Dentified implicit dependency as contributing unique variance in predicting past major

Dentified implicit dependency as contributing unique variance in predicting past major depression. Dependency has long been central in clinical theory (e.g. Beck, Rush, Shaw, Emery, 1979; Blatt, 1974; Bowlby, 1980) and research (for reviews, see Blatt Zuroff, 1992; Bornstein, 1992; Coyne Whiffen, 1995; Nietzel Harris, 1990), as well as an important construct in the personality and social psychological literatures (for reviews, see Bornstein, 1992, 1993). Dependent individuals are conceptualized as being highly sensitive to interpersonal events and cues, relying on others to provide a sense of RR6 chemical information well-being, needing to keep in close contact with others, experiencing deep longings to be loved and protected, fearing rejection and abandonment, and having difficulty expressing anger (Blatt, 1974; Blatt Zuroff, 1992). Given this portrayal, the clinical relevance of excessive dependency becomes transparent. However, despite the seemingly ready application of excessive dependency to a variety of clinical issues, the extant literature is surprisingly inconsistent (e.g., depression; for detailed discussion, see Coyne Whiffen, 1995), sparse (e.g., eating disorders), or both (e.g., substance abuse) with regard to how dependency is related to psychopathology. One hypothesis for why this may be the case is that the approaches used to assess individual differences in dependency are problematic. This possibility was lent credence, and perhaps partially addressed, by factor analytic studies conducted on one of the most widely used selfreport measures of dependency, the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt, D’Afflitti, Quinlan, 1976). Multiple independent groups of researchers using divergent methodologies came to similar conclusions that the dependency factor of the DEQ, and perhaps the broader dependency construct, is interpreted more meaningfully when distilled into two subfactors (Blatt, Zohar, Quinlan, Zuroff, Mongrain, 1995; Rude Burnham, 1995). These two subfactors were labeled by Rude and Burnham as “connectedness,” a relatively adaptive form of dependency, and “neediness,” a relatively maladaptive form. Similarly, Pincus and Wilson (2001) have distilled dependency into two relatively more maladaptive componentsCogswell et al.Page(BMS-791325 web exploitable and submissive dependence) and one more adaptive component (love dependence). Little empirical validation has been offered in support of these newer conceptualizations of dependency, but what has emerged has been largely supportive. Neediness, and not connectedness, was demonstrated to correlate with concurrent depressive symptomatology (Rude Burnham, 1995), and has been identified as a stable risk factor for major depressive episodes in a prospective study (Cogswell, Alloy, Spasojevic, 2006). Other related evidence of the complexity of the dependency construct has emerged, and it is important to note that while the current paper focuses on how maladaptive dependency confers risk for depression, there is accumulating data to support the view of mature, adaptive dependency as a protective factor against developing psychopathology (e.g., Shahar Priel, 2003; Shahar, 2008). Although this alternative conceptualization of dependency is encouraging, there remains a nagging issue that extends into all areas of personality assessment, which pertains to whether individuals have the capability, insight, and willingness to accurately report their inner states. The measurement of dependen.Dentified implicit dependency as contributing unique variance in predicting past major depression. Dependency has long been central in clinical theory (e.g. Beck, Rush, Shaw, Emery, 1979; Blatt, 1974; Bowlby, 1980) and research (for reviews, see Blatt Zuroff, 1992; Bornstein, 1992; Coyne Whiffen, 1995; Nietzel Harris, 1990), as well as an important construct in the personality and social psychological literatures (for reviews, see Bornstein, 1992, 1993). Dependent individuals are conceptualized as being highly sensitive to interpersonal events and cues, relying on others to provide a sense of well-being, needing to keep in close contact with others, experiencing deep longings to be loved and protected, fearing rejection and abandonment, and having difficulty expressing anger (Blatt, 1974; Blatt Zuroff, 1992). Given this portrayal, the clinical relevance of excessive dependency becomes transparent. However, despite the seemingly ready application of excessive dependency to a variety of clinical issues, the extant literature is surprisingly inconsistent (e.g., depression; for detailed discussion, see Coyne Whiffen, 1995), sparse (e.g., eating disorders), or both (e.g., substance abuse) with regard to how dependency is related to psychopathology. One hypothesis for why this may be the case is that the approaches used to assess individual differences in dependency are problematic. This possibility was lent credence, and perhaps partially addressed, by factor analytic studies conducted on one of the most widely used selfreport measures of dependency, the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt, D’Afflitti, Quinlan, 1976). Multiple independent groups of researchers using divergent methodologies came to similar conclusions that the dependency factor of the DEQ, and perhaps the broader dependency construct, is interpreted more meaningfully when distilled into two subfactors (Blatt, Zohar, Quinlan, Zuroff, Mongrain, 1995; Rude Burnham, 1995). These two subfactors were labeled by Rude and Burnham as “connectedness,” a relatively adaptive form of dependency, and “neediness,” a relatively maladaptive form. Similarly, Pincus and Wilson (2001) have distilled dependency into two relatively more maladaptive componentsCogswell et al.Page(exploitable and submissive dependence) and one more adaptive component (love dependence). Little empirical validation has been offered in support of these newer conceptualizations of dependency, but what has emerged has been largely supportive. Neediness, and not connectedness, was demonstrated to correlate with concurrent depressive symptomatology (Rude Burnham, 1995), and has been identified as a stable risk factor for major depressive episodes in a prospective study (Cogswell, Alloy, Spasojevic, 2006). Other related evidence of the complexity of the dependency construct has emerged, and it is important to note that while the current paper focuses on how maladaptive dependency confers risk for depression, there is accumulating data to support the view of mature, adaptive dependency as a protective factor against developing psychopathology (e.g., Shahar Priel, 2003; Shahar, 2008). Although this alternative conceptualization of dependency is encouraging, there remains a nagging issue that extends into all areas of personality assessment, which pertains to whether individuals have the capability, insight, and willingness to accurately report their inner states. The measurement of dependen.