PSY 620P
April 21, 2015
Waldinger, Vaillant, & Orav (2007)
Marchante

The impact of childhood relationships on
later depression is unclear
 Most studies assess adversity and neglect as risk
factors
 Some research showed poor parent relationships
may be a risk factor
 However, few studies have assessed sibling
relationships
▪ Sibling conflict in middle childhood has been associated with
anxiety, depression, and delinquency in adolescence
▪ Better relationships with siblings in early adolescence associated
Marchante
with less loneliness, depression, and substance abuse in mid-

Issues with current studies assessing effects of
childhood relationships on later mental health:
 Retrospective data (risk of memory bias)
 Prospective longitudinal studies do not assess over long period of time (e.g., only
childhood to adolescence)
 Most predict depression at specific time point (consider episodic nature of
depression)

Purpose of this study:
 Does quality of childhood sibling relationships predict major depression in
adulthood?
Marchante
Hypothesis 1:
 Distant/dysfunctional sibling relationships and absence
of close relationship with at least one sibling in childhood
would predict major depression in 1st three decades of
adulthood (controlling for parenting quality and family history of depression)
Hypothesis 2:
 Poorer quality sibling relationships would increase use of
mood-altering drugs (e.g., tranquilizers, sleeping pills,
and stimulants)
Exploratory aim:
 Is predictive power of childhood sibling relationships
specific to adult depression or does it predict other forms
of psychopathology?
Marchante

Participants
 268 healthy, white male college students (ages 18-19)
recruited between 1939-1942
▪ “Sample chosen specifically for excellent mental health”
▪ 12 dropped out, 8 died in WWII; Final sample=229
Marchante

Assessments
 Time 1: Psychiatrist and family worker rated the following based on
self report, parent interview, and developmental history (3 point scale)
▪ Sibling relationship
▪ Parenting quality
▪ Family history of depression (note: also self report when men were
60 years old)
 Time 2 and beyond:
▪ Measures completed every 2 years
▪ Re-interviewed by study staff at age 25, 30, and 50
Marchante

Predictor variables





Sibling relationship
Parenting quality
Death of parent in childhood
Family history of depression (parent report at time 1 and self-report in
adulthood)
Outcome variables
 Categorical diagnosis of Major Depression between age 20 and 50
▪ Based on 8 correlates of MDD according DSM-III diagnosis
 Frequency of mood-altering drug use
▪ Based on frequency of use between ages 30-50 as reported in biennial
questionnaires
 Alcohol abuse/dependence
▪ Based on all information, 2 raters combined scores for dichotomous
variable on alcohol abuse at any point between ages 20-50
Marchante

Step 1:
 Four predictors (sibling, mother, father, and both parents
combined relationship quality) divided into 3 categories:
▪ Poor, average, good

Step 2:
 Chi-squares: quality of family relationship x depression;
same for mood altering drugs and alcohol dependence

Step 3:
 Binary logistic regressions: family history of depression,
parenting quality, and closeness to siblings predicting
depression by age 50
Marchante
Outcome by age 50
N
%
Major depression (3 or
more indicators)
23
10
Use of mood-altering
drugs (rated 3-4)
50
22
Alcohol abuse (yes/no)
46
20
Marchante
Marchante
• Family history of depression and poor sibling relationship quality before age 20
resulted in higher odds of MDD (controlling for quality of parenting in childhood)
• Family history of depression and poorer sibling relationships uniquely associated
with more use of mood-altering drugs
• Question: Other control variables to consider??
Marchante

What are some mechanisms through which
childhood sibling relationships could affect
later depression?

Do you think results would hold up for
another cohort today? Why or why not?
 How would this look different for a more diverse
samples?
Marchante
Erik Erikson’s Psychological Theory (1963)

Psychodynamic

One of first developmental theorists to argue that personality continues
to develop throughout lifespan

Series of crises that need to be resolved; outcome can be either favorable
or unfavorable
Rochester Adult Longitudinal
Study (RALS)
 Investigation of the Eriksonian model begun in 1960s
at Rochester University
 Questionnaire measure of psychosocial development
administered to 349 students in 1965-1968 classes
 1977: F/U + new cohort of undergraduates added
 1988-89: F/U + new cohort of undergraduates added
 Follow-ups included measures of life events & identity
 Limitation of previous studies = use of Repeated
Measures ANOVA
Aims of Current Investigation

Examine trajectories of change for Eriksonian psychosocial issues

Examine moderators of trajectories



Cohort:

“Leading Edge” Baby Boomers (mean birth year = 1946): expected to
have greater difficulty resolving issues of identity and intimacy in
college but more stability in midlife

“Trailing Edge” Baby Boomers (mean birth year = 1957): fewer
psychosocial issues in college but more in adulthood because may have
prematurely foreclosed on issues related to career and family
Gender:

Women higher scores on intimacy vs. isolation and steeper rate of
change

Men higher scores on initiative, industry, & identity and steeper change
Education, Occupation, and Long-term Relationships

Participants more successful early in life and who establish a stable
family early on will have more favorable resolution of Eriksonian crises
Participants & Measures
Inventory of Psychosocial Development (IPD; Constantinople, 1969): Participants rate how
characteristic items related to each of the Eriksonian issues is of them on 7-point Likert
scale
Demographic Information: major family life events, educational attainment, occupational
prestige, long-term relationship status, parental status
• Focused on status in early adulthood (age 31)
Analytic Strategy
 HLM
 Fit growth curve models for each dimension of
psychosocial development
 Baseline Models: Intercept and slope of each scale over
study
 Addition of Quadratic term
 Addition of cohort and demographic variables to examine
predictors of level and rate of change over time
Results
Gender Moderation of Growth Curves
 Intercept: Women had higher Intimacy scores
 Slope:
 Men = consistent steady rise (linear change)
 Women = decelerating increase with peak in 40s
Education x Cohort  Initiative
Model-fitted trajectories for initiative scores by education at age 31 and
cohort.
Younger cohort:
High education began with higher initiative; but declines slightly;
Low education slight increase through 30s then slight downward.
older cohort: No clear difference for education
Gender x Cohort x Occupational prestige 
Industry
Men
Women
Cohort x Long term relationship 
Intimacy
Committed relationship (especially younger cohort) show elevated trajectory,
while not committed relationship show low intimacy and then slow increase
Cohort x Parenting (at 31) 
Generativity
1946 cohort parents decline; 1957 cohort parents increase.
1946 nonparents increase as well.
Conclusions & Questions to
Consider
 The authors state that results support the conclusion
that personality continues to develop through
midlife—do you agree?
 What aspects of personality are being measured here?
 Do you think other aspects of personality change?
 Authors argue that results “support the idea that
individuals can overcome early psychosocial deficits to
catch up with . . . initially more disadvantaged peers”
 Do you think this pattern would continue to hold up in
later cohorts (e.g., cohorts attending college in late 90s,
2000s, etc.)?
Emotion Regulation in Older Age
Heather L. Urry and James J. Gross
R. Bernstein
• Older age is associated with losses in several domains:
• Physical
• Cognitive
• Social
• Yet, studies show older adults experience higher levels of wellbeing compared to younger adults (until very late in life)
R. Bernstein
• Losses experienced by older adults do not lead to lower levels
of well-being
• Does not explain increases in positive affect
• Reduced amygdala activation leads to reduced experience of
negative emotion
• Inconsistent as reduced amygdala activation should also lead to reduced
experience of positive emotion
• As people age, they get better at regulating their emotions
R. Bernstein
• Situation Selection – choosing the situations one will encounter on the
basis of the emotions that these situations are likely to produce
• Situation Modification – changing a situation one is in so as to influence
one’s emotional state
• Attentional Deployment – paying attention to certain aspects of the
situation or thinking of something else entirely
• Cognitive Change – reappraising the situation so as to change its
meaning in a way that alters the resultant emotional response
• Response Modulation – directly changing feelings, behavior, and
physiology after the multisystem response is already under way
R. Bernstein
• Older adults are more effective at situational selection and
attentional deployment
• Older adults report being better at controlling their emotions relative to
younger adults
• Older adults construct smaller, but closer social networks
• Younger adults are more successful using cognitive reappraisal
• Older adults are less successful as using detached reappraisal, but more
successful at using positive reappraisal, compared to younger adults
• Younger adults and older adults are similarly successful at
reducing outward expressions of emotion (response modulation)
R. Bernstein
SOC-ER Framework
People select and optimize particular emotion regulation strategies as a reflection of
available resources
• The size of the oval
indicates how much of
the resource is
available
• The size of the text
indicates the degree
of success/use of the
emotion regulation
process
R. Bernstein
R. Bernstein
• Identify the resources that predict the types of emotion
regulation processes people use, the frequency with which they
use them, and the extent to which their use successfully modifies
emotional response
• Test whether the frequency and/or success of emotion
regulation processes mediate the association between age and
levels of hedonic well-being
• Develop treatment to improve emotional well-being for older
adults who are NOT successfully using emotional regulation
• Use the SOC-ER framework to understand differences in
emotional regulation across the developmental framework and
between individuals within a given group
R. Bernstein
• Is mapping out a person/group’s emotional regulation
framework a useful application of the SOC-ER framework?
• How does it improve our understanding and ability to treat?
• Is it possible to use the SOC-ER framework and apply it to any
of our own research in a useful way?
R. Bernstein
Attachment overview
Measuring Attachment

Ainsworth’s (1978) Strange Situation

Seven episodes increasing amount of stress (e.g., unfamiliar
environment, unfamiliar adult, brief separation from parent)

Of interest is how attachment behaviors are organized around
parent

Attachment classification based primarily on reunion behaviors
See example at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTsewNrHUHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH1m_ZMO7GU
Overall strategy

A – Avoidant


B – Secure


Seek and be comforted by caregiver
C – Resistant


Avoid caregiver
Seek caregiving without surcease
D – Disorganized

44
Lack a coherent strategy
Attachment Classifications

Secure Attachment (Type B; 65% in NA)



Ambivalent/Insecure-Resistant (Type C, 15% in NA)



Insecure/Avoidant (Type A, 20% in NA)



Disorganized (Type D, very rare)


Basis for Individual
Differences?

Sensitive/responsive caregiving





Nurturant
Attentive
Nonrestrictive
Synchronous
Predictable
Predictive Validity of Attachment
Styles in Infancy

Secure attachment in infancy associated with a variety of
positive developmental outcomes including:




Why?

What are potential mechanisms?

Insecure & disorganized
 risk of externalizing problems
Disorganized at elevated risk, weaker effects for
avoidance & resistance

Meta-analysis, 69 samples (5,947).

overall d = 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.40)


48
Larger effects for boys, clinical samples, observation-based outcome
assessments, attachment assessments other than the Strange Situation.
Fearon, R. P., M. J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, et al. (2010). "The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study."
Child Development 81(2): 435-456.
Messinger
Disorganized
externalizing
Nonsecure 
internalizing/externalizing
49
Based on 42 independent samples (N = 4,614),
Messinger
(Groh, Roisman, van
Ijzendoorn, BakermansKranenburg, & Fearon,
2012)



Meta-analysis of 9 studies (k=9, n=548) using
four major categories
Secure versus insecure, 74%
Four-way agreement, 63%
 Prebirth AAI show 65% four-way agreement
 Which parent category is not so strong a predictor of infant
category?
Messinger
50


Interview a partner about one attachment
figure focusing on questions 2 through 4
Each person analyzes their own responses
 no comments form partner

Only share what you want to share
Messinger
51
Adult Attachment Interview
Messinger
52

Scales associated with autonomous category
 coherence, metacognitive monitoring

Scales associated with dismissing category
 Idealization of attachment figures, insistence on lack of
memory for childhood, dismissal of attachment-related
experience/relationships

Scales associated with preoccupied category
 anger expressed toward attachment figure,
passivity/vagueness in discourse
Messinger
53

Autonomous

 Coherent narrative

Dismissing
 Soothed by parent

 Generalized normalizing
Preoccupied
or express attachment needs

 Long, entangled narratives

Unresolved
Messinger
Resistant
 Not comforted by parent

 Lapses in reasoning
Avoidant
 Does not make contact with parent
without specific examples

Secure -
Disorganized
 No coherent strategy
54