depressive symptoms may compound over time in concert with the development of additional age-related comorbidities (e.g., high blood pressure), thus contributing to even greater chronic disease risk (Head et al., 2017). Studies employing preventative strategies specifically aimed at limiting these excessive affective responses to daily stressors to as a means to improve chronic disease risk profiles in young adults with depressive symptoms remains an exciting avenue for future research.

HIGHLIGHTS.

  • Increased daily stress predicts poorer mental and physical health outcomes

  • Greater depressive symptom severity is related to greater daily stressor exposure

  • Depressive symptoms predict greater affective responsivity to daily stressors

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We appreciate the effort expended by the volunteer participants. We also thank Cynthia M. Dominguez, BS for her laboratory assistance.

SOURCES OF FUNDING

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health grants [HL133414], [MH123928], and [AG083323].

NONSTANDARD ABBREVIATIONS

DISE

Daily Inventory of Stressful Events

DSM-5

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

MDD

major depressive disorder

PHQ-9

Patient Health Questionnaire-9

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Competing Interests

None.

REFERENCES

  1. 2022. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD. [Google Scholar]
  2. Almeida DM, 2005. Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
  3. Almeida DM, Rush J, Mogle J, Piazza JR, Cerino E, Charles ST, 2023. Longitudinal change in daily stress across 20 years of adulthood: Results from the national study of daily experiences. Dev Psychol 59, 515–523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Almeida DM, Wethington E, Kessler RC, 2002. The daily inventory of stressful events: an interview-based approach for measuring daily stressors. Assessment 9, 41–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnett JJ, 2000. Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol 55, 469–480. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Asselmann E, Wittchen HU, Lieb R, Beesdo-Baum K, 2017. A 10-year prospective-longitudinal study of daily hassles and incident psychopathology among adolescents and young adults: interactions with gender, perceived coping efficacy, and negative life events. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 52, 1353–1362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. American Psychiatric Association, 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5 ed. American Psychiatric Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bachle C, Lange K, Stahl-Pehe A, Castillo K, Holl RW, Giani G, Rosenbauer J, 2015. Associations between HbA1c and depressive symptoms in young adults with early-onset type 1 diabetes. Psychoneuroendocrinology 55, 48–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Blazer DG, Hybels CF, 2004. What symptoms of depression predict mortality in community-dwelling elders? J Am Geriatr Soc 52, 2052–2056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bylsma LM, 2021. Emotion context insensitivity in depression: Toward an integrated and contextualized approach. Psychophysiology 58, e13715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bylsma LM, Taylor-Clift A, Rottenberg J, 2011. Emotional reactivity to daily events in major and minor depression. J Abnorm Psychol 120, 155–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG, 1999. The Affect System: Architecture and Operating Characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8, 133–137. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cerino ES, Charles ST, Mogle J, Rush J, Piazza JR, Klepacz LM, Lachman ME, Almeida DM, 2024. Perceived control across the adult lifespan: Longitudinal changes in global control and daily stressor control. Dev Psychol 60, 45–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Charles ST, Piazza JR, Mogle J, Sliwinski MJ, Almeida DM, 2013. The wear and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychol Sci 24, 733–741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen YL, Liao WH, Wang SH, Lien YJ, Chang CM, Liao SC, Huang WL, Wu CS, 2023. Changes in employment status and income before and after newly diagnosed depressive disorders in Taiwan: a matched cohort study using controlled interrupted time series analysis. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 32, e41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chiang JJ, Turiano NA, Mroczek DK, Miller GE, 2018. Affective reactivity to daily stress and 20-year mortality risk in adults with chronic illness: Findings from the National Study of Daily Experiences. Health Psychol 37, 170–178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Clarke G, Kelleher C, Hornbrook M, Debar L, Dickerson J, Gullion C, 2009. Randomized effectiveness trial of an Internet, pure self-help, cognitive behavioral intervention for depressive symptoms in young adults. Cogn Behav Ther 38, 222–234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cuthbert BN, Insel TR, 2013. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med 11, 126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Darling AM, Lee SA, Mogle J, Saunders EF, Almeida DM, Greaney JL, 2024. Affective Responsivity to Daily Stressors is Amplified in Young Females. Emerging Adulthood, 21676968241282701. [Google Scholar]
  20. Faisal-Cury A, Ziebold C, Rodrigues DMO, Matijasevich A, 2022. Depression underdiagnosis: Prevalence and associated factors. A population-based study. J Psychiatr Res 151, 157–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fassett-Carman A, Hankin BL, Snyder HR, 2019. Appraisals of dependent stressor controllability and severity are associated with depression and anxiety symptoms in youth. Anxiety Stress Coping 32, 32–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Folkman S, Lazarus RS, 1988. Coping as a mediator of emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 54, 466–475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Force USPST, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, Silverstein M, Chelmow D, Coker TR, Davidson KW, Davis EM, Donahue KE, Jaen CR, Li L, Ogedegbe G, Pbert L, Rao G, Ruiz JM, Stevermer JJ, Tsevat J, Underwood SM, Wong JB, 2023. Screening for Depression and Suicide Risk in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 329, 2057–2067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Frank E, Thase ME, 1999. Natural history and preventative treatment of recurrent mood disorders. Annu Rev Med 50, 453–468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Garrison KE, Schmeichel BJ, 2022. Getting over it: Working memory capacity and affective responses to stressful events in daily life. Emotion 22, 418–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gold PW, Chrousos GP, 2002. Organization of the stress system and its dysregulation in melancholic and atypical depression: high vs low CRH/NE states. Mol Psychiatry 7, 254–275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodwin RD, Dierker LC, Wu M, Galea S, Hoven CW, Weinberger AH, 2022. Trends in U.S. Depression Prevalence From 2015 to 2020: The Widening Treatment Gap. Am J Prev Med 63, 726–733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gotlib IH, Joormann J, 2010. Cognition and depression: current status and future directions. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 6, 285–312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Graves BS, Hall ME, Dias-Karch C, Haischer MH, Apter C, 2021. Gender differences in perceived stress and coping among college students. PLoS One 16, e0255634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Greaney JL, Darling AM, Turner JR, Saunders EFH, Almeida DM, Mogle J, 2021. COVID-19-Related Daily Stress Processes in College-Aged Adults: Examining the Role of Depressive Symptom Severity. Front Psychol 12, 693396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Greaney JL, Koffer RE, Saunders EFH, Almeida DM, Alexander LM, 2019. Self-Reported Everyday Psychosocial Stressors Are Associated With Greater Impairments in Endothelial Function in Young Adults With Major Depressive Disorder. J Am Heart Assoc 8, e010825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Greaney JL, Surachman A, Saunders EFH, Alexander LM, Almeida DM, 2020. Greater Daily Psychosocial Stress Exposure is Associated With Increased Norepinephrine-Induced Vasoconstriction in Young Adults. J Am Heart Assoc 9, e015697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Greenberg PE, Fournier AA, Sisitsky T, Simes M, Berman R, Koenigsberg SH, Kessler RC, 2021. The Economic Burden of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder in the United States (2010 and 2018). Pharmacoeconomics 39, 653–665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hammen C, 1991. Generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression. J Abnorm Psychol 100, 555–561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Handy A, Mangal R, Stead TS, Coffee RL Jr., Ganti L, 2022. Prevalence and Impact of Diagnosed and Undiagnosed Depression in the United States. Cureus 14, e28011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Head T, Daunert S, Goldschmidt-Clermont PJ, 2017. The Aging Risk and Atherosclerosis: A Fresh Look at Arterial Homeostasis. Front Genet 8, 216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Heim C, Nemeroff CB, 2001. The role of childhood trauma in the neurobiology of mood and anxiety disorders: preclinical and clinical studies. Biol Psychiatry 49, 1023–1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hox JM, M.; van de Schoot R, 2017. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications, 3rd ed. Routledge, New York. [Google Scholar]
  39. Judd LL, Rapaport MH, Paulus MP, Brown JL, 1994. Subsyndromal symptomatic depression: a new mood disorder? J Clin Psychiatry 55 Suppl, 18–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kelly MM, Tyrka AR, Price LH, Carpenter LL, 2008. Sex differences in the use of coping strategies: predictors of anxiety and depressive symptoms. Depress Anxiety 25, 839–846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kendler KS, Prescott CA, Myers J, Neale MC, 2003. The structure of genetic and environmental risk factors for common psychiatric and substance use disorders in men and women. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60, 929–937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SL, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM, 2002. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med 32, 959–976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE, 2005. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62, 593–602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, 2001. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 16, 606–613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lazarus RSF, S., 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lebois LA, Hertzog C, Slavich GM, Barrett LF, Barsalou LW, 2016. Establishing the situated features associated with perceived stress. Acta Psychol (Amst) 169, 119–132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu RT, Alloy LB, 2010. Stress generation in depression: A systematic review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future study. Clin Psychol Rev 30, 582–593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mauvais-Jarvis F, Bairey Merz N, Barnes PJ, Brinton RD, Carrero JJ, DeMeo DL, De Vries GJ, Epperson CN, Govindan R, Klein SL, Lonardo A, Maki PM, McCullough LD, Regitz-Zagrosek V, Regensteiner JG, Rubin JB, Sandberg K, Suzuki A, 2020. Sex and gender: modifiers of health, disease, and medicine. Lancet 396, 565–582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. McEwen BS, Stellar E, 1993. Stress and the individual. Mechanisms leading to disease. Arch Intern Med 153, 2093–2101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Mroczek DK, Kolarz CM, 1998. The effect of age on positive and negative affect: a developmental perspective on happiness. J Pers Soc Psychol 75, 1333–1349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Myin-Germeys I, Peeters F, Havermans R, Nicolson NA, DeVries MW, Delespaul P, Van Os J, 2003. Emotional reactivity to daily life stress in psychosis and affective disorder: an experience sampling study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 107, 124–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. O’Hara RE, Armeli S, Boynton MH, Tennen H, 2014. Emotional stress-reactivity and positive affect among college students: the role of depression history. Emotion 14, 193–202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Orzechowska A, Zajaczkowska M, Talarowska M, Galecki P, 2013. Depression and ways of coping with stress: a preliminary study. Med Sci Monit 19, 1050–1056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Ostir GV, Markides KS, Black SA, Goodwin JS, 2000. Emotional well-being predicts subsequent functional independence and survival. J Am Geriatr Soc 48, 473–478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ostir GV, Markides KS, Peek MK, Goodwin JS, 2001. The association between emotional well-being and the incidence of stroke in older adults. Psychosom Med 63, 210–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Parrish B, Cohen L, Laurenceau J-P, 2011. Prospective Relationship between Negative Affective Reactivity to Daily Stress and Depressive Symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 30, 270–296. [Google Scholar]
  57. Peeters F, Nicolson NA, Berkhof J, Delespaul P, deVries M, 2003. Effects of daily events on mood states in major depressive disorder. J Abnorm Psychol 112, 203–211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Pettit JW, Lewinsohn PM, Seeley JR, Roberts RE, Yaroslavsky I, 2010. Developmental relations between depressive symptoms, minor hassles, and major events from adolescence through age 30 years. J Abnorm Psychol 119, 811–824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Piazza JR, Charles ST, Sliwinski MJ, Mogle J, Almeida DM, 2013. Affective reactivity to daily stressors and long-term risk of reporting a chronic physical health condition. Ann Behav Med 45, 110–120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Robinette JW, Piazza JR, Stawski RS, 2021. Neighborhood safety concerns and daily well-being: A national diary study. Wellbeing Space Soc 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rottenberg J, Gross JJ, Gotlib IH, 2005. Emotion context insensitivity in major depressive disorder. J Abnorm Psychol 114, 627–639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Rottenberg J, Hindash A, 2015. Emerging evidence for emotion context insensitivity in depression. Current Opinion in Psychology 4, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rugulies R, 2002. Depression as a predictor for coronary heart disease. a review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 23, 51–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Ryff CD, Seeman T, Weinstein M, 2019. Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2): Biomarker Project, 2004–2009. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. [Google Scholar]
  65. Safford SM, Alloy LB, Abramson LY, Crossfield AG, 2007. Negative cognitive style as a predictor of negative life events in depression-prone individuals: a test of the stress generation hypothesis. J Affect Disord 99, 147–154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Sheehan DV, 2004. Depression: underdiagnosed, undertreated, underappreciated. Manag Care 13, 6–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Sheets ES, Armey MF, 2020. Daily Interpersonal and Noninterpersonal Stress Reactivity in Current and Remitted Depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research 44, 774–787. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sin NL, Graham-Engeland JE, Almeida DM, 2015a. Daily positive events and inflammation: findings from the National Study of Daily Experiences. Brain Behav Immun 43, 130–138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Sin NL, Graham-Engeland JE, Ong AD, Almeida DM, 2015b. Affective reactivity to daily stressors is associated with elevated inflammation. Health Psychol 34, 1154–1165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Sin NL, Sloan RP, McKinley PS, Almeida DM, 2016. Linking Daily Stress Processes and Laboratory-Based Heart Rate Variability in a National Sample of Midlife and Older Adults. Psychosom Med 78, 573–582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, 1999. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA 282, 1737–1744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Stawski RS, Sliwinski MJ, Almeida DM, Smyth JM, 2008. Reported exposure and emotional reactivity to daily stressors: the roles of adult age and global perceived stress. Psychol Aging 23, 52–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Steffen A, Nubel J, Jacobi F, Batzing J, Holstiege J, 2020. Mental and somatic comorbidity of depression: a comprehensive cross-sectional analysis of 202 diagnosis groups using German nationwide ambulatory claims data. BMC Psychiatry 20, 142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Sun CW, Yan C, Lv QY, Wang YJ, Xiao WY, Wang Y, Yi ZH, Wang JK, 2022. Emotion Context Insensitivity is generalized in individuals with major depressive disorder but not in those with subclinical depression. J Affect Disord 313, 204–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A, 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54, 1063–1070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Witzel DD, Stawski RS, 2021. Resolution Status and Age as Moderators for Interpersonal Everyday Stress and Stressor-Related Affect. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 76, 1926–1936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhang Y, Hedo R, Rivera A, Rull R, Richardson S, Tu XM, 2019. Post hoc power analysis: is it an informative and meaningful analysis? Gen Psychiatr 32, e100069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhaoyang R, Scott SB, Smyth JM, Kang JE, Sliwinski MJ, 2020. Emotional Responses to Stressors in Everyday Life Predict Long-Term Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms. Ann Behav Med 54, 402–412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES