Recent theoretical and empirical work has facilitated the drawing of sharp conceptual distinctions between shame and guilt. A clear view of these distinctions has permitted development of a research literature aimed at evaluating the differential associations of shame and guilt with depressive symptoms. This study quantitatively summarized the magnitude of associations of shame and guilt with depressive symptoms. Two hundred forty-two effect sizes were obtained from 108 studies employing 22,411 participants. Shame showed significantly stronger associations with depressive symptoms (r = .43) than guilt (r = .28). However, the association of shame and depressive symptoms was statistically indistinguishable from the associations of 2 maladaptive variants of guilt and depressive symptoms (contextual-maladaptive guilt, involving exaggerated responsibility for uncontrollable events, r = .39; generalized guilt, involving "free-floating" guilt divorced from specific contexts, r = .42). Other factors also moderated the effects. External shame, which involves negative views of self as seen through the eyes of others, was associated with larger effect sizes (r = .56) than internal shame (r = .42), which involves negative views of self as seen through one's own eyes. Depressive symptom measures that invoked the term guilt yielded stronger associations between guilt and depressive symptoms (r = .33) than depressive symptom measures that did not (r = .21). Age, sex, and ethnicity (proportion of Whites to Asians) did not moderate the effects. Although these correlational data are ambiguous with respect to their causal interpretation, results suggest that shame should figure more prominently in understandings of the emotional underpinnings of depressive symptoms.

Emotion-related disturbances, such as depression and anxiety, have been linked to relative right-sided resting frontal electroencephalograph (EEG) asymmetry among adults and infants of afflicted mothers. However, a somewhat inconsistent pattern of findings has emerged. A meta-analysis was undertaken to (a) evaluate the magnitude of effects across EEG studies of resting frontal asymmetry and depression, anxiety, and comorbid depression and anxiety and (b) determine whether certain moderator variables could help reconcile inconsistent findings. Moderate effects of similar magnitude were obtained for the depression and anxiety studies, whereas a smaller effect emerged for comorbid studies. Three moderating variables predicted effect sizes: (a) Shorter EEG recording periods were associated with larger effects among adults, (b) different operationalizations of depression yielded effects of marginally different magnitudes, and (c) younger infant samples showed larger effects than older ones. The current data support a link between resting frontal EEG asymmetry and depression and anxiety and provide a partial account of inconsistent findings across studies.

A meta-analysis of 295 relevant effect sizes obtained from 25,469 participants confirmed expectations that elevated blood pressure (BP) and essential hypertension (EH) would be associated with lower affect expression but with more negative affectivity and defensiveness. The strongest associations occurred for defensiveness and measures of anger and affect expression linked to an interpersonal context(s). However, a number of other factors also were found to moderate associations of BP with personality measures, including awareness of BP status, gender, occupation, and diastolic versus systolic BP assessment. Given these moderators, the authors conclude that a traditional view of personality causing EH is untenable and that, not incorporating multifactorial, synergistic approaches is likely to obscure associations of personality-behavior with EH.

The psychometric properties of Antonovsky's Sense of Coherence (SOC) Scale were examined. Subjects (N = 374) completed the SOC scale and a battery of theoretically relevant questionnaires. Principal-components analysis with a Varimax-Promax rotation produced a solution with 5 factors, which were further reduced to 1 factor, suggesting that the SOC scale is a unidimensional instrument. Additional analyses indicated satisfactory internal consistency as well as test-retest reliability at 1 and 2 weeks. Evidence for the validity of the SOC scale was obtained in that nonclinical subjects obtained higher SOC scores than did clinical subjects. Additional validity evidence was provided by negative correlations between SOC scores and self-reports of (a) perceived stress, (b) trait anxiety, and (c) current depression. Discriminant evidence for the validity of the SOC scale was mixed.

The present research evaluated the psychometric properties of a brief self-report instrument designed to assess appraisal of diabetes. Two hundred male subjects completed the Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (ADS) and provided blood samples that were subsequently assayed to provide an index of glycemic control (i.e., glycosylated hemoglobin). Subjects also completed either (a) additional measures of diabetes-related health beliefs, diabetic daily hassles, perceived stress, diabetic adherence, and psychiatric symptoms or (b) the ADS on two additional occasions. Results indicated that the ADS is an internally consistent and stable measure of diabetes-related appraisal. The validity of the measure was supported by correlational analyses which documented the relationship between the ADS and several related self-report measures.