When Support Seeking Backfires: Co-Rumination, Excessive Reassurance Seeking, and Depressed Mood in the Daily Lives of Young Adults (2024)

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

J Soc Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Nov 15.

Published in final edited form as:

J Soc Clin Psychol. 2015; 34(5): 436–457.

doi:10.1521/jscp.2015.34.5.436

PMCID: PMC5687510

NIHMSID: NIHMS877946

PMID: 29151669

Lisa R. Starr

Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

Research has linked depression to maladaptive variants of support seeking, including co-rumination (CR) and excessive reassurance seeking (ERS), which may contribute to symptom onset and maintenance. Although both CR and ERS are associated with depression, insufficient research has examined how daily behaviors and experiences interact with trait-level CR and ERS to predict daily mood. Fifty-one undergraduates, over-selected for internalizing symptoms, completed baseline assessments, followed by a 14-day daily diary assessing behaviors, stressors, and mood. Daily problem-related talk was associated with elevations in depressed mood for participants with high (but not low) trait CR, particularly for those with major depression. Trait ERS similarly moderated the association between daily reassurance seeking and depressed mood. CR, ERS, and daily reassurance seeking each predicted greater affective reactivity to daily stressors. Results align with daily processes hypothesized by CR and ERS models, and suggest that both constructs may be best understood within a diathesis-stress framework.

Keywords: co-rumination, excessive reassurance seeking, daily diary, depression, interpersonal

Co-rumination (CR) is defined as excessive discussion of problems, including rehashing details, over-speculating about causes and consequences, and dwelling on emotions (Rose, 2002). Excessive reassurance seeking (ERS) refers to the tendency to repeatedly request assurance about one’s self-worth, often to the point of exasperating others (Coyne, 1976a, 1976b; ). Although these constructs emerged in separate literatures, they share important features. Both are essentially problematic forms of social support seeking and provision, and both are linked to depression (Rose, 2002; ; ). Both represent a potentially adaptive interpersonal behavior (discussing problems, seeking comfort from others about perceived shortcomings) that may have deleterious effects depending on the person’s interpersonal style. Finally, both involve processes that unfold (and presumably influence mood) on a day-to-day basis. The current study examines how these depressogenic support-seeking styles influence daily experiences linked to depressed mood.

Co-Rumination

Excessive Reassurance Seeking

According to the original ERS model proposed by Coyne (1976a, 1976b), mildly depressed individuals repeatedly seek assurance from others of their self-worth. Eventually, this behavior provokes rejecting behaviors, which then feed into the reassurance seeker’s depressive symptoms and propagate the cycle. Joiner and colleagues (e.g., Joiner et al., 1999) point to the stable tendency to excessively seek reassurance as the key element in this model. Several major aspects of this model have attracted significant support, including associations between ERS and both depression and interpersonal rejection (see ; ). However, although the ERS model is fundamentally predicated on within-subjects assumptions (e.g., that variations in daily behaviors influence mood), the vast majority of studies examining ERS have focused on between-subjects effects, with very few applying diary methods (; ). As between-subjects findings do not always generalize to within-subjects effects (), the micro-level processes assumed in the ERS model remain insufficiently tested.

For example, does daily reassurance seeking (RS) predict concurrent depressed mood? One study supports this notion (), but given its centrality to the ERS model, replication is needed. Second, is daily RS especially tied to negative mood among habitual reassurance seekers? RS that is not “excessive” may not be detrimental, and may even confer support-seeking benefits (Shaver et al., 2005). For those with high trait-level ERS, in contrast, daily RS may trigger the vicious cycle described in the ERS model, and thus may be more strongly linked to depressed mood.

Another key question is whether ERS interacts with daily hassles to predict depressed mood, consistent with the diathesis-stress model. Joiner and Metalsky (2001) described ERS as a “general diathesis, activated by an array of stressors” (p. 378), suggesting that stressful occurrences trigger the RS cycle among vulnerable individuals, increasing depression risk. Between-subjects research has generally supported the application of the diathesis-stress model, showing that ERS interacts with a broad range of stressors (e.g., roommate rejection, midterm failure, military basic training, partner devaluation) to predict depressive outcomes (; ; ), but within-subjects analyses of momentary data have been much more limited and less consistent (; ). The current study tested whether RS (habitual and daily) interacts with daily hassle occurrence to predict increased depressed mood.

The Current Study

I examined the influence of depressogenic support-seeking behaviors on daily depressed mood in a two-week daily diary study of young adults. By capturing behaviors and emotional states in real time and within their natural contexts, diary methods offer reduced retrospection-related biases, increased ecological validity, and the ability to reveal patterns that between-subjects designs cannot discern (; Reis, 2012). To increase variability on constructs of interest and generalizability to clinically significant depression, the sample included an over-representation of participants with elevated internalizing symptoms.

This study addressed the following hypotheses related to depression-related support seeking behaviors: a) problem-related discussions would more strongly relate to depressed mood among those with high trait CR, particularly among those with current depression, b) baseline CR would interact with daily hassles to predict depressed mood, even controlling for rumination, c) daily RS would predict depressed mood, especially among those with high trait-level ERS, and d) both trait ERS and daily RS would interact with daily hassles to predict depressed mood.

Method

Participants

Fifty-one undergraduates, enrolled in introductory psychology classes, participated in this study. Participants with elevated internalizing symptom scores on a screening measure (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 [DASS-21]; ) were preferentially recruited, leading to an overrepresentation of depressive symptoms (51% scored within the clinical range (5+) on the DASS-21 depression subscale at baseline, and 22% met current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder [MDE]). Participants were 74.5% female and endorsed diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, including 35% Non-Hispanic Caucasian, 35% Asian, 20% Hispanic, and 6% multiracial, with 4% reporting other backgrounds.

Procedure

At an initial laboratory visit, participants provided informed consent and completed baseline questionnaires and interviews. Participants were then asked to complete daily diary surveys nightly for 14 days beginning the night of the baseline interview. Participants chose a target time, around their typical bedtime, and were instructed to complete their diary as close to that time as possible to provide consistency. Nightly surveys were completed via a secure online survey collection website. Electronic time-stamps allowed compliance monitoring. Participants received a nightly reminder email with a survey link at their designated time. Diary compliance was good, with 88% of all surveys completed (mean per participant = 12.33). Participants received course credit, and were entered into gift card raffles based on compliance. The [BLINDED] Institutional Review Board approved all procedures.

Measures

Baseline measures

Depression Diagnosis was assessed using the current MDE section of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI; Sheehan et al., 1998), a brief, structured diagnostic interview. To capture subthreshold symptoms and diagnoses, a dimensional coding system was devised where 0=no symptoms, 1=significant subthreshold symptoms, and 2= DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Audiotaped interviews were conducted by a doctoral-level researcher and a trained, bachelors-level research assistant, and 20% were reviewed by a second coder, with 100% reliability for MDE. In full, 22% met full criteria for current MDE, and 10% reported subthreshold symptoms.

Co-Rumination was assessed using the Co-Rumination Questionnaire (Rose, 2002), a 27-item self-report measure covering multiple content areas related to CR (problem discussion frequency, distraction from other activities, mutual encouragement of problem talk, repeated re-visitation of problems, and speculation about causes and consequences of problems). Previous research supports the psychometric properties of the Co-Rumination Questionnaire (including reliability and discriminant and convergent validity; Rose, 2002); here, Cronbach’s alpha was .95.

Rumination was assessed using the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS; ), a widely-used 22-item measure assessing tendencies toward ruminative thoughts or behaviors during sad or depressed mood. The RRS has shown excellent psychometric properties (); here, Cronbach’s alpha= .97.

Excessive Reassurance Seeking was assessed using the Depressive Interpersonal Relationships Inventory-Reassurance Seeking subscale (DIRI-RS; see ), a four-item measure assessing tendency to excessively seek assurance about self-worth from close others. Previous studies have supported the criterion and construct validity and internal reliability of the DIRI-RS (e.g., Joiner et al., 1992); here, Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Diary Items

Excessive diary length can substantially diminish compliance (), so items were selected on the basis of their ability to effectively assess constructs of interests as efficiently as possible. Note that the use of single-item measures is relatively common in diary research, and is psychometrically justifiable when constructs are relatively intuitive (Burisch, 1997; ; Pasipanodya et al., 2012; ).

Depressed mood was assessed using a single, face valid item, asking the participant to rate how depressed they have felt over the course of the day that day on a ten-point Likert-type scale. Supporting this item’s convergent validity, both baseline major depression diagnosis and the DASS-21 depression subscale robustly predicted depressed mood (both ps < .000001). Supporting discriminant validity, depressed mood was predicted by MDE diagnosis, but not by social phobia, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder (controlling for variance shared between disorders). Likewise, when depression, anxiety, and stress subscales from the DASS-21 were entered simultaneously into a model predicting daily depressed mood, only the depression subscale emerged as significant.

Daily problem-related discussions (hereafter “problem talk”) and daily reassurance seeking (RS) were respectively assessed using the items “Over the course of the day today, I talked to someone about my problems,” and “Over the course of the day today, I sought reassurance from someone I feel close to about whether they really care about me.” The latter item’s language was adapted from the DIRI-RS. Items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “a whole lot.”

Daily hassles were measured using a 16-item self-report inventory listing stressors across multiple domains that commonly occur in the daily lives of college students. Conway, Slavich, and Hammen (2014) developed this inventory explicitly for diary applications within undergraduate populations, using items from previously existing measures (; ). Sample items include “Did poorly on, or failed, an important exam or major project,” and “Had an argument/problem with a friend.” To ensure that overlapping events were not double counted, daily occurrence of hassles was coded dichotomously (0= no hassles, 1= one or more hassles reported).

Daily brooding was assessed using the five brooding items from the RRS (). Studies suggest that the brooding substrate of rumination (representing passive focus on distress) is more strongly linked to depression and momentary negative affect than reflective rumination, and support the psychometric properties of the brooding subscale (; ; Treynor et al., 2003). Daily surveys asked participants to endorse, on a four-point scale, the degree to which they experienced brooding thoughts over the course of that day.

Data Analysis Approach

Analyses were conducted using multilevel modeling (MLM) using IBM SPSS 22.0 MIXED. MLM allows for the non-independence inherent in repeated-measures time-series data. In this two-level dataset, repeated measures (level one) were nested within participants (level two). MLM also offers other advantages compared to traditional techniques, including coping well with missing data and allowing greater statistical power.

Model Construction

Following Bolger and Laurenceau’s (2013) recommendations, level-one predictors were partitioned into orthogonal between- and within-subjects components. The between-subjects component was represented by the mean of the person’s grand-mean-centered scores across all observations ( $\overset{̆}{X}$ _.j), and the within-subjects component by the person-mean-centered score ( $\overset{̆}{X}$ _ij– $\overset{̆}{X}$ _.j). This relatively conservative approach ensures that within-subjects results are not artifacts of between-subjects differences in average levels of time-varying variables over the course of the diary period. For all level-one main predictor variables, both within and between effects were included as main effects and in separate interaction terms where applicable. Although their inclusion in models improves interpretability of within effects, between effects themselves are not considered interpretable (), and all effect sizes presented below reflect within effects only. Baseline predictor variables were mean centered. Time was included in all models. All within-subjects effects of interest were initially entered as fixed and random effects, but as it can be difficult to reliably model small random effects (Nezlek, 2012), non-significant (p > .10) random effects were dropped (but retained as fixed effects). An unstructured covariance type was specified for random effects, and a first-order auto-regressive (AR[1]) covariance type was used to correct for auto-correlation of residuals. For example, a standard model with one level-one predictor (X) and one level-two predictor (W) that includes main effects plus a cross-level interaction can be represented with this equation:

$Y_{ij} = γ_{00} + γ_{01} W_{j} + γ_{02} {\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{. j} + γ_{03} W_{j} {\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{. j} + γ_{10} ({\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{ij} - {\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{. j}) + γ_{11} W_{j} ({\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{ij} - {\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{. j}) + γ_{20} (Time) + u_{0 j} + u_{1 j} ({\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{ij} - {\overset{ᵕ}{X}}_{. j}) + ε_{ij}$

where the first seven terms represent fixed effects and the last three indicate random effects ().

Missing Data

MLM handles data well when it is missing at random (); in this dataset, missing a daily survey was not predicted by key daily variables such as previous-day depressed mood, problem talk, daily RS, or hassles, providing reasonable evidence that missing data are ignorable (Fitzmaurice et al., 2004; Howell, 2009).

Results

Preliminary Between-Subjects Analyses

Table 1 presents descriptive data and bivariate correlations among baseline measures and aggregated within-subjects variables (mean scores taken across all observation points for each participant). As shown in Table 1, baseline CR and ERS were significantly correlated, and both baseline variables predicted higher average daily problem talk and daily RS. Surprisingly, neither CR nor ERS at baseline was associated with baseline MDE or average daily depressed mood.

Table 1

Bivariate Correlations among Baseline Variables and Aggregated Daily Variables

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.

1. Baseline Co-rumination	--
2. Baseline Ruminative	.38^**	--
3. Baseline Excessive Reassurance Seeking	.44^**	.45^**	--
4. Major Depression	.11	.34^*	.15	--
5. Daily Depressed Mood	.05	.48^***	.24	.64^***	--
6. Daily Problem Talk	.23^*	.27	.32^*	.04	−.02	--
7. Daily Reassurance Seeking	.28^*	.12	.55^***	.08	.01	.65^***	--
8. Daily Hassles	.06	.25	−.03	.29^*	.27	−.07	−.02	--
9. Daily Brooding	.44^**	.60^***	.50^***	.36^**	.57^***	.37^**	.34^*	.18	--

M	80.82	54.43	2.10	0.53	2.65	0.81	0.41	0.49	1.75
SD	20.88	16.24	1.18	0.83	1.55	0.58	0.56	0.26	0.73

Open in a separate window

^*p < 0.05

^**p < 0.01

^***p < 0.001.

Notes. Major depression was scored using dimensional scale: 0 = no symptoms, 1 = subthreshold symptoms, 2 = DSM-IV diagnosis. For daily variables, scores were aggregated across observations for each individual.

Tests of Co-Rumination Hypotheses

I first tested whether CR moderates the association between fluctuations in problem talk and depressed mood. Following procedures outlined in the Data Analysis Approach section, I entered baseline CR, problem talk, and their interaction, along with time. The interaction term was significant, b= .01, S.E.= .00, p = .025. I decomposed the interaction using a simple slope test (; ). As shown in Figure 1, problem discussions were significantly related to same-day depressed mood at high levels of CR (M+ 1 SD; b = .46, SE= .12, p < .001), but not low CR levels (M – 1 SD; b = .04, SD= .13, p =.759).

When Support Seeking Backfires: Co-Rumination, Excessive Reassurance Seeking, and Depressed Mood in the Daily Lives of Young Adults (2)

Open in a separate window

Figure 1

Moderation of association between within-person fluctuations in daily problem-related discussion and same-day depressed mood by baseline co-rumination levels. Low and high co-rumination levels are defined as one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively. Model also controls for between-person levels of problem-related talk and time.

I subsequently examined whether this interaction was further modified by MDE. Main effects of problem talk, CR, and MDE were entered first, followed by constituent two-way interactions (problem talk × CR, problem talk × MDE, CR × MDE), and then by their three-way interaction (MDE × CR × problem talk). The three-way interaction was significant (b= .02, SE= .01, p= .001). Decomposition revealed that the two-way CR × problem talk interaction was significant for participants meeting criteria for MDE (p < .001), but not for participants with no depression (p= .785). Among depressed participants with high CR, increases in problem talk were associated with higher depressed mood (b= 1.60, SE= .43, p < .001), whereas among depressed participants with low CR, high problem talk predicted lower depressed mood (b= −1.07, SE= .44, p= .015). For non-depressed individuals, problem talk did not predict depressed mood at any level of co-rumination.

Finally, to examine whether CR contributes to stress reactivity, following the same procedures, I tested the interaction between baseline CR and daily hassles, predicting depressed mood. The interaction was significant (b= .02, SE= .01, p= .017). Daily hassles significantly predicted depressed mood at CR high levels (p < .001), but not at low levels (p= .134). To determine whether this interaction is better explained by rumination, in an additional model I simultaneously entered interaction terms for baseline CR × hassles and baseline RRS × hassles (plus main effects for all predictor variables). The interaction between CR and hassles remained significant (p= .022), but the interaction between the RRS and hassles was non-significant (p= .765). As an additional test, I examined whether the CR × hassles interaction was better accounted for by an interaction between hassles and within-subjects variations in daily brooding in a model including a) main effects for CR, daily brooding, and daily hassles, b) interactions terms for CR × hassles and brooding × hassles, and c) time. As in prior research (), daily brooding significantly interacted with hassles to predict depressed mood (b= .74, SE= .29, p= .012), but CR maintained its significance as a moderator of the daily association between stress and depressed mood (p = .038). Taken together, these results strongly suggest that the interaction between CR and daily hassles is not better explained by co-occurring rumination.

Tests of ERS Hypotheses

Consistent with hypotheses, elevations in daily RS predicted same-day depressed mood (b= .47, SE= .19, p= .018). To examine whether this effect was moderated by trait-level ERS, I tested a cross-level interaction between baseline ERS and daily RS. Supporting predictions, the interaction was significant (b= .32, SE= .09, p< .001), with a robust association between daily RS and depressed mood for those with high trait ERS (b= .69, SE= .12, p< .001), but no association for those low on ERS (b= −.05, SE= .18, p= .776). Figure 2 illustrates this pattern.

When Support Seeking Backfires: Co-Rumination, Excessive Reassurance Seeking, and Depressed Mood in the Daily Lives of Young Adults (3)

Open in a separate window

Figure 2

Moderation of association between within-person fluctuations in daily reassurance seeking and same-day depressed mood by baseline excessive reassurance seeking levels. Low and high ERS are defined as one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively. Model also controls for between-person levels of reassurance seeking and time.

Next, I examined both trait-level ERS and daily RS as moderators of the association between daily hassle occurrence and concurrent depressed mood. Baseline ERS significantly interacted with daily hassles (b= .38, SE= .12, p= .002), with stronger effects for those with high baseline ERS (b= 1.30, SE= .19, p< .001) compared to low ERS (b= .42, SE= .20, p= .041). Likewise, daily RS interacted with daily hassles (b= .78, SE= .27, p= .004), with hassle fluctuations predicting depressed mood more strongly on days when participants reported elevated RS (b= 1.06, SE= .22, p< .001), compared to low RS days (b= .52, SE= .20, p= .011).

As a final, exploratory analysis, because co-rumination and ERS were correlated and both predicted reactivity to daily hassles in this dataset, I simultaneously entered both interactions (plus all relevant main effects) into a single multilevel model to determine whether one variable better accounts for both moderation effects. Both interaction terms remained significant (ps< .05), suggesting that both ERS and CR uniquely contribute to daily stress reactivity.

All analyses were repeated controlling for gender, with no changes in significance.

Discussion

The CR and ERS models imply a sad irony: while quality social support protects against depression (), depression-related interpersonal traits increase likelihood of pursuing social support in a maladaptive manner, such as by discussing problems in a perseverative, emotion-focused style or repeatedly seeking reassurance to the point of provoking rejection (Coyne, 1976a, 1976b; Rose, 2002). In line with these models, current findings suggest that CR and ERS may lead social support attempts to backfire, contributing to (rather than protecting against) depressed mood and stress reactivity among young adults.

For example, individuals high on CR showed elevated depressed mood on days when they spent more time discussing problems with others, whereas for those low in CR, problem talk was unrelated to depressed mood. Although we did not directly assess the qualitative aspects of daily problem talk, it stands to reason that trait co-ruminators would be more likely to use a perseverative, unproductive, emotion-focused manner, which may in turn be linked to depressed mood. In contrast, low trait co-ruminators may discuss problems in a variety of styles, including using adaptive problem solving and support seeking. This finding provides basic within-subjects support for Rose’s (2002) differentiation between CR and normative self-disclosure. Note that although co-ruminative processes may directly trigger depressed mood, only contemporaneous associations were tested, so results may also reflect a tendency of co-ruminators to discuss problems when depressed. Indeed, one previous study suggested reciprocal associations between depressive symptoms and CR (). Further research should clarify the causal directions of associations between daily co-ruminative processes and mood.

In an intriguing finding, the two-way interaction between baseline CR and daily problem talk was further modified by depression. Problem talk was positively linked to depressed mood only among high trait co-ruminators with current depression, and not among non-depressed participants regardless of CR levels. This implies that CR may be most detrimental within the context of a depressive episode, aligning with research on rumination, which has shown that experimentally induced rumination triggers negative mood in dysphoric but not non-dysphoric individuals (see Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008), and that naturalistic rumination is more closely tied to negative mood among depressed people (; Mor et al., 2010). Depression is associated with the tendency to view problems as having stable, global causes, harmful consequences, and negative implications for self-worth (). These negative inferences may transform co-ruminative processes, including repeated speculation about causes and consequences of problems, from a relatively innocuous activity into a painful, self-defeating exercise. Future research should examine whether negative attributions interact with CR to predict depression risk (consistent with similar findings on rumination; ). Further, as depression is associated with higher levels of acute and chronic stress (e.g., Hammen, 2005), the problems that depressed co-ruminators discuss may be more stressful and consequential, and therefore more distressing to analyze. Depression is also associated with poorer problem-solving skills and less supportive relationships (Nezu, 1987; ), perhaps meaning that depressed individuals receive fewer of the potential benefits of CR. Finally, as friends of depressed individuals are statistically more likely to be depressed themselves (; Segrin, 2004), they may have a greater tendency to reinforce negative thought patterns through CR.

The current study also supported the idea, central to the ERS model (Coyne, 1976a, 1976b), that fluctuations in daily RS co-occur with depressed mood, and that this is particularly true among habitual reassurance seekers. Individuals with a repeated pattern of ERS may be more likely to provoke rejection with their daily RS behaviors, compared to those for whom RS is a relative rarity. Again, as we examined concurrent associations, we cannot be sure of the direction of effect. Indeed, the ERS model suggests both that people prone to ERS seek reassurance when feeling mildly depressed and that the reassurance seeking will spur a cycle culminating in elevated depressed mood. Long-term prospective designs have suggested that ERS predicts depressive symptoms (Davila, 2001; ; see for a review), but at least one study suggests that depression also predicts increases in ERS over time (). Future research should clarify temporal associations (including possible reciprocal effects) between daily RS and mood. Regardless, results add daily diary support to an important component of the ERS model: that daily RS covaries with concurrent depressed mood, especially for those who use it excessively.

Both CR and ERS emerged as significant moderators of the association between daily hassles and depressed mood. In fact, each remained significant predictors of stress reactivity after controlling for the other’s effects, providing new evidence that CR and ERS are correlated but non-redundant constructs. CR remained a predictor of mood reactivity to daily stressors when controlling for baseline rumination and daily brooding, replicating and expanding upon previous findings (Bastin et al., 2014; ), bolstering evidence that CR should be conceptualized within a diathesis-stress framework as a maladaptive coping strategy that exacerbates the effects of negative environmental events. CR may often focus on stressful events that have just occurred, and co-ruminative processes may make these daily hassles seem less fixable and more problematic, impeding generation of effective solutions. ERS has long been conceptualized within the diathesis-stress model (), but within-subjects research on ERS as a predictor of stress reactivity has been limited and inconsistent (Abela et al., 2007; ). The current study showed that trait-level ERS predicted greater associations between stress and depressed mood (consistent with prior work; Abela et al., 2007; ), and further, on a more microscopic level, daily hassles were linked to depressed mood specifically on days when individuals engaged in increased RS, perhaps because it introduces a cycle of negative interpersonal experiences that exacerbate mood. Taken together, findings suggest that depressogenic support-seeking tendencies compound rather than alleviate emotional consequences of stress.

A few study limitations merit note. First, as previously mentioned, I only tested contemporaneous associations between behaviors and mood, and thus cannot draw conclusions about directions of effect. Although lagged analyses would have provided superior causal inference, next-day spillover of negative mood following interpersonal events is not typical (), at least in non-clinical populations (). Effects of CR or RS on mood may be relatively immediate, dissipating too quickly to be captured by a one-day lag. Future research may consider applying experience sampling methods with multiple assessments per day to capture more immediate lagged effects. In addition, as noted above, qualitative aspects of daily problem discussions were not assessed, and doing so would have allowed for stronger inferences about daily CR.

More diary-based research should test additional elements of the CR and ERS models. For example, as both CR and ERS are fundamentally interpersonal processes, more research should collect dyadic diary data assessing perceptions of relationship partners (see Shaver et al., 2005). In addition to supplying another source of information on CR and ERS occurrence, this would allow for examination of partner reception and reciprocation of CR and RS behaviors. Dyadic diary data would also allow for a more refined exploration of the roles of CR and ERS in mood contagion effects (previously supported in between-subjects analyses; Joiner, 1994; ; ). Event-contingent recording methods, in which participants are instructed to complete surveys immediately after engaging in target behaviors, such as problem talk or RS () may help elucidate the immediate consequences of these behaviors for mood, relationships, and other key variables. These methods could advance understanding of depression through revealing how daily interpersonal processes interact with other forces to predict symptoms.

References

Abela JRZ, Hankin BL, Haigh EAP, Adams P, Vinokuroff T, Trayhern L. Interpersonal Vulnerability to Depression in High-Risk Children: The Role of Insecure Attachment and Reassurance Seeking. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34:182–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Abela JRZ, Morrison E, Starrs C. Excessive Reassurance Seeking, Self-Esteem, and Depressive Symptoms in Children of Affectively Ill Parents: An Experience Sampling Analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2007;26:849–869. [Google Scholar]
Abramson LY, Metalsky GI, Alloy LB. Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review. 1989;96:358–372. [Google Scholar]
Aiken LS, West SG. multiple regression: Testing interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1991. [Google Scholar]
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4. Washington, D.C: Author; 1994. [Google Scholar]
Bastin M, Mezulis A, Ahles J, Raes F, Bijttebier P. Moderating Effects of Brooding and Co-Rumination on the Relationship Between Stress and Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescence: A Multi-Wave Study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2014:1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bolger N, Davis A, Rafaeli E. Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology. 2003;54:579–616. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bolger N, DeLongis A, Kessler RC, Schilling EA. Effects of daily stress on negative mood. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1989;57:808. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bolger N, Laurenceau J-P. Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research. New York: Guilford; 2013. [Google Scholar]
Burisch M. Test length and validity revisited. European Journal of Personality. 1997;11:303–315. [Google Scholar]
Calmes CA, Roberts JE. Rumination in interpersonal relationships: Does co-rumination explain gender differences in emotional distress and relationship satisfaction among college students. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2008;32:577–590. [Google Scholar]
Ciesla J, Dickson K, Anderson N, Neal D. Negative Repetitive Thought and College Drinking: Angry Rumination, Depressive Rumination, Co-Rumination, and Worry. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2011;35:142–150. [Google Scholar]
Collins NL, Miller LC. Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 1994;116:457–475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Conway CC, Slavich GM, Hammen C. Daily stress reactivity and serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR) variaion: Internalizing responses to everyday stress as a possible transdiagnostic phenotype. Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders. 2014;4:1–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Coyne JC. Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1976a;85:186–193. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Coyne JC. Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes. 1976b;39:28–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Davila J. Refining the association between excessive reassurance seeking and depressive symptoms: The role of related interpersonal constructs. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology. 2001;20:538–559. [Google Scholar]
Driscoll KA, Lopez CM, Kistner JA. A diathesis-stress test of response styles in children. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2009;28:1050–1070. [Google Scholar]
Eberhart NK, Hammen CL. Interpersonal Style, Stress, and Depression: An Examination of Transactional and Diathesis-Stress Models. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2010;29:23–38. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH. Applied Longitudinal Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Interseries; 2004. [Google Scholar]
Fritz HL, Nagurney AJ, Helgeson VS. Social Interactions and Cardiovascular Reactivity during Problem Disclosure among Friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2003;29:713–725. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Genet JJ, Siemer M. Rumination moderates the effects of daily events on negative mood: Results from a diary study. Emotion. 2012;12:1329–1339. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gunthert KC, Cohen LH, Butler AC, Beck JS. Depression and Next-day Spillover of Negative Mood and Depressive Cognitions Following Interpersonal Stress. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2007;31:521–532. [Google Scholar]
Hammen C. Stress and depression. [Review] Annual Review of Clinical Psycholy. 2005;1:293–319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hankin BL, Stone L, Wright PA. Corumination, interpersonal stress generation, and internalizing symptoms: Accumulating effects and transactional influences in a multiwave study of adolescents. Development and Psychopathology. 2010;22:217–235. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hogue A, Steinberg L. hom*ophily of internalized distress in adolescent peer groups. Developmental Psychology. 1995;31:897. [Google Scholar]
Howell DC. Treatment of Missing Data. 2009 Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/StatPages/More_Stuff/Missing_Data/Missing.html.
Joiner TE., Jr Contagious depression: Existence, specificity to depressed symptoms, and the role of reassurance seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67:287–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Joiner TE, Jr, Alfano MS, Metalsky GI. When depression breeds contempt: Reassurance seeking, self-esteem, and rejection of depressed college students by their roommates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1992;101:165–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Joiner TE, Jr, Metalsky GI. Excessive reassurance seeking: Delineating a risk factor involved in the development of depressive symptoms. Psychological Science. 2001;12:371–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Joiner TE, Jr, Metalsky GI, Katz J, Beach SRH. Depression and excessive reassurance-seeking. Psychological Inquiry. 1999;10:269–278. [Google Scholar]
Joiner TE, Jr, Schmidt NB. Excessive reassurance-seeking predicts depressive but not anxious reactions to acute stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1998;107:533–537. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Katz J, Beach SRH, Joiner TE., Jr When does partner devaluation predict emotional distress? Prospective moderating effects of reassurance-seeking and self-esteem. Personal Relationships. 1998;5:409–421. [Google Scholar]
Katz J, Beach SRH, Joiner TE., Jr Contagious depression in dating couples. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology. 1999;18:1–13. [Google Scholar]
Laurenceau J-P, Barrett LF, Rovine MJ. The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology. 2005;19:314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. 2. Sydney: Psychology Foundation; 1995. [Google Scholar]
Miranda R, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Brooding and reflection: Rumination predicts suicidal ideation at 1-year follow-up in a community sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2007;45:3088–3095. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Moberly NJ, Watkins ER. Ruminative self-focus and negative affect: An experience sampling study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2008;117:314–323. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Monroe SM, Bromet EJ, Connell MM, Steiner SC. Social support, life events, and depressive symptoms: A 1-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1986;54:424–431. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mor N, Doane LD, Adam EK, Mineka S, Zinbarg RE, Griffith JW, Nazarian M. Within-person variations in self-focused attention and negative affect in depression and anxiety: A diary study. Cognition and Emotion. 2010;24:48–62. [Google Scholar]
Morren M, Dulmen Sv, Ouwerkerk J, Bensing J. Compliance with momentary pain measurement using electronic diaries: A systematic review. European Journal of Pain. 2009;13:354–365. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Moskowitz DS, Sadikaj G, Mehl MR, Conner TS. Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Everyday Life. New York: Guilford; 2012. Event-Contingent Recording; pp. 160–175. [Google Scholar]
Nezlek JB. Multilevel modeling analysis of diary-style data. In: Mehl MR, Conner TS, editors. Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life. New York: Guilford; pp. 357–383. [Google Scholar]
Nezu AM. A problem-solving formulation of depression: A literature review and proposal of a pluralistic model. Clinical Psychology Review. 1987;7:121–144. [Google Scholar]
Nolen-Hoeksema S, Morrow J. A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;61:115–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nolen-Hoeksema S, Wisco BE, Lyubomirsky S. Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008;3:400–424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pasipanodya EC, Parrish BP, Laurenceau J-P, Cohen LH, Siegel SD, Graber EC, Belcher AJ. Social constraints on disclosure predict daily well-being in couples coping with early-stage breast cancer. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012;26:661. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ. Computational tools for probing interactions in multilevel linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Education and Behavioral Sciences. 2006;31:437–448. [Google Scholar]
Prinstein MJ, Borelli JL, Cheah CSL, Simon VA, Aikins JW. Adolescent girls’ interpersonal vulnerability to depressive symptoms: A longitudinal examination of reassurance-seeking and peer relationships. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2005;114:676–688. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Reis HT. Why researchers should think “real-world”: A conceptual rationale. In: Mehl MR, Conner TS, editors. Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life. New York: Guilford; 2012. [Google Scholar]
Robinson MS, Alloy LB. Negative Cognitive Styles and Stress-Reactive Rumination Interact to Predict Depression: A Prospective Study. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2003;27:275–292. [Google Scholar]
Rose AJ. Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development. 2002;73:1830–1843. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rose AJ, Carlson W, Waller EM. Prospective associations of co-rumination with friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-rumination. Developmental Psychology. 2007;43:1019–1031. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Schwartz-Mette RA, Rose AJ. Co-rumination mediates contagion of internalizing symptoms within youths’ friendships. Developmental psychology. 2012;48:1355. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Segrin C. Concordance on Negative Emotion in Close Relationships: Transmission of Emotion or Assortative Mating. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2004;23:836–856. [Google Scholar]
Seidlitz L, Diener E. Memory for positive versus negative life events: Theories for the differences between happy and unhappy persons. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1993;64:654. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Shahar G, Henrich CC, Reiner IC, Little TD. Development and initial validation of the brief adolescent life event scale (BALES) Anxiety, Stress & Coping. 2003;16:119–128. [Google Scholar]
Shaver PR, Schachner DA, Mikulincer M. Attachment style, excessive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2005;31:343–359. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, Dunbar GC. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 1998;59:22–33. quiz 34–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Starr LR, Davila J. Excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and interpersonal rejection: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2008;117:762–775. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Starr LR, Davila J. Clarifying co-rumination: Associations with internalizing symptoms and romantic involvement among adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence. 2009;32:19–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Starr LR, Davila J. Cognitive and Interpersonal Moderators of Daily Co-Occurrence of Anxious and Depressed Moods in Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2012;36:655–669. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stone LB, Hankin BL, Gibb BE, Abela JRZ. Co-rumination predicts the onset of depressive disorders during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2011;120:752–757. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stone LB, Uhrlass DJ, Gibb BE. Co-rumination and Lifetime History of Depressive Disorders in Children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2010;39:597–602. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Treynor W, Gonzalez R, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Rumination Reconsidered: A Psychometric Analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2003;27:247–259. [Google Scholar]
Wade TD, Kendler KS. The Relationship between Social Support and Major Depression: Cross-Sectional, Longitudinal, and Genetic Perspectives. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2000;188:251–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
White ME, Shih JH. A daily diary study of co-rumination, stressful life events, and depressed mood in late adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2012;41:598–610. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]