Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Aug 11.
Published in final edited form as: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2008 Apr;37(2):376–385. doi: 10.1080/15374410801955797

Life Stress and the Accuracy of Cognitive Appraisals in Depressed Youth

Elisa Krackow 1, Karen D Rudolph 1
PMCID: PMC3154368  NIHMSID: NIHMS314227  PMID: 18470774

Abstract

Despite the wealth of research examining the role of cognitive appraisals in depression, little is known about the accuracy with which depressed youth appraise naturally occurring stressful events. This study investigated exposure to life stress and the accuracy of cognitive appraisals of life events in youth (45 boys, 44 girls; M age = 12.44 years) with clinical diagnoses of depression (n = 24), subsyndromal symptoms of depression (n = 29), and without symptoms of psychopathology (n = 36). Youth and their female caregivers completed semi-structured interviews to assess psychopathology and stressful life events. Scores were calculated reflecting youths’ estimations of the stressfulness of events and their contribution to events relative to objective indexes. As predicted, depressed youth experienced more independent and self-generated interpersonal stress than did nonsymptomatic youth. Consistent with a cognitive bias, clinically depressed youth overestimated the stressfulness of events and overestimated their contribution to events relative to nonsymptomatic youth. Overall, youth with subsyndromal symptoms demonstrated similar, although in some cases less severe, impairment than those with clinical depression. Results contribute to cognitive-interpersonal models of depression by illustrating the need to consider both realistic interpersonal difficulties and biased appraisals of experiences.

Cognitive vulnerability-stress theories of depression propose that negative cognitive appraisals and environmental adversity jointly contribute to risk for depression (Cicchetti & Toth, 1998; Gotlib & Hammen, 1992; Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Young, Beck, & Weinberger, 1993). The assumption of these theories is that negative cognitive appraisals reflect biased perceptions of reality. Yet, it also has been argued that depressed individuals view themselves and their worlds in a realistic way, whereas nondepressed individuals demonstrate overly optimistic views (Abramson & Alloy, 1981; Alloy & Abramson, 1988; Taylor & Brown, 1994). Relatively little research directly examines the accuracy of negative cognitive appraisals in depressed youth, in part because empirical investigations rarely assess appraisals within the context of individuals’ actual life experiences. The goal of the present study was twofold. First, we aimed to address limitations of prior empirical work by examining depressed youths’ cognitive appraisals of naturally occurring stressful life events. Second, we aimed to contribute to cognitive vulnerability-stress theories of depression by clarifying whether depressed youths’ appraisals of stressors reflect inaccurate or realistic perceptions of their experiences.

Cognitive Vulnerability Models of Depression

Central to cognitive theories of depression is the idea that negative belief systems and maladaptive information processing heighten vulnerability to depression when individuals are faced with stressful life circumstances. Cognitive vulnerability is variously conceptualized as negative cognitive schemas about the self, world, and future (Beck, 1970; 1987), maladaptive inferences about the causes, consequences, and self-implications of negative events (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989), and maladaptive appraisals about the meaning of events (i.e., a tendency to appraise challenging events as threatening, harmful, or stressful rather than viewing them as an opportunity for learning, mastery, and growth; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Consistent with these theories, research supports a link between depression and a variety of maladaptive cognitive processes in youth, including a negative attributional style, low perceived control and coping efficacy, and a diminished sense of competence (Abela, 2001; Cole, Jacquez, & Maschman, 2001; Rudolph, Kurlakowsky, & Conley, 2001; Sandler, Tein, Mehta, Wolchik, & Ayers, 2000; Weisz, Southam-Gerow, & McCarty, 2001; for reviews, see Garber & Hilsman, 1992; Hankin & Abramson, 2001). Less is known about how depressed youth appraise naturally occurring stressors (for an exception in college students, see Hankin, Fraley, & Abela, 2005). Some evidence does suggest, however, that a tendency to appraise specific events (e.g., parental cancer: Compas, Worsham, Ey, & Howell, 1996; parental divorce: Lengua, Sandler, West, Wolchik, & Curran, 1999; Sheets, Sandler, & West, 1996) as threatening or stressful is associated with emotional distress in youth. Moreover, depressed adults appraise daily stressful events as more threatening than do nondepressed adults (Folkman & Lazarus, 1986).

Accuracy of Cognitive Appraisals in Depressed Youth

Cognitive theories of depression view cognitive vulnerability as a consequence of early adverse experiences that lead to persistent, pervasive, negatively biased ways of interpreting the social world (Alloy et al., 2001; Garber & Flynn, 2001; Young et al., 1993). However, research indicates that depressed youth experience significant competence deficits and are exposed to heightened levels of stress (for a review, see Rudolph, Hammen, & Daley, 2006). Thus, it is possible that the negative cognitions of depressed youth reflect realistic appraisals of personal incompetence and environmental adversity rather than biased evaluations of self and the world.

Although relatively few investigations directly examine the accuracy of cognitive appraisals in depressed youth, a small number of studies provide insight into this issue. In general, these studies suggest that youth depression is associated with negatively biased perceptions (i.e., underestimations) of competence relative to objective ratings (e.g., Brengden, Vitaro, Turgeon, & Poulin, 2002; Cole, Martin, Peeke, Seroczynski, & Fier, 1999; Kendall, Stark, & Adam, 1990; Kistner, Balthazor, Risi, & David, 2001; McGrath & Repetti, 2002; Pomerantz & Rudolph, 2003; Rudolph, & Clark, 2001). Overall, therefore, research is consistent with a cognitive distortion model wherein depressed youth possess more negative self-appraisals than is warranted by their actual competence. However, some research also indicates that depressed youth are sensitive to actual differences in their competence, suggesting that their negative appraisals might, in part, reflect realistic difficulties (Rudolph, & Clark, 2001).

Prior studies examining the accuracy of cognitive appraisals in depressed youth either rely on assessments of appraisals in a global context (e.g., estimations of peer popularity or academic competence) or in the context of very specific real-life stressors (e.g., parental divorce, Lengua et al., 1999); peer victimization, De Los Reyes & Prinstein, 2004). In contrast, the present study investigated whether depressed youth show accurate or inaccurate appraisals of a range of naturally occurring stressful life events. In particular, we examined the accuracy with which youth estimated the stressfulness of events and their personal contribution to the occurrence of events.

Domain Specificity of Cognitive Appraisals and Stress

Although many cognitive vulnerability-stress theories of depression hypothesize that risk for depression occurs across different domains of appraisals and stress, several models of depression focus on the salience of interpersonal difficulties (Gotlib & Hammen, 1992; Joiner, Coyne, & Blalock, 1999; Klerman, Weissman, Rounsville, & Chevron, 1996). For example, Coyne’s (1976) interpersonal model of depression describes a self-perpetuating cycle of interpersonal dysfunction and depression. Specifically, depressed individuals seek reassurance of their worth from their relationship partners but then deny the encouragement that they receive, thereby eliciting negative affect and rejection by their partners. This interpersonal disruption then perpetuates and exacerbates depression. Similarly, stress-generation theory (Hammen, 2006) holds that depressed individuals act in ways that generate stress and conflict in their relationships, which then heightens risk for subsequent depression. Consistent with these interpersonal models, youth depression is associated with a range of social-behavioral deficits and relationship disturbances (for a review, see Rudolph, Flynn, & Abaied, in press). Moreover, some evidence suggests that youth depression is linked more strongly to stress in interpersonal relationships than to stress in noninterpersonal domains, such as academics (e.g., Patterson & Stoolmiller, 1991; Renouf & Harter, 1990; Rudolph et al., 2000).

If depressed youth experience more stress in the interpersonal than the noninterpersonal domain, they might also demonstrate more negative appraisals of interpersonal than noninterpersonal events. For example, experiencing heightened interpersonal stress might sensitize youth, resulting in an overestimation of the stressfulness of interpersonal events. Moreover, experiencing heightened interpersonal stress might cause youth to overestimate their contribution to interpersonal events when they do occur—that is, youth might assume that they contribute to these events because of the frequency with which they experience them.

Overview of the Present Study

The goal of this study was to examine depressed youths’ experience of stressful life events and their subjective appraisals of these events, as reported in a detailed life stress interview. Consistent with prior theory and research, we distinguished between stress exposure (i.e., independent life events, or events that are beyond one’s control) and stress generation (i.e., dependent life events, or events to which youth contribute) (Brown & Harris, 1978; Daley et al., 1997; Hammen, 1991; Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Rudolph et al., 2000). We assessed the accuracy of youths’ appraisals of events by comparing their subjective appraisals with objective ratings of event stressfulness (i.e., degree of negative impact or stress associated with the event) and event dependence (i.e., the extent to which the youth contributed to the occurrence of the event). We anticipated that depressed youth would experience more independent and dependent stress, particularly within an interpersonal context, than would nonsymptomatic youth. We also expected that depressed youth would demonstrate negatively biased appraisals of interpersonal events relative to nonsymptomatic youth, as reflected in overestimations of the stressfulness of events and their contribution to the occurrence of events.

We also were interested in whether the patterns of life stress and cognitive appraisals characteristic of clinically depressed youth would apply to youth with subsyndromal symptoms of depression. There has been significant debate about whether depression is best viewed as a categorical or continuous disorder (Hankin, Fraley, Lahey, & Waldman, 2005). Research suggests that youth with subsyndromal symptoms of depression show similar, albeit less severe, patterns of impairment as those with clinical diagnoses (Gotlib, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1995; Lewinsohn, Solomon, Seeley, & Zeiss, 2000). Thus, we expected that youth with subsyndromal depressive symptoms also would experience more interpersonal stress and would demonstrate more biased appraisals of interpersonal stressors than would nonsymptomatic youth, although perhaps not at the same level as youth with clinical diagnoses.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from a sample of 167 youth (81 boys, 86 girls; M age = 12.41 years, SD =1.19) and their female caregivers who participated in the University of Illinois Youth Development Project, a study of the development of depression during adolescence. The original sample included youth from a variety of ethnic backgrounds: White (77.8%), African American (12.6%), biracial (4.2%), Asian American (2.4%), Native American (1.8%), Latino/a (.6%), and other (.6%). Families were from diverse economic backgrounds representing a range of income levels: $0–14,999 (6.8%), $15–29,999 (9.9%), $30–44,999 (22.8%), $45–59,999 (25.9%), $60,000–74,999 (15.4%), $75,000–89,999 (6.2%), and over $90,000 (13%). Families resided in small urban and rural Midwestern towns. Of the 167 female caregivers in this study, 88.6% were biological mothers, 4.2% adoptive mothers, 2.4% grandmothers, 2.4% aunts, 1.8% stepmothers, and .6% other.

Participants were recruited based on school-wide screenings for depressive symptoms using the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1981), a 27-item measure of depressive symptoms for youth ages 7–17. Youth endorsed one of three statements that best described their thoughts and feelings in the past two weeks. The CDI has adequate reliability (Kovacs, 1992; Smucker, Craighead, Craighead, & Green, 1986) and validity (Kovacs, 1992).

Eighty percent of eligible youth participated in the school-wide screenings. Youth with a range of CDI scores were recruited for the study, oversampling those with scores above 18, the recommended cutoff for severe depressive symptoms (Kovacs, 1992). Participants and nonparticipants in this study did not differ in sex, χ2(1) = .39, ns, ethnicity/race (White vs. minority), χ2(1) = .02, ns, or CDI scores at the time of the screening, t(251) = 1.23, ns. Participants (M = 12.41) were slightly, but not meaningfully, younger than nonparticipants (M = 12.65), t(275) = 2.28, p < .05.

A subgroup of 89 youth (45 boys, 44 girls; M age = 12.44, SD = 1.21, age range = 9.6–14.8 years) was selected for these analyses from the larger sample based on their psychiatric status as determined by the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children- Epidemiologic Version 5 (Orvaschel, 1995). Specifically, youth were included if they (1) met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) for a diagnosis of depression (n = 24), (2) experienced subsyndromal levels of depression (n = 29), or (3) had no symptoms of any Axis I psychiatric disorder (n = 36). The 89 youth did not differ from the remaining 78 youth in age, t(165) = .25, ns, sex, χ2(1) = .32, ns, or ethnicity/race, χ2(1) = .01, ns. Moreover, youth in the three diagnostic groups did not differ significantly from each other with respect to age, F(2, 86) = 1.54, ns (M nonsymtomatic = 12.70; M subsyndromal = 12.29; M clinical depression = 12.21); sex, χ2(2) = 4.39, ns (nonsymptomatic: 17 male, 19 female; subsyndromal: 19 male, 10 female; clinical depression: 9 male, 15 female); or ethnicity/race, χ2(2) = 3.96, ns (nonsymptomatic: 31 white, 5 minority; subsyndromal: 19 white, 10 minority; clinical depression: 19 white, 5 minority).

Procedures

All of the procedures for this study were approved by the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board. Primary female caregivers were telephoned to determine their interest in participating in the study. Families participated in a three- to four-hour assessment that included diagnostic interviews, a life stress interview, and a series of questionnaires. Prior to the assessment, interviewers reviewed an informed consent form with families; caregivers provided written consent and youth provided written assent. Diagnostic interviews were conducted by a faculty member in clinical psychology, a post-doctoral student in clinical psychology, several psychology graduate students, or a well-trained post BA-level research assistant. All diagnoses were made through consultation with a faculty member or post-doctoral student in clinical psychology. As reimbursement for their participation, families received a cash stipend, and youth received a gift certificate.

Measures

Psychopathology

The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Epidemiologic Version 5 (Orvaschel, 1995) was used to assess the psychiatric status of the youth. This semi-structured diagnostic interview was administered separately to youth and their female caregivers. Diagnostic status for the present study was based on reports of symptoms occurring during the year preceding the interview, including the present. A best-estimate approach (Klein, Ouimette, Kelly, Ferro, & Riso, 1994) was used to combine information from the parent and youth reports. Based on DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), a determination was made as to whether reported symptoms reached criteria for a diagnosis (Clinical Depression group) or reflected subsyndromal symptoms (Subsyndromal Depression group). The subsyndromal group included youth who experienced some symptoms of depression but did not meet the severity, frequency, number of symptoms, duration, or impairment criteria for a diagnosis. Depressive diagnoses included Major Depressive Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder (additionally, one child was diagnosed with Recurrent Brief Depressive Disorder). In addition to symptoms of these diagnoses, a few of the youth with subsyndromal depression (n = 9) experienced symptoms of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, Depressive Disorder NOS, and Bereavement. Of youth in the clinical depression group, 79.2% had diagnoses in the past year and in the present (past month); 8.3% had diagnoses in the past year and symptoms in the present; and 12.5% had diagnoses in the past year and no symptoms in the present. Of youth in the subsyndromal depression group, 65.5% had symptoms in the past year and in the present, and 34.5% had symptoms in the past year only.

Interrater reliability was evaluated based on independent coding of 25% of the audiotaped interviews by a faculty member, post-doctoral student, and doctoral students who received intensive training in the assessment and diagnosis of psychopathology in youth. Strong reliability was found for depressive disorders (Cohen’s = .96 and .94 for past and current, respectively).

Life stress

The Youth Life Stress Interview (Rudolph & Flynn, 2007), an adaptation of the Child Episodic Life Stress Interview (Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Rudolph et al., 2000), was used to assess youths’ exposure to episodic life stress during the year prior to the interview. This interview assesses life stress using the contextual threat method (Brown & Harris, 1978). Specific, detailed probes are used to elicit objective information separately from caregivers and youth about youths’ experience of episodic events in several life domains (e.g., school, same- and opposite-sex peer relationships, parent-child relationships, health, finances). First, the interviewer provides a general probe regarding the occurrence of stressful events in the past year. Following the general probe, questions are asked about the occurrence of specific events within a variety of domains (e.g., an argument with a parent, failure of a test, a friend moving away, a serious injury). Based on detailed follow-up questions concerning the timing, duration, and context of the stress, interviewers prepare a narrative summary of each specific stressful event. If parent and child report differ, a best-estimate approach is used to combine information from both reports. This information is presented to an independent team of coders with no knowledge of the youth’s diagnosis and subjective reaction to the events.

Consensual ratings are assigned by integrating information across caregiver and youth reports. If only one informant provides information about an event, this information is used for the ratings. For each life event, the team assigns two ratings on a 5-point scale: (a) the objective stress or negative impact that would be associated with the event for a typical youth in the same circumstances (events that were rated “no negative stress/impact” were excluded from analyses), and (b) the dependence of each event, or the extent to which the youth contributed to the event’s occurrence. Following previous protocol (Daley et al., 1997; Davila, Hammen, Burge, Paley, & Daley, 1995; Rudolph et al., 2000), events with dependence ratings of 3 or higher were categorized as dependent to reflect the fact that the youth was at least an equal partner in determining the occurrence of the event. The team also categorizes each event according to its content: interpersonal (events that involve a significant interaction between the youth and another person, or events that directly affect the relationship between the youth and another person) and noninterpersonal. Four composite scores (independent interpersonal, independent noninterpersonal, dependent interpersonal, dependent noninterpersonal) were calculated by summing the impact ratings across relevant events. For example, the death of a relative would be coded as an independent interpersonal stressor, getting sick would be coded as an independent noninterpersonal stressor, an argument with a friend would be coded an a dependent interpersonal stressor (assuming contextual information suggested that the youth contributed to the argument), and failing a test because the child did not study would be coded as a dependent noninterpersonal stressor.

For reliability purposes, two independent teams of raters coded a subset of 160 life events reported by participants in this study. High reliability was found for ratings of episodic stress impact (intraclass correlation coefficient = .90), dependence (intraclass correlation coefficient = .96), and event content (Cohen’s = .92).

Cognitive appraisals

Cognitive appraisals were assessed in the context of the episodic life events reported by the youth. Immediately following youths’ report of each event, they provided ratings on a five-point scale (1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much) of event stressfulness (“How stressful or how much of a problem was [event]?”) and of their contribution to the event’s occurrence (“How much do you think that [event] was caused by something that you did?”). To examine youths’ stress estimations, standardized residual scores for each event were computed by regressing youths’ appraisals of stressfulness onto the team’s objective stress rating. Higher scores on this variable represent an overestimation of stress. Likewise, to examine youths’ dependence estimations, standardized residual scores for each event were computed by regressing youths’ appraisals of their contribution to the event’s occurrence onto the team’s objective dependence rating. Higher scores on this variable represent an overestimation of dependence. This approach (i.e., calculation of standardized residuals) is typical in studies designed to compare objective and subjective ratings (e.g., Cole, Martin, Peeke, Serocynski, & Hoffman, 1998; Connell & Ilardi, 1987; David & Kistner, 2000; De Los Reyes & Prinstein, 2004; Pomerantz & Rudolph, 2003). Average stress-estimation and dependence-estimation scores were calculated separately for interpersonal and noninterpersonal events by taking the mean of the residualized scores across the relevant events. Scores could not be calculated for mother-reported events or in cases where the sample size for calculating the standardized residual scores was less than three.

Results

Overview of Analyses

Planned comparisons were conducted on each pair of the three diagnostic groups (Nonsymptomatic, Subsyndromal Depression, Clinical Depression) to examine our central hypotheses concerning differences in youths’ experience and appraisals of stress.

Diagnostic Group Differences in Episodic Stress

Table 1 presents group means, standard deviations, effect sizes, and results of planned comparisons for stress exposure (i.e., independent stress) and generation (i.e., dependent stress). Planned comparisons revealed that clinically depressed youth and youth with subsyndromal depression experienced significantly more independent and dependent interpersonal stress than did youth in the nonsymptomatic group. Effect sizes for these comparisons were medium to large (Cohen, 1988). Although the difference did not reach significance, a small-to-medium effect size suggested that clinically depressed youth experienced more independent interpersonal stress than did youth with subsyndromal depression. Youth with subsyndromal depression experienced more dependent noninterpersonal stress than did youth in both the nonsymptomatic and the clinically depressed groups. No significant group differences were found for independent noninterpersonal stress, and effect sizes were close to 0.

Table 1.

Mean Scores and Planned Comparisons on Episodic Stress By Diagnostic Group

Non- Symtomatic (n = 36)
1		 Subsyndromal Depression (n = 29)
2		 Clinical Depression (n = 24)
3		 Planned Group Comparisons Effect Size (d) p Value
Independent Episodic Stress
 Interpersonal 3.85 (3.13) 7.19 (5.32) 9.67 (6.37) 1 vs. 2 .77 p = .005
1 vs. 3 1.16 p = .001
2 vs. 3 .42 ns
 Noninterpersonal 3.57 (2.59) 3.84 (3.15) 3.63 (3.17) 1 vs. 2 .09 ns
1 vs. 3 .02 ns
2 vs. 3 −.07 ns
Dependent Episodic Stress
 Interpersonal 1.33 (2.13) 5.17 (5.84) 4.15 (4.90) 1 vs. 2 .87 p =.002
1 vs. 3 .75 p =.013
2 vs. 3 −.19 ns
 Noninterpersonal 1.83 (2.50) 3.69 (3.17) 1.92 (2.90) 1 vs. 2 .65 p =.010
1 vs. 3 .03 ns
2 vs. 3 −.58 p = .026
Open in a new tab

Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. The p values are based on two-tailed significance tests.

Diagnostic Group Differences in Cognitive Appraisals

Table 2 presents group means, standard deviations, effect sizes, and results of planned comparisons for youths’ cognitive appraisals of stressors. Planned comparisons revealed that clinically depressed youth were more likely than youth in the nonsymptomatic group to overestimate the stressfulness of both interpersonal and noninterpersonal events, as reflected in medium to large effect sizes. Youth with subsyndromal depression were more likely than those in the nonsymptomatic group to overestimate the stressfulness of noninterpersonal events. Clinically depressed youth also were more likely than youth in the nonsymptomatic group to overestimate their contribution to interpersonal events. No group differences were found for dependence-estimations with regard to noninterpersonal events. Clinically depressed youth and youth with subsyndromal depression did not significantly differ in their cognitive appraisals, although effect sizes for the difference in stress-estimations and dependence-estimations for interpersonal events were close to medium (.45 and .47).

Table 2.

Mean Scores and Planned Comparisons on Cognitive Appraisals By Diagnostic Group

Non- Symptomatic (n = 29)
1		 Subsyndromal Depression (n = 26)
2		 Clinical Depression (n = 22)
3		 Planned Group Comparisons Effect Size (d) p Value
Stress-Estimation
 Interpersonal −.41 (.65) −.10 (.80) .23 (.66) 1 vs. 2 .43 ns
1 vs. 3 .98 p = .002
2 vs. 3 .45 ns
 Noninterpersonal −.25 (.84) .30 (.74) .37 (.78) 1 vs. 2 .69 p = .014
1 vs. 3 .76 p = .010
2 vs. 3 .09 ns
Dependence-Estimation
 Interpersonal −.23 (.81) .00 (.74) .33 (.65) 1 vs. 2 .30 ns
1 vs. 3 .76 p =.011
2 vs. 3 .47 ns
 Noninterpersonal −.09 (.71) .10 (1.08) .06 (.76) 1 vs. 2 .21 ns
1 vs. 3 .20 ns
2 vs. 3 −.04 ns
Open in a new tab

Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. The p values are based on two-tailed significance tests. Ns vary slightly across analyses.

Discussion

The goal of the present research was to examine depressed youths’ experience and appraisals of life stress, with a focus on understanding the accuracy with which these youth appraise naturally occurring stressful life events. Consistent with cognitive vulnerability-stress models, depressed youth experienced higher levels of stress, particularly within an interpersonal context, and demonstrated more biased appraisals of these events than did nondepressed youth. These findings suggest that depression occurs in the context of both realistic environmental adversity as well as negatively biased perceptions of the environment.

Stress Exposure and Generation

Consistent with predictions, depressed youth experienced higher levels of independent and dependent interpersonal stress than did nondepressed youth. These differences in stress exposure and stress generation were quite large, for youth with clinical diagnoses as well as for those with subsyndromal levels of symptoms. Depressed and nondepressed youth did not differ in their experience of independent noninterpersonal stress, but youth with subsyndromal symptoms generated more noninterpersonal stress than did youth without symptoms and youth with clinical depression.

Findings of heightened interpersonal stress exposure and generation in depressed youth are consistent with interpersonal models of depression that focus on the interplay between youth and their social environments, wherein depressed individuals both create and react to disruptions in their relationships (Coyne, 1976; Hammen, 2006; Rudolph et al., 2000). In contrast, the pattern of heightened noninterpersonal stress generation in subsyndromal youth relative to depressed youth was unexpected. We speculated that perhaps this pattern resulted from differences in symptom expression between the two depressed groups. Thus, we compared these two groups on several clinical characteristics (i.e., duration of symptoms, level of externalizing psychopathology, and level of total psychopathology other than depression) that we thought might account for the observed effect for dependent noninterpersonal stress. These analyses revealed that the three groups did not significantly differ on any of these characteristics. Additional research is therefore needed to replicate this finding and, if replicated, to determine possible factors that might account for it (e.g., other unmeasured demographic or clinical characteristics that distinguish between youth with subsyndromal levels of symptoms versus clinical depression).

Cognitive Appraisals of Stress

Despite a wealth of research that documents a link between depression and maladaptive cognitions, far less is known about the extent to which negative appraisals of self and the world reflect realistic versus distorted perceptions of reality. On the one hand, stable personality characteristics (e.g., negative emotionality, neuroticism; Hankin et al., 2005; Lengua et al., 1999) or negative mood states (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1992) might cause depressed youth to overestimate the stressfulness of events and to overattribute negative events to their own lack of competence or effort. On the other hand, consistent with the idea of “depressive realism” (Alloy & Abramson, 1988), depressed youth actually might experience events that are more stressful and might play a larger role in creating stressful events than their nondepressed peers.

The present study disentangled these two possibilities by comparing youths’ cognitive appraisals of naturally occurring stressors to objective ratings of stressfulness and dependence. Using this approach, we were able to establish directly that the stress appraisals characteristic of depressed youth are, in fact, negatively biased. Specifically, in comparison to nondepressed youth, clinically depressed youth overestimated the stressfulness of events and overestimated their contribution to the occurrence of (interpersonal) events relative to objective indexes. Youth with subsyndromal depression also overestimated the stressfulness of noninterpersonal events relative to nondepressed youth.

These findings are consistent with prior research demonstrating that depressed youth are more likely than nondepressed youth to report lower perceptions of control and coping efficacy (which might result, in part, from a view of stressors as particularly threatening or overwhelming) and to make internal attributions for negative events (for reviews, see Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Rudolph et al., 2006). Importantly, these results extend a small but growing body of research that directly confirms the presence of a depressive bias in self-appraisals of competence (e.g., Brengden et al., 2002; Cole et al., 1998; Kistner et al., 2001; McGrath & Repetti, 2002; Pomerantz & Rudolph, 2003; Rudolph & Clark, 2001) by showing that a similar bias occurs in depressed youths’ appraisals of life events. The distinct pattern of group differences in dependence-estimations for interpersonal events (medium to large effect sizes for the clinically depressed group) versus noninterpersonal events (small effect sizes) suggests that theory and research focused on cognitive biases related to the causes of events (e.g., attributional or inferential style) would benefit from distinguishing among different domains of stress.

Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

Implications for Cognitive Vulnerability-Stress Models of Depression

These findings are consistent with cognitive vulnerability-stress models of depression that implicate the joint role of biased cognitive appraisals and environmental adversity in depression. Moreover, this research highlights the interpersonal context of cognitive appraisals and stress. However, because of the concurrent nature of the data, we cannot determine whether biased appraisals and heightened stress served as precursors or consequences of depression. Contemporary theory and research on depression implicate transactional processes between youth and their environments (Cicchetti & Toth, 1998; Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Hammen & Rudolph, 2003; Rudolph et al., 2006). According to this perspective, youth who are exposed to heightened interpersonal stress and who overestimate the stressfulness of events and their contribution to events might feel overwhelmed and ineffective at coping with their environments, resulting in declines in self-worth, increases in shame or hopelessness, and consequent depression. Depressive symptoms, in turn, might leave a “cognitive scar” (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1992; Rohde, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1990) and further disrupt youths’ relationships (Rudolph et al., 2000).

Empirical evidence is mixed regarding the role of cognitive appraisals as precursors versus consequences of depression. Research supports the idea that some types of maladaptive cognitions, such as a negative attributional style (Garber, Keiley & Martin, 2002) and low perceptions of control (Rudolph et al., 2001), predict subsequent depression. In contrast, research that investigates cognitive bias more directly (e.g., underestimations of competence) suggests that negative cognitive appraisals emerge from, rather than contribute to, depressive symptoms (Cole et al., 1998; McGrath & Repetti, 2002; Pomerantz & Rudolph, 2003). However, this research has not yet fully tested cognitive vulnerability-stress models by examining whether cognitive bias predicts increases in depression under conditions of high stress. Given evidence that cognition x stress interactions predict depression using more standard indexes of cognitive style (Abela, 2001; Hilsman & Garber, 1995; Robinson, Garber, & Hilsman, 1995), it will be important for future investigations to further test the predictive role of cognitive bias. More generally, research is needed to study the interactions and transactions among stress appraisals, exposure to stress, and depression across development.

Implications for Dimensional Versus Categorical Perspectives on Depression

The present findings also contribute to growing evidence (e.g., Gotlib et al., 1995; Lewinsohn et al., 2000) that youth with subsyndromal depression suffer impairment that is similar, albeit less severe, than youth with clinical diagnoses of depression. For the most part, youth with subsyndromal depression demonstrated similar patterns of life stress and cognitive appraisals as youth with clinical depression. Despite the absence of significant differences between the two depressed groups, however, youth in the clinically depressed group showed elevated levels of independent interpersonal stress, stress-estimations for interpersonal events, and dependence-estimations for interpersonal events (effect sizes of .42 – .47) relative to youth in the subsyndromal group. Thus, failure to detect significant differences between these two groups might be due in part to reduced power. Overall, this pattern of findings supports recent arguments for a dimensional conceptualization of depression (Hankin et al., 2005), wherein subsyndromal symptoms are viewed as quantitatively rather than qualitatively different from clinical diagnoses.

Methodological Caveats

Before closing, it is worth noting a few caveats about the methods used in this study. First, the age range of the sample was broad, and the sample size made it difficult to assess whether or not age influenced the pattern of results. Future research will need to examine whether similar patterns apply across age. Second, the Youth Life Stress Interview uses the best-estimate approach to combine information from parent and youth reports. Therefore, a greater number of stressful events were likely obtained using this approach than relying on information from only one informant, which may have led to a different pattern of results. Finally, the relatively small sample size made it difficult to examine whether the findings were influenced by the presence of comorbid disorders (e.g., anxiety and externalizing disorders) in the depressed youth. Future research should explore how comorbid disorders might influence the experience and appraisal of life stress.

Implications for Practice with Depressed Youth

This research can inform the development of interventions for depressed youth in several ways. Broadly, our findings support the utility of cognitive-behavioral approaches that target both youths’ appraisals of stress and their behavioral styles. More specifically, these results illustrate the importance of identifying and modifying characteristics of depressed youth that influence their reactivity to stressful life events, their tendency to engage in self-blame for interpersonal difficulties, and their likelihood of creating stress in their lives. Helping depressed youth to take a proactive approach toward changing their life circumstances and their appraisals of difficulties, rather than engaging in self-blaming attributions and consequent feelings of helplessness, is critical for interrupting the cycle of stress-generation and self-denigration that characterizes the course of depression in youth.

Conclusions

This research highlights the importance of integrative theories of depression that consider both depressed youths’ actual environmental experiences and their interpretation of these experiences. Moreover, these findings reveal that depression is associated with considerable impairment even at subclinical levels, suggesting that it is important to consider milder symptoms of depression not just as an expression of normative variations in mood and behavior but as a significant indicator of disturbance. Finally, these findings suggest that assessment and intervention with depressed youth should target both psychological deficits that might foster heightened stress reactivity (e.g., biased appraisals of stressful life events) as well as behavioral deficits that might lead to the generation of stress.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Melissa Caldwell, Alyssa Clark, Colleen Conley, Alison Dupre, Julie Eisengart, Megan Flynn, Alison Groot, and Kathryn Kurlakowsky for their contributions to the data collection process. We are grateful to Eva Pomerantz for her thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript, and to Holly Orcutt for statistical consultation. Finally, we are grateful to the dedicated families who participated in this research. This research was supported by National Institute for Mental Health Grant MH59711, a William T. Grant Foundation Faculty Scholars Award, and a University of Illinois Beckman Research Award to Karen D. Rudolph.

References

  1. Abela J. The hopelessness theory of depression: A test of the diathesis-stress and causal mediation components in third and seventh grade children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2001;29:241–254. doi: 10.1023/a:1010333815728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramson LY, Alloy LB. Depression, nondepression, and cognitive illusions: Reply to Schwartz. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1981;110:436–447. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.110.3.436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abramson LY, Metalsky GI, Alloy LB. Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review. 1989;96:358–372. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alloy LB, Abramson LY. Depressive realism: Four theoretical perspectives. In: Alloy L, editor. Cognitive processes in depression. New York: Guilford; 1988. pp. 223–265. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alloy LB, Abramson LY, Tashman NA, Berrebbi DS, Hogan ME, Whitehouse WG, et al. Developmental origins of cognitive vulnerability to depression: Parenting, cognitive, and inferential feedback styles of the parents of individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2001;25:397–423. [Google Scholar]
  6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4. Washington, D.C.: Author; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  7. Beck AT. The core problem in depression: The cognitive triad. In: Masserman JH, editor. Depression: Theories and therapies. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1970. pp. 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  8. Beck AT. Cognitive models of depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. 1987;1:5–37. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brengden M, Vitaro F, Turgeon L, Poulin F. Assessing aggressive and depressed children’s social relations with classmates and friends: A matter of perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2002;30:609–624. doi: 10.1023/a:1020863730902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown GW, Harris T. Social origins of depression. New York: Free Press; 1978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cicchetti D, Toth SL. The development of depression in children and adolescents. American Psychologist. 1998;53:221–241. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.53.2.221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cole DA, Jacquez FM, Maschman TL. Social origins of depressive cognitions: A longitudinal study of self-perceived competence in children. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2001;25:377–395. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cole DA, Martin JM, Peeke LG, Seroczynski AD, Hoffman K. Are cognitive errors of underestimation predictive or reflective of depressive symptoms in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1998;107:481–496. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.107.3.481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cole DA, Martin JM, Peeke LA, Seroczynski AD, Fier J. Children’s over- and underestimation of academic competence: A longitudinal study of gender differences, depression, and anxiety. Child Development. 1999;70:459–473. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Compas BE, Worsham NL, Ey S, Howell DC. When mom or dad has cancer: II. Coping, cognitive appraisals, and psychological distress in children of cancer patients. Health Psychology. 1996;15:167–175. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.15.3.167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Connell JP, Ilardi BC. Self-system concomitants of discrepancies between children’s and teacher’s evaluations of academic competence. Child Development. 1987;58:1297–1307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Coyne JC. Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1976;85:186–193. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.85.2.186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Daley SE, Hammen CL, Burge D, Davila J, Paley B, Lindberg N, et al. Predictors of the generation of episodic stress: A longitudinal study of late adolescent women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1997;106:251–259. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.106.2.251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. David CF, Kistner JA. Do positive self-perceptions have a “dark side”? Examination of the link between perceptual bias and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2000;22:327–337. doi: 10.1023/a:1005164925300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Davila J, Hammen CL, Burge D, Paley B, Daley SE. Poor interpersonal problem solving as a mechanism of stress generation in depression among adolescent women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1995;104:592–600. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.104.4.592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. De Los Reyes A, Prinstein MJ. Applying depression-distortion hypotheses to the assessment of peer victimization in adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2004;33:325–335. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Folkman S, Lazarus RS. Stress processes and depressive symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1986;95:107–113. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.95.2.107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Garber J, Hilsman R. Cognitions, stress, and depression in children and adolescents. Mood Disorders. 1992;1:129–167. [Google Scholar]
  25. Garber J, Keiley MK, Martin NC. Developmental trajectories of adolescents’ depressive symptoms: Predictors of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2002;70:79–95. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.70.1.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Garber J, Flynn C. Predictors of depressive cognitions in young adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2001;25:353–376. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gotlib IH, Hammen CL. Psychological aspects of depression: Toward a cognitive-interpersonal integration. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gotlib IH, Lewinsohn PM, Seeley JR. Symptoms versus a diagnosis of depression: Differences in psychosocial functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1995;63:90–100. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.63.1.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hammen CL. Generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1991;100:555–561. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.100.4.555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hammen C. Stress generation in depression: Reflections on origins, research, and future directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2006;62:1065–1082. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hammen C, Rudolph KD. Childhood mood disorders. In: Mash EJ, Barkley RA, editors. Child psychopathology. 2. New York: Guilford; 2003. pp. 233–278. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hankin BL, Abramson LY. Development of gender differences in depression: An elaborated cognitive vulnerability-transactional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;127:773–796. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hankin BL, Fraley RC, Abela JRZ. Daily depression and cognitions about stress: Evidence for a trait-like depressogenic cognitive style and the prediction of depressive symptoms in a prospective daily diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88:673–685. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hankin BL, Fraley RC, Lahey BB, Waldman ID. Is depression best viewed as a continuum or discrete category? A taxometric analysis of childhood and adolescent depression in a population-based sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2005;114:96–110. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.114.1.96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hilsman R, Garber J. A test of the cognitive diathesis-stress model of depression in children: Academic stressors, attributional style, perceived competence, and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69:370–380. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.2.370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Joiner T, Coyne JC, Blalock J. On the interpersonal nature of depression: Overview and synthesis. In: Joiner T, Coyne JD, editors. The interactional nature of depression: Advances in interpersonal approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999. pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kendall PC, Stark KD, Adam T. Cognitive deficit or cognitive distortion of childhood depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1990;18:255–270. doi: 10.1007/BF00916564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kistner J, Balthazor M, Risi S, David C. Adolescents’ perceptions of peer acceptance: Is dysphoria associated with greater realism? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2001;20:66–81. [Google Scholar]
  39. Klein DN, Ouimette PC, Kelly HF, Ferro T, Riso LP. Test-retest reliability of team consensus best-estimate diagnoses of Axis I and II disorders in a family study. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1994;151:1043–1047. doi: 10.1176/ajp.151.7.1043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Klerman GL, Weissman MM, Rounsaville B, Chevron ES. Interpersonal psychotherapy for depression. In: Groves JE, editor. Essential papers on short-term dynamic therapy. Essential papers on psychoanalysis. New York: New York University Press; 1996. pp. 134–148. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kovacs M. Rating scales to assess depression in school-aged children. Acta Paedopsychiatrica. 1981;46:305–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kovacs M. Children’s Depression Inventory Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Mulit-Health Systems, Inc; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lengua LJ, Sandler IN, West SG, Wolchik SA, Curran PJ. Emotionality and self-regulation, threat appraisal, and coping in children of divorce. Development and Psychopathology. 1999;11:15–37. doi: 10.1017/s0954579499001935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lewinsohn PM, Solomon A, Seeley JR, Zeiss A. Clinical implications of “subthreshold” depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2000;109:345–351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. McGrath EP, Repetti RL. A longitudinal study of children’s depressive symptoms, self-perceptions, and cognitive distortions about the self. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2002;111:77–87. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.111.1.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nolen-Hoeksema S, Girgus JS, Seligman ME. Predictors and consequences of childhood depressive symptoms: A 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1992;3:405–422. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.101.3.405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Orvaschel H. Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Epidemiologic Version 5. Nova Southeastern University; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  49. Patterson GR, Stoolmiller M. Replications of a dual failure model for boys’ depressed mood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1991;59:491–498. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.59.4.491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Pomerantz EM, Rudolph KD. What ensues from emotional distress? Implications for competence estimation. Child Development. 2003;74:329–345. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.7402001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Renouf AG, Harter S. Low self-worth and anger as components of the depressive experience in young adolescents. Development and Psychopathology. 1990;2:293–310. [Google Scholar]
  52. Robinson NS, Garber J, Hilsman R. Cognitions and stress: Direct and moderating effects on depressive versus externalizing symptoms during the junior high school transition. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1995;104:453–463. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.104.3.453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rohde P, Lewinsohn PM, Seeley JR. Are people changed by the experience of having an episode of depression? A further test of the scar hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1990;3:264–271. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.99.3.264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rudolph KD, Clark AG. Conceptions of relationships in children with depressive and aggressive symptoms: Social-cognitive distortion or reality? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2001;29:41–56. doi: 10.1023/a:1005299429060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rudolph KD, Flynn M. Childhood adversity and youth depression: The role of gender and pubertal status. Development and Psychopathology. 2007;19:497–521. doi: 10.1017/S0954579407070241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Rudolph KD, Flynn M, Abaied JL. A developmental perspective on interpersonal theories of youth depression. To appear. In: Abela JRZ, Hankin BL, editors. Child and adolescent depression: Causes, treatment, and prevention. New York: Guilford; in press. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rudolph KD, Hammen CL. Age and gender determinants of stress exposure, generation, and reactions in youngsters: A transactional perspective. Child Development. 1999;70:660–677. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Rudolph KD, Hammen C, Burge D, Lindberg N, Herzberg D, Daley SE. Toward an interpersonal life-stress model of depression: The developmental context of stress generation. Development and Psychopathology. 2000;12:215–234. doi: 10.1017/s0954579400002066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Rudolph KD, Hammen C, Daley SE. Mood disorders. In: Wolfe DA, Mash EJ, editors. Behavioral and emotional disorders in adolescents. New York: Guilford; 2006. pp. 300–342. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rudolph KD, Kurlakowsky KD, Conley CS. Developmental and social-contextual origins of depressive control-related beliefs and behaviors. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2001;25:447–475. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sandler IN, Tein JY, Mehta P, Wolchik S, Ayers T. Coping efficacy and psychological problems of children of divorce. Child Development. 2000;71:1099–1118. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sheets V, Sandler I, West SG. Appraisals of negative events by preadolescent children of divorce. Child Development. 1996;67:2166–2182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Smucker MR, Craighead WE, Craighead LW, Green BJ. Normative and reliability data for the Children’s Depression Inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1986;14:25–39. doi: 10.1007/BF00917219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Taylor SE, Brown JD. Positive illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin. 1994;103:193–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Weisz JR, Southam-Gerow MA, McCarty CA. Control-related beliefs and depressive symptoms in clinic-referred children and adolescents: Developmental differences and model specificity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001;110:97–109. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.110.1.97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Young JE, Beck AT, Weinberger A. Depression. In: Barlow DH, editor. Clinical Handbook of psychological disorders. New York: Guilford; 1993. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES