Between- versus within-person emotional and cognitive reactivity in relation to depressive symptoms

Cole, David A.; Gabruk, Megan E.; Nestor, Bridget A.; Liu, Qimin; Lovette, Abbegail J.; Zhang, Yinghao; Mick, Cassandra R.

doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.064

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, given that results on affective reactivity, as is the case for many ESM-based results, are usually interpreted on the within-subject level, researchers should ideally use the recommended analytical approaches for separating within-and between-person variation. This entails person-mean centering the independent variable in the level-1 model and including the independent variable's person-mean in the level-2 model (e.g., Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013;Cole et al, 2021;Curran and Bauer, 2011;Kreft et al, 1995). Only then, the level-1 coefficient of the independent variable (e.g., event) can be interpreted as a purely within-person effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter can be interpreted as the effect of between-person differences in event ratios on affect (we term this "event load" in the remainder of the paper). Most previous ESM studies (i.e., those included in Table 1 except Nelson et al, 2020;van der Stouwe et al, 2019) did not separate these effects, leaving it ambiguous whether their affective reactivity coefficients represented the within-person effects of momentary events or effects of between-person differences in event load (also see Cole et al, 2021). To obtain coefficients that reflect within-person effects, we intentionally deviated from previous studies on this aspect of the analysis.…”

Section: Statistical Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can Floor Effects Explain Increased Affective Reactivity Among Depressed Individuals Found in Experience Sampling Research?

Klipstein¹,

Servaas²,

Lamers³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experience sampling studies into daily-life affective reactivity indicate that depressed individuals react more strongly to both positive and negative stimuli than non-depressed individuals, particularly on negative affect (NA). Given the different mean levels of both positive affect (PA) and NA between patients and controls, such findings may be influenced by floor/ceiling effects, leading to violations of the normality and homoscedasticity assumptions underlying the used statistical models. Affect distributions in prior studies suggest that this may have particularly influenced NA-reactivity findings. Here, we investigated the influence of floor/ceiling effects on the observed PA- and NA-reactivity to both positive and negative events. Data came from 346 depressed, non-depressed, and remitted participants from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). In PA-reactivity analyses, no floor/ceiling effects and assumption violations were observed, and PA-reactivity to positive events, but not negative events, was significantly increased in the depressed and remitted groups versus the non-depressed group. However, NA-scores exhibited a floor effect in the non-depressed group and naively estimated models violated model assumptions. When these violations were accounted for in subsequent analyses, group differences in NA-reactivity that had been present in the naive models were no longer observed. In conclusion, we found increased PA-reactivity to positive events but no evidence of increased NA-reactivity in depressed individuals when accounting for violations of assumptions. The results indicate that affective-reactivity results are very sensitive to modeling choices and that previously observed increased NA-reactivity in depressed individuals may (partially) reflect unaddressed assumption violations resulting from floor effects in NA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Statistical Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%