ARTICLE IN PRESS
Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
www.elsevier.com/locate/brt
Receipt of negative feedback is related to increased negative
feedback seeking among individuals with depressive symptoms
Todd S. Casbona, Andrea B. Burnsa, Thomas N. Bradburyb,
Thomas E. Joiner Jr.a,
a
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306 1270, USA
University of California-Los Angeles, 1285 Franz Hall, Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 USA
b
Received 28 January 2003; received in revised form 12 January 2004; accepted 22 March 2004
Abstract
In recent years, numerous studies have demonstrated a link between positive and negative feedback
seeking by depressed individuals, interpersonal rejection, and depression chronicity. Nonetheless, many of
the specific interpersonal patterns underlying these links have yet to be clearly specified. One important
lingering question concerns how depressed individuals respond to negative evaluation or feedback from
others, because continued negative feedback seeking could place depressed people at risk for further
rejection and continuation/exacerbation of depressive symptoms. Two studies were conducted to
investigate the influence of negative feedback provisions from others on the feedback seeking behaviors
of individuals with depressive symptoms. The results from Study 1 indicated an increased tendency to seek
negative feedback among depressive individuals in association with an independent negative evaluation by
their college roommates. Using a sample of newlywed couples, Study 2 extended this finding by
demonstrating that, when directly provided with negative feedback from their spouses, individuals with
depressive symptomatology actively sought further negative feedback, while those without such symptoms
did not. Together, the results from these studies suggest that depressed individuals are likely to respond to
negative evaluation and feedback from others with behaviors that could place them at risk for further
rejection and continuing, if not worsening problems with depression.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Depressive symptoms; Interpersonal processes
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-850-644-1454; fax: +1-850-644-7739.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T.E. Joiner Jr.).
0005-7967/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.03.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS
486
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
Major depression and its sub-clinical variants are chronic mental health problems that
adversely impact millions of Americans each year. The average major depressive episode in adults
lasts eight months and dysthymic episodes typically last 10 years or more (Shapiro & Keller, 1981;
Shelton, Davidson, Yonkers, & Koran, 1997). Further, 70% of individuals experiencing one
depressive episode subsequently experience at least one more in the next 10 years (Coryell &
Winokur, 1992).
Despite the well-documented persistence and recurrence of depressive symptomatology, the
mechanisms that serve to maintain and exacerbate it over time are not well understood. Various
persistent vulnerabilities commonly observed in depressed individuals have been suggested as
potential determinants of depression chronicity. Included among these are neurobiological
features (e.g., left frontal hypoactivation; dysregulated serotonergic systems; Diego, Field, &
Hernandez-Reif, 2001; Riedel et al., 2002), personality characteristics (e.g., neuroticism,
dependency; Abela, McIntyre-Smith, & Dechef, 2003; Schmitz, Kugler, & Rollnik, 2003), and
certain aspects of social cognition (e.g., negative attributional styles; Alloy, Just, & Panzarella,
1997). Unfortunately, evidence is not compelling that any of these are clear, depressionindependent markers of who will become and remain depressed or experience recurrent bouts of
depression.
Interestingly, over the last decade, a number of studies have provided support for the notion
that interpersonal factors may play a strong role in determining the chronicity of depression (see
Joiner, 2000 for a review). For example, negative interpersonal behaviors have been shown to
predict depressive episode duration, whereas social support is predictive of recovery from
depressive episodes (Brown & Moran, 1994; Lara, Leader, & Klein, 1997). Further, it has been
shown that criticism is a powerful predictor of depression relapse (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989).
Despite the research linking depression-related behaviors to risk for interpersonal rejection and
continuation or exacerbation of depression-related problems, many aspects of these links have yet
to be delineated. For example, one important question that has not yet been fully investigated is
how depressed individuals respond to negative evaluation, rejection, or criticism from others once
they have received it. Acceptance of the negative feedback, and attempts to use it to appropriately
adjust behavior, would seemingly protect depressed individuals from further interpersonal
disruptions and rejection. In contrast, continued negative feedback seeking would likely increase
the risk for further interpersonal rejection either currently or in the future, thereby increasing the
risk for continuation and exacerbation of depressive symptoms.
To date, a number of theoretical models have been proposed that might aid in generating
predictions about how depressed individuals might respond in the face of criticism or negative
feedback from others. For example, self-verification theory (Swann, 1983, 1987, 1990) proposes
that people are motivated to support and preserve their own self-images, and will derive a sense of
cognitive satisfaction from doing so. To this end, they will seek self-confirming feedback: selfrelevant information which conforms to their pre-existing notions about themselves. In receiving
such feedback from others, these self-beliefs are supported and validated. Swann and Read
(1981a, b), Swann, Wenzlaff, Krull, and Pelham (1992a), and Swann, Wenzlaff, and Tafarodi
(1992b) have provided empirical support for self-verification theory by demonstrating that people
will preferentially recruit (see also Joiner, 1994), attend to (e.g., Swann & Read, 1981a), remember
(e.g., Swann & Read, 1981a), and believe (e.g., Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines, 1987) selfverifying feedback. The theory further postulates that people will be motivated to confirm and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
487
support their self-beliefs regardless of whether those beliefs are positive or negative in nature.
Even those with negative self-images are motivated to have those images confirmed by others,
according to this perspective. Thus, this model provides a theoretical basis for understanding the
commonly observed negative feedback seeking behaviors of clinically and sub-clinically depressed
individuals, both of whom have been consistently shown to display negative self-images (e.g.,
Beck, Steer, & Epstein, 1992; Tarlow & Haaga, 1996).
Because negative feedback should be self-confirming for a depressed individual and, thus,
cognitively satisfying, the self-verification model in isolation would seemingly predict that the
depressed individual would cease feedback seeking behavior after receipt of criticism or negative
feedback. But this is not necessarily the case, for two reasons.
First, it is not clear how much negative feedback is needed to meet needs for self-confirmation in
people with negative self-concepts. It is possible that initial receipt of negative feedback is a signal
of its availability, spurring more negative feedback seeking, until the need is met. Second,
individuals with inherently negative self-images—such as those who are depressed—face a unique
conflict, characterized as the ‘‘cognitive-affective crossfire’’ (Swann et al., 1987). For people with
negative self-concepts, self-verifying feedback must necessarily be at least partly negative in
nature, and although this provides the cognitive satisfaction of self-confirmation, receipt of
negative feedback is nonetheless emotionally unpleasant, arousing needs for positive feedback.
Positive feedback might be affectively satisfying, but it fails to meet the need for self-verification,
and therefore does not ‘‘ring true’’ cognitively. In contrast, negative feedback, though cognitively
satisfying, is emotionally aversive.
Given that neither positive nor negative feedback can meet both the affective and
cognitive needs of depressed individuals, based on Coyne (1976), Joiner, Metalsky and
colleagues posited that depressed individuals are likely to repeatedly seek positive feedback
in the form of reassurance that others care about them (e.g., Joiner & Metalsky, 2001).
Even when received, however, positive feedback’s sincerity may be questioned, leaving the
depressed person in doubt and still in need of reassurance. This pattern perpetuates into
a vicious cycle as the depressive person seeks more frequent and more extreme reassurance, but
doubts it even when received, to the point that interpersonal relationships are potentially
disrupted.
Joiner, Alfano, and Metalsky (1993) integrated the theories of Coyne and Swann, proposing
that depressed individuals desire, and therefore seek, both affective consolation and cognitive
confirmation. Since the two cannot be derived simultaneously, depressed people may ‘‘flip–flop’’
between seeking positive feedback (consolation) and negative feedback (confirmation). According
to this perspective, when positive feedback is received, the immediate affective result will be
satisfying, but the incongruence of this feedback with the depressed person’s self-image will
eventually supersede the initial satisfaction, prompting the individual to solicit more selfconfirming, negative feedback. This, in turn, will provide some satisfaction on a cognitive level,
but the emotional unpleasantness associated with negative feedback will ultimately motivate the
depressed person to seek more positive comments, and the pattern repeats. Joiner and Metalsky
(1995) provided at least partial support for the ‘‘integrated theory’’ by demonstrating that mildly
depressed individuals engaged in more of both positive and negative feedback seeking types of
behavior than did their non-depressed peers, and, when they did so, this behavior was associated
with substantial interpersonal disruptions.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
488
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
Although Joiner and Metalsky (1995) demonstrated the potential for both positive and negative
feedback seeking among depressed individuals, they did not examine the effects that negative
evaluation or feedback provisions by others might have on subsequent feedback seeking behaviors
by a depressed person. Examination of this issue has the potential to help clarify the specific
interpersonal behavior patterns that place depressed individuals at risk for interpersonal rejection,
and could ultimately enhance understanding of the mechanisms underlying the chronic nature of
depression. Additionally, data on this topic could yield useful information for testing and possibly
refining the self-verification, reassurance-seeking, and integrated theories of depressive behavior.
Finally, any consistent observation of continued feedback seeking of either type (i.e., positive or
negative) in the face of negative evaluation could have important implications for cognitivebehavioral treatment of depressed individuals. Specifically, a finding of this nature would point to
the importance of educating depressed individuals on how to effectively handle negative feedback
in a way that reduces the likelihood of further rejection, and ultimately enhances interpersonal
effectiveness and acceptance.
The present pair of studies sought to address this issue, by exploring feedback seeking behaviors
of individuals with and without self-reported depressive symptomatology in response to
independent negative evaluation or direct provisions of negative feedback by someone with
whom they shared a close interpersonal relationship (either their college roommate, as in Study 1,
or their spouse, as in Study 2). Interpersonal closeness is thought to be of particular significance in
determining conversational style and content, possibly moderating the degree of negative
feedback seeking behavior, and negative conversational content in general. This supposition is
supported by the findings of Segrin and Flora (1998), who noted that in a simple conversation
about ‘‘events of the day’’, depressed speakers were more likely to introduce negative content
(e.g., criticism, disagreement, or self-deprecation) when speaking with a friend than when
speaking with a stranger. Furthermore, McCabe and Gotlib (1993) found that over the course of a
spousal interaction in which the wife was depressed, the verbal behavior of the depressed wives
became increasingly negative. Findings such as these suggest that depressive patterns of behavior,
including feedback seeking, may be more pronounced in conversations between intimate partners
or friends than between more casual acquaintances or strangers, and are also consistent with the
possibility that interactions between depressed people and others become increasingly negative as
the interaction proceeds. Others’ provision of negative feedback to depressed individuals, and
depressed individuals’ attendant requests for still more negative feedback, would partly explain
this phenomenon, and was the focus for the current studies.
1. Study 1
Study 1 sought to address the following question: When a depressive individual is negatively
evaluated within the context of a close interpersonal relationship, will she/he seek positive
feedback (perhaps to meet a need for affective consolation), or will she/he seek more negative
feedback, perhaps to further satisfy their need for cognitive confirmation? To investigate these
questions, college roommate pairs were recruited and asked to complete questionnaires regarding
depressive symptoms, their feelings toward their roommate, and their desire to receive positive
and/or negative feedback from their roommate.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
489
1.1. Method
1.1.1. Participants and procedure
Ninety-five participants (54 women and 41 men) were drawn from Introductory Psychology
classes at a large state university, as part of a larger project on the psychosocial aspects
of depression. All participants who completed relevant measures were included in the present
study. From the larger project, this study is the only one to address the relationship
between negative evaluation from others and feedback seeking of individuals with depressive
symptoms.
All participants brought a same-sex, non-relative roommate to the experimental session. The
sample included roommate pairs who chose to room together, as well as those assigned to each
other through the university housing agency. Such assignments are random, except that smokers
and non-smokers are matched. Participants received class credit for their participation.
Upon arrival at the session, target participants and their roommates were informed that they
would be filling out questionnaires about their personal views, feelings, and attitudes.
Questionnaire sessions were conducted in a group format allowing for approximately 20 target
participants and their roommates to independently complete their questionnaires in the same
session.
1.1.2. Materials
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979; Beck & Steer, 1987): Level
of participants’ depressive symptoms was assessed by the BDI, a 21-item self-report inventory.
Each item is rated on a four-point scale (i.e., 0–3) with overall inventory scores ranging from 0 to
63. Higher scores reflect higher levels of depressive symptoms. Although the BDI is not
indicative of the full clinical syndrome of depression, it is a reliable and well-validated measure of
depressive symptomatology (see Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988, for a review; see also Kendall,
Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987). The alpha coefficient for the BDI in the current study
was .86.
Evaluation of target on revision of Rosenberg self-esteem questionnaire (R-SEQ; Rosenberg,
1965; Swann et al., 1992a): This inventory, developed by Swann et al. (1992a, b), includes the 10
items of Rosenberg’s original scale, reworded such that roommates completed it with regard to
the esteem in which they hold the targets (e.g., ‘‘I see my roommate as a person of worth, at least
on an equal basis with others.’’). It is therefore best viewed as a measure of that aspect of rejection
involving negative evaluation of the targets’ global worth as a person. Each item is rated on a 1–5
scale; full scale scores can thus range from 10 to 50. For ease of interpretation, scoring was
reversed such that higher scores reflected a more negative view of targets by their roommates. This
measure is referred to here as R-SEQ rejection.
Alpha coefficient for this scale in the present sample was .89. Joiner, Alfano, and Metalsky
(1992, 1993) and Swann et al. (1992a, b) have provided additional reliability and construct validity
data. In an earlier study of undergraduates and their roommates, Joiner (1994) found that
roommates’ R-SEQ scores were significantly correlated with observer-raters’ impressions of target
students’ likability, rð38Þ ¼ :39, po:05.
Feedback seeking questionnaire (FSQ; Swann et al., 1992a): The FSQ assesses participants’
interest in feedback from others within five self-relevant domains: intellectual, social, musical/
ARTICLE IN PRESS
490
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
artistic, athletic abilities, and physical attractiveness. Within each domain, six questions are listed.
Of those six questions, three are framed negatively (e.g., ‘‘What is some evidence you have seen
thatydoesn’t have very good social skills?’’), and three are framed positively (e.g., ‘‘What is some
evidence you have seen thatyhas good social skills?’’). Participants are asked to choose two of
the six questions from each domain that they would like another person to answer about them ‘‘so
that they may learn more about themselves’’. Thus, participants can select a total of 10 questions,
two from each of the five domains. A composite score was created by summing the responses to
the negatively framed items (non-endorsed items were scored ‘‘0’’, while endorsed items were
scored ‘‘1’’). Hence, scores could range from 0 to 10, with higher scores corresponding to a greater
desire for negative feedback; lower scores indicated choice of positively framed items. Swann et al.
(1992b) and Joiner and colleagues (e.g., Joiner et al., 1993; Joiner, Katz, & Lew, 1997; Joiner &
Metalsky, 1995; Joiner, 1995, 1999) have reported supportive reliability and construct validity
data.
1.2. Results and discussion
Table 1 presents inter-correlations, means, and standard deviations for the three study
variables. As can be seen there, means and standard deviations were similar to those usually
obtained on undergraduate samples (e.g., BDI mean and SD of around 7; low mean score on RSEQ measure, indicating most people were not overly rejecting of their roommates). Regarding
correlations, the only one to reach significance was that between targets’ depressive symptoms and
roommates’ evaluations of targets (r ¼ :24, po:05); direction of this correlation was such that
roommates’ evaluations were more negative if the target reported greater depressive symptoms.
This correlation is consistent with a large literature on the interpersonal impact of depression
(e.g., Joiner et al., 1992; Segrin & Flora, 1998). Neither depressive symptomatology nor
roommates’ evaluations of targets were significantly correlated with target negative feedback
seeking, as might be predicted from the theories discussed above. However, the absence of such
significant correlations may be due to a significant interaction between depressive symptoms and
roommates’ evaluations of targets, in which one of these variables moderates the effects of the
other in predicting target negative feedback seeking. This possibility is examined in the following
section.
Table 1
Study 1: means and standard deviations of measures intercorrelations between them
1. Target NFS
2. Target BDI
3. Roommate R-SEQ
1
2
3
3.14 (2.61)
.05
.15
7.28 (8.40)
.24*
18.87 (9.12)
Note: Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) on diagonal. NFS, negative feedback seeking, BDI, beck
depression inventory, R-SEQ, roommates’ evaluation of target on revised Rosenberg self-esteem questionnaire.
*po.05.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
491
1.3. Interaction of targets’ depressive symptomatology and roommates’ evaluations of target in
predicting targets’ negative feedback seeking
Negative Feedback Seeking Scale Scores
Our aim in this study was to assess feedback seeking in response to negative evaluation,
particularly among depressive people. Accordingly, we constructed a hierarchical regression
equation, with targets’ negative feedback seeking scores as the dependent variable. Two variables
were entered into the first block of the equation: targets’ depression scores and roommates’
evaluations of targets. A single variable, the interaction between targets’ depression scores and
roommates’ evaluations of targets, was entered into the second block. Of the predictors entered in
the first and second blocks, only the two-way interaction was significantly related to feedback
seeking scores (pr ¼ :26, t½91 ¼ 2:52, po:05). As can be partly inferred from the positive sign on
the interaction term (all of these variables were coded such that higher scores indicate a worse
state of affairs), the form of this interaction was such that negative evaluations were associated
with more negative feedback, particularly among participants with depressive symptoms. The
form of this interaction is displayed in Fig. 1.
It thus appears that, when a depressive individual is negatively evaluated within the context of a
close interpersonal relationship, she/he may seek still more negative feedback, perhaps to further
satisfy his or her need for cognitive confirmation. The results from Study 1 were consistent
with this possibility. However, Study 1 suffered from some limitations that tempered the strength
of conclusions. First, the results were limited to same-sex roommate dyads, and may not
generalize to other types of relationships. Second, the study utilized measures that tapped selfreported tendencies toward global attitudes and desires (e.g., roommates’ evaluation of the
target in general; targets’ desire for negative feedback in general). Although these measures
appear to possess adequate psychometric characteristics, it would be of interest to replicate
results using measures from other modalities (i.e., not self-report). Moreover, it is not necessarily
the case that the evaluation and feedback seeking measures assess actual behavioral instances of
these constructs; for example, it is possible for someone to endorse a negative view of one’s
roommate without ever expressing this view directly to the roommate. Study 2 addressed these
limitations.
6
5
4
Depressed
3
Nondepressed
2
Low Rejection
High Rejection
Fig. 1. Interaction of depressive symptoms and roommate rejection scores in predicting negative feedback scores.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
492
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
2. Study 2
The results from Study 1 indicated that there was a significant association between overall
independent negative evaluation by a roommate and desire for negative feedback among
individuals reporting depressive symptoms, but the study included limitations that impede the
interpretability of the results. As noted, one limitation was that negative evaluation by roommates
was not provided directly to the depressive individuals within the study. Thus, it is not known
whether or not the roommates had previously shared similar evaluations or feedback with the
depressive individuals or made attempts to conceal them. If the latter were true and such
concealing attempts were only partially successful, the increased desire for negative feedback
among depressive individuals may have actually reflected a desire for information to confirm or
validate what they suspected their roommates thought about them. A second limitation was that
feedback seeking was assessed somewhat indirectly through use of the FSQ. Thus, it is unclear
whether or not such individuals would naturally and directly seek negative feedback in
conversation within a close interpersonal relationship, and, if so, whether or not this tendency
would be affected by the level of negative feedback provided directly to them.
Study 2 was designed to address these limitations by examining immediate negative feedback
seeking behaviors among depressive individuals in response to direct provisions of negative feedback
by their spouses. Thus, for the purposes of this study, newlywed couples completed the BDI and were
then audio-taped engaging in two social support conversations, in which one spouse was designated
the ‘‘helpee’’ and one the ‘‘helper’’. In the first conversation, one spouse (the ‘‘helpee’’) was asked to
‘‘talk about something you would like to change about yourself’’, while his or her partner (the
‘‘helper’’) was instructed to ‘‘be involved in the discussion and respond in whatever way you wish’’.
In the second conversation, the roles were reversed, so that each spouse took a turn both as ‘‘helper’’
and as ‘‘helpee’’. These conversations were rated for the level of immediate negative feedback seeking
behavior of the helpee in response to provisions of negative feedback by the helper.1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
The audio-taped social support discussions used in this study were initially obtained as part of a
larger project2 conducted in the Los Angeles area in 1991. Participants for this larger project were
recruited at that time through classified newspaper advertisements offering $50 to ‘‘newlywed
1
We also attempted to obtain ratings of helpees’ positive feedback seeking in response to helper negative feedback, in
hopes of more fully examining the Joiner et al. (1993) integrated theory described above. However, inter-rater reliability
for ratings of positive feedback seeking were unacceptably low (alpha=.34). Although attempts were made to improve
reliability for positive feedback seeking ratings by making adjustments to how the raters used the positive feedback
seeking rating scale, this only resulted in a relatively small increase in reliability (alpha=.47). Given this unacceptable
level of reliability for positive feedback seeking ratings, we focused only on ratings of negative feedback seeking. This
general issue is taken up again in the Discussion section.
2
See Bradbury (1994), Karney et al. (1995), Karney and Bradbury (1997), Miller and Bradbury (1995), Pasch,
Bradbury, and Davila, (1997), Sullivan and Bradbury (1997), and Pasch and Bradbury (1998) for other data from this
sample. Importantly, the present study is the only one on this sample geared to the specific topic of the responses of
people with depressive symptoms to negative feedback.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
493
couples3 interested in participating in a study of marriage’’. Couples responding to the
advertisements were screened in a telephone interview to determine whether (a) this was the first
marriage for both spouses, (b) the couple had been married less than six months, (c) neither
partner had children, (d) both partners were over 18 years old and wives were less than 35 years
old (to increase the possibility that couples might become parents over the course of the study), (e)
both spouses spoke English and had received at least a 10th grade education (to ensure
comprehension of questionnaires), and (f) the couple had no immediate plans to move away from
the area. More than 350 couples responded to the advertisement; the first 60 eligible couples
comprised the initial sample.
At the time that the audio-taped social support discussions were obtained, couples had been
married an average of 12.0 (SD=6.2) weeks. Husbands averaged 25.4 (SD=3.4) years of age, had
15.3 (SD=2.2) years of formal education, and had a modal gross annual income between $11,000
and $20,000. Wives averaged 24.0 (SD=2.9) years of age, had 15.6 (SD=1.6) years of formal
education, and also reported a modal gross annual income between $11,000 and $20,000. Seventy
percent of the sample cohabited premaritally. Seventy-five percent of the total sample were
Caucasian, 10% were Hispanic, 7% were Asian, 5% were African American, and 3% indicated
‘‘other’’ as their race.
2.1.2. Procedure
Initial data collection: As part of the larger 1991 project, each couple took part in a laboratory
session in which the spouses provided independent demographic and questionnaire data and
participated in two types of interaction tasks: (a) an audio-taped 15-minute discussion of a
mutually agreed-upon marital problem and (b) two audio-taped 10-minute discussions used to
assess behavior when soliciting and offering social support. For the purposes of the current study,
only the latter type of audio-taped discussion was used as we expected instances of negative
feedback seeking to be most prevalent in these types of discussions.
In the first of the two 10-minute ‘‘social support’’ discussions, one spouse was selected
randomly and was asked to ‘‘talk about something you would like to change about yourself’’,
while the partner was instructed to ‘‘be involved in the discussion and respond in whatever way
you wish’’. After a short break, a second discussion was held in which the roles were reversed.
Thus, each spouse served as the helpee (i.e., talking about a personal issue he or she wanted to
change) and as the helper (i.e., talking with his or her partner about a personal issue the partner
wanted to change). Before any discussions had taken place, each spouse was asked to identify an
important personal characteristic, problem, or issue that he or she wanted to change, with the
explicit restriction that the topic could not be a source of tension in the marriage. Spouses had
little difficulty identifying personal characteristics or problems that they wanted to change;
3
The larger 1991 project specifically solicited newlyweds for study participation because the authors desired to
longitudinally examine trajectories of different variables across the course of marriages. For the purposes of the current
study, we were interested in marital partners because the interpersonal closeness among them was expected to facilitate
open, honest communication enabling our assessment of key variables of interest including provision and seeking of
negative feedback. Although it could be argued that newlywed partners, due to their relatively short time together,
might be more hesitant than longer-term spouses to provide or seek negative feedback, we were able to identify a large
pool of such communications in discussions among them (see remainder of the Method section), thereby alleviating
such concerns.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
494
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
common topics included losing weight, making a career change, improving family relationships,
being more assertive, dealing with stress, and being more organized. At the end of the session
couples were debriefed and paid $50.
Identification, categorization, and selection of helper feedback provisions: For the current study
we were interested in comparing responses of individuals with and without self-reported
depressive symptomatology to negative feedback provided by their spouses. Thus, we first had to
identify instances of such helper feedback in the audio-taped social support discussions. Instances
of helper positive feedback and neutral feedback were also included for comparison purposes.
Helper provision of negative feedback was defined as any statement that implied criticism about
the helpee’s behavior or self. Helper provision of positive feedback was defined as any statement
that assured the helpee of his/her lovability, worth, and/or security. Neutral feedback was defined
as any statement providing advice/suggestions or asking for clarification in neutral terms and not
providing positive or negative feedback.
Using these definitions liberally, all 120 social support discussions (i.e., two discussions per
couple) were reviewed for possible instances of helper provisions that appeared to fit at least
somewhat into one of the three categories. An initial list of these instances was generated and for
each discussion the time sequence of all provisions across the 10 minutes was recorded (e.g., Couple
#3, wife as helper: neutral feedback provided at 0:25, negative feedback provided at 1:20, positive
feedback provided at 6:40). Across the 120 discussions, this procedure yielded an initial list of 68
negative feedback provisions, 76 positive feedback provisions, and 64 neutral feedback provisions.
Because some feedback provisions were more prototypic of their specific category than other
instances, we took several steps to refine and purify our initial list of liberally selected provisions.
First, to ensure reliability of our categorization scheme, nine provisions were selected at
random from each of the three provision categories. These were randomly ordered and sent to six
expert depression researchers across the US who were asked to categorize the statements
according to the definitions of negative feedback, positive feedback, or neutral feedback (listed
above). The results from this expert categorization exercise provided strong support for the
reliability of our categorization scheme. There was 94% agreement with regard to negative
feedback, 100% with regard to positive feedback, and 87% with regard to neutral feedback.
Following the expert categorization exercise, we made efforts to remove questionable, unclear,
or ambiguous instances. In doing this, we retained (a) provisions for which there was 100% expert
agreement, (b) provisions for which no more than one expert disagreed, and (c) provisions which
were not included among the 27 categorized by experts, but which were highly similar to those for
which there was strong expert agreement. Additional provisions had to be removed from our
initial list because they (a) occurred too close to the end of the discussion, leaving too little time to
assess helpee responses or (b) occurred too closely together causing potential to confound the
nature of helpee responses (see below for further discussion of this issue). Thus, after this
refinement and reduction process, our refined provision lists contained a total of 76 provisions
(i.e., 24 negative feedback provisions, 28 positive feedback provisions, and 24 neutral feedback
provisions). These 76 provisions were made by 67 separate helpers4 to their spouses (i.e., 67
separate helpees) within 45 of the 60 couples from the larger 1991 study.
4
For nine of the 61 helpers, two separate provisions occurring within the same social support discussion were used. In
each of these cases the two separate provisions occurred at time points that were two or more minutes apart.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
495
Training undergraduate raters of helpee negative feedback seeking: For the purposes of this
study, four advanced undergraduate students were trained to serve as raters of helpee negative
feedback seeking. Training involved two steps: (a) familiarization with the construct of negative
feedback seeking and (b) practice rating examples.
For the first of these two steps, raters were asked to read Swann (1990) and Joiner (1995) to
acquaint themselves with the construct of negative feedback seeking. Additionally, they were
instructed to record examples of negative feedback seeking from their own or others’ behaviors
and/or from television programs. Meetings were held to discuss the readings and examples
identified by the raters. Once the raters demonstrated a clear understanding of the construct and
an ability to accurately identify examples of such behaviors, the second step of training was
initiated.
The initial portion of the second step involved familiarizing the raters with the helpee negative
feedback seeking rating scales. In making their ratings with these seven-point scales, the raters
were taught to use a relatively objective framework/heuristic in combination with their subjective
impression or intuition regarding the intensity, certainty, or salience of the helpee’s negative
feedback seeking (see measures section below for a more detailed description). This combined
approach allowed for some flexibility so that scores based solely on objective criteria regarding the
number and quality of negative feedback seeking statements could be adjusted to account for
variation in other aspects of the statements such as tone of voice or the manner in which the
statement was made. Following familiarization with the rating scales and their use, the raters
practiced using the scales to rate negative feedback seeking while observing role-plays designed to
display varying levels of negative feedback seeking. Raters also practiced using the scales while
listening to a set of 10 two-minute discussion clips taken from the 15-minute marital problem
solving discussions as no portions of these discussions were to be used for the actual ratings. Interrater reliability across these 10 discussion clips was strong (alpha=.93).
During this phase of training, raters were informed that negative statements with defensive
intent can sometimes resemble negative feedback seeking, and efforts were taken to minimize the
likelihood that defensive verbalizations would impact negative feedback seeking scores.
Specifically, raters were instructed to not assign negative feedback seeking scores to comments
that clearly reflected defensive intent. Further, on occasions in which a statement was ambiguous
with regard to intent (i.e., defensive vs. negative feedback seeking), raters were instructed to use
their subjective impressions about the helpee’s intent. However, due to the ambiguity in intent,
guidelines for use of the rating scales (described below) required that negative feedback ratings in
such instances be no higher than a two on a scale of zero to six.
Preparation of discussion clips and rating of negative feedback seeking: A central issue in the
preparation of discussion clips to be used for ratings of negative feedback seeking was to
determine the most appropriate length of the response window following the helper provision.
Too short of a window can potentially exclude helpee responses of interest that are somewhat
delayed, whereas longer windows are potentially problematic in that the helper may make
additional provisions that could confound the nature of helpee responses. For example, with
regard to the latter, if raters are rating negative feedback seeking over a five-minute period
subsequent to a helper negative feedback provision, the global nature of a helpee’s response may
be substantially altered if the helper provides reassurance or positive feedback three minutes into
the response window. Thus, for the purposes of this study we chose to use a two-minute response
ARTICLE IN PRESS
496
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
window as this was the maximal amount of response time that we could use without having to
discard a substantial number of potentially confounded clips.
To prepare the two-minute discussion clips for rater use, each of the social support discussion
audiotapes containing the 76 provisions from our refined list were cued to the end of each
provision. The two-minute window immediately following each provision was then dubbed onto a
separate audiotape. An introduction indicating the general topic of the discussion and which
spouse was the helpee, was recorded just prior to each of the two-minute clips. The clips were
dubbed in a pseudo-random fashion with regard to the provision type preceding each clip and the
gender of the helpee, such that never more than three clips in a row came from the same provision
type or from a helpee of the same gender. Raters were provided no information regarding the
helpee’s depression level or the type of provision that preceded each clip. They listened to the
discussion clips and made their ratings independent of the other raters.
2.1.3. Measures
Although responses on a number of questionnaire measures were obtained during the initial
assessment and follow-up periods of the larger 1991 study, for the purposes of the current study
we were interested in only two primary measures: (a) self-reported helpee depressive
symptomatology, (b) ratings of helpee negative feedback seeking.
Beck Depression Inventory: Level of the helpee’s depressive symptoms was assessed by the BDI,
described above. In the analyses below, helpees’ BDI score obtained in the laboratory session
prior to completion of the social support discussions is used.
Negative feedback seeking rating scales: A seven-point rating scale was developed as part of the
current study and designed for purposes of independently assessing helpees’ negative feedback
seeking. As noted above, raters were provided with a general framework/heuristic to use when
making their ratings. The heuristic for each point on the negative feedback seeking rating scale
was stated as follows: (a) 0=‘Not At All’—Use this category when there is absolutely no
indication of helpee negative feedback seeking; (b) 1=‘Very Mildly’ or 2=‘Mildly’—Use one of
these two categories when the helpee makes only subtle, indirect, or ambiguous negative feedback
seeking statements. Rate as 2=‘Mildly’ as the number of these types of statements increase or as
the examples become less subtle, indirect, and ambiguous; (c) 3=‘Moderately’—Use this category
when the helpee has made one obvious, direct, or clear negative feedback seeking statement; (d)
4=‘Highly’ or 5=‘Very Highly’—Use one of these two categories when the helpee makes multiple
obvious, direct, or clear negative feedback seeking statements, but also makes several nonnegative feedback seeking statements. Rate as 5=‘Very Highly’ as the number of these statements
increase; (e) 6=‘Extremely’—Use this category when the helpee makes multiple obvious, direct,
or clear negative feedback seeking statements, and almost all of his/her verbalizations are negative
feedback seeking. As noted above, raters were instructed to use this heuristic flexibly. Specifically,
they were told to use their subjective impressions and intuitions when necessary to appropriately
adjust objective heuristic scores that did not seem to accurately reflect the level of negative
feedback seeking that was occurring.
To assess inter-rater reliability using this approach, an alpha coefficient was calculated the
negative feedback seeking scale. Reliability was found to be adequate (alpha=.77).
Among the 76 discussion clips in our refined list for which negative feedback seeking ratings
were obtained, six appeared to display very poor inter-rater reliability. For each of these six clips,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
497
there was a five- or six-point discrepancy between at least two of the raters, and each rater gave a
different rating. Five of these clips were negative feedback provision clips (i.e., they were preceded
by a negative feedback provision) and 1 was a positive feedback provision clip (i.e., it was
preceded by a positive feedback provision). These six clips were removed prior to the data
analysis. Thus our final provision list contained 70 discussion clips, each preceded by a provision
made by one of the 61 separate helpers to their spouses (i.e., 61 separate helpees).
2.2. Results
For the purposes of data analysis, participants’ (i.e., helpees’) BDI scores were dichotomized so
as to classify each participant as ‘‘depressive’’ (BDI>11) or ‘‘non-depressive’’ (BDIp11). This
resulted in a sample in which 13% of participants were designated depressive (N ¼ 8), and 87%
were designated non-depressive (N ¼ 53). This prevalence is roughly compatible with expected
rates in the general population. Non-depressive participants had a mean BDI score of 4.08
(SD=3.04), while depressive participants had a mean BDI score of 17.88 (SD=4.29). All couples
used in the current study consisted of two non-depressed partners or one depressed partner and
one non-depressed partner. None of the couples used consisted of two depressed partners as this
was a rare occurrence in the original sample from which the Study 2 couples were drawn (i.e., both
partners were depressed in only three of the 60 couples from the larger 1991 study). The results
from the current study were quite similar, although somewhat less pronounced, when continuous
BDI scores were used. Provision of negative feedback was also a dichotomous variable, such that
a provision of negative feedback either was (N ¼ 19) or was not (N ¼ 51) made to each
participant (the helpee) by his or her spouse (the helper).5
Means and standard deviations for participants’ BDI scores and negative feedback seeking
scores (averaged across the four raters) are presented in Table 2. The inter-correlations between
the variables of interest are presented in Table 3. Although correlations were generally in the
expected direction (e.g., women report slightly higher depression scores than men), none of these
correlations was significant. Nevertheless, as mentioned in Study 1, significant relationships
between variables can be obscured by the presence of moderating variables, and such possibilities
can be examined through investigations of theoretically meaningful interactions among predictor
variables. In this connection, the analysis in the proceeding section examines the potential
interaction of helpee depressive symptoms and receipt of negative feedback provisions in the
prediction of helpee negative feedback seeking behavior.
2.3. Interaction of helpees’ depressive symptomatology and helpers’ negative feedback provisions in
predicting helpees’ negative feedback seeking
To examine how helpees’ levels of depressive symptomatology would interact with the
provision of negative feedback to affect further negative feedback seeking, we used a hierarchical
5
The provision of negative feedback variable consisted of two levels: (a) provision of negative feedback present and
(b) provision of negative feedback absent. The former consisted of the 19 discussion clips following negative feedback
provisions that remained following removal the five for which very poor inter-rater reliability was identified. The latter
was composed of a mixture of the remaining positive and neutral provision discussion clips.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
498
Table 2
Study 2: means and standard deviations for depression and negative feedback seeking scores
BDI
NFS (avg.)
Entire sample (N ¼ 70)
Males (N ¼ 40)
Females (N ¼ 30)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
5.66
1.50
5.44
1.10
5.38
1.47
5.58
1.11
6.03
1.54
5.31
1.10
Table 3
Study 2: zero-order correlations between variables
Target gender
Depression status
Provision
NFS
Gender (F, M)
Depression
Provision
NFS
—
.052
.139
.033
—
.017
.103
—
.088
—
Note: Gender was coded such that 0=women and 1=husband. NFS, negative feedback seeking.
multiple regression equation, in which participants’ level of negative feedback seeking (averaged
across the four raters) was the dependent variable. Two variables were entered into the first block
of the equation: helpees’ depression status (depressive/non-depressive), and provision of negative
feedback (present/absent). A single variable, the interaction of depressive symptomatology and
provision of negative feedback, was entered into the second block.
Neither depression status nor provision of negative feedback alone was found to have a
significant effect on negative feedback seeking. However, a significant effect was noted for the
interaction of depression status and provision of negative feedback, pr ¼ :24, tð69Þ ¼ 2:04, po:05
(Fig. 2). The direction of this interaction was such that, given the presence of a negative feedback
provision, depressive participants’ level of negative feedback seeking increased (M ¼ 3:25,
SD=.71) relative to their pattern of negative feedback seeking when no such provision was made
(M ¼ 1:33, SD=1.07; see Fig. 1). Non-depressive participants did not show this pattern. Note
that the overall pattern of findings, including the magnitude of the interaction effect, was very
similar to that obtained in Study 1.
In order to ascertain whether the interaction might be influenced by the gender of the helpee, we
conducted a second hierarchical regression, with negative feedback seeking as the dependent
variable. In addition to depression status, provision of negative feedback, and the associated twoway interaction, this equation included the helpee’s gender, the two-way interaction of gender and
depression status, the two-way interaction of gender and provision of negative feedback, and the
three-way interaction of gender, depression status, and provision of negative feedback as
independent variables. This regression yielded no significant results involving gender, suggesting
that the gender of the helpee was not a significant factor in determining the helpee’s pattern of
negative feedback seeking.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
499
3.5
Negative Feedback Seeking
3.0
2.5
2.0
Depression Status
1.5
Non-depressed
Depressed
1.0
No Provision
Provision
Provision of Negative Feedback
Fig. 2. Interaction of depression status and provision of negative feedback.
Given the observed increase in negative feedback seeking behavior among the depressed helpees
who had received negative feedback from their partners, there was a question as to whether or not
receipt of further feedback provisions from the helper during the two-minute discussion clip may
have influenced these results. However, further review of the discussion clips used in the present
study suggested that such a scenario was unlikely. Specifically, although additional feedback
provisions were sometimes given after the two-minute window of interest had expired, their
occurrence was rare in any of the three provision categories during the two-minute period in which
feedback seeking behavior was rated.6
3. General discussion
These studies sought to address the question of how depressive individuals respond to a
provision of negative feedback by someone with whom they share a close interpersonal
relationship. The results from Study 1 suggested that when individuals with depressive symptoms
were independently evaluated in a negative manner by their roommates, their tendency to seek
negative feedback was more pronounced. However, because the negative evaluation was not
provided directly to the depressive targets and because feedback seeking behavior was assessed
indirectly through a questionnaire measure, the results from Study 1 were somewhat ambiguous.
Specifically, we were unable to answer the question of how depressive individuals respond when
directly faced with negative feedback in a more naturalistic context, such as a conversation within
a close interpersonal relationship.
6
Among the 19 discussion clips following a negative feedback provision from the helper, only three involved a second
negative feedback provision from the helper at a later point in the two-minute clip. Of these, two were made to nondepressed helpees and one was made to a depressed helpee. Similarly, of the 27 discussion clips following a positive
feedback provision from the helper, only four involved a second positive feedback provision from the helper at a later
point in the discussion. Of these, three were made to non-depressed helpees and one was made to a depressed helpee.
None of the 21 discussion clips following a neutral feedback provision from the helper included a second neutral
feedback provision later in the two-minute clip.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
500
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
Study 2 addressed these limitations and demonstrated similar findings to those of Study 1. That
is, when negative feedback was directly presented, depressive participants immediately sought
more feedback of the same variety, while non-depressive participants did not. Given the welldocumented relationship between negative feedback seeking, interpersonal rejection, and
depression continuation/exacerbation, the results from Studies 1 and 2 seem to suggest that the
responses of depressed individuals to criticism are potentially self-damaging and likely to
perpetuate their ongoing interpersonal and emotional problems. Such results are consistent with
Joiner’s (2000) assertion that negative feedback seeking is a self-propagatory process that serves to
maintain and exacerbate depressive symptoms across time. This theory suggests that depression
chronicity stems at least in part from a vicious cycle that vacillates back and forth between
interpersonal rejection from others and feedback seeking behavior on the part of the depressed
individual. Thus, the results from Studies 1 and 2 are consistent with what might be expected in
examining at least a small slice of this cycle.
Nonetheless, upon initial consideration, the type of feedback sought by depressed individuals in
response to negative feedback may seem counter to what might be expected based on both
Swann’s self-verification theory and Joiner et al.’s (1993) integrated theory, which posit that
receipt of negative feedback should satisfy cognitive self-confirming needs. If such needs are
satisfied when negative feedback is received, then why did depressive individuals actively seek
further negative feedback? A number of plausible explanations should be considered. For example,
depressive individuals may seek further negative feedback in response to a provision of negative
feedback as part of an attempt to ‘‘cement’’ in their minds the validity of the feedback provided by
their spouses or roommates. That is, as provisions of negative feedback trigger a sense of cognitive
satisfaction in the depressive individual, it stands to reason that s/he would wish to confirm that
this feedback was not a fluke, but rather was representative of their spouse’s or roommate’s true
impression of him or her. Alternatively, rather than serving a cementing or confirming function,
negative feedback seeking in response to negative feedback provisions may reflect an attempt to
‘‘shape’’ the feedback so that it more closely fits with the depressive individual’s self-image. For
example, in response to the negative feedback provision, ‘‘You ARE NOT a good student’’, a
depressive individual who is engaging in shaping might say, ‘‘I must really be stupid, don’t you
think?’’ It may be that both cementing and shaping are used as a means of immediately
capitalizing on the negative feedback that was provided and enhancing the sense of cognitive
satisfaction associated with it. It could be argued that only later, perhaps after some rumination on
the unpleasant affective consequences of receiving negative feedback, would the depressed
individual shift to engaging in positive feedback seeking for the purposes of affective consolation.
If this ‘‘immediate capitalization/later shifting’’ hypothesis holds true, one might expect to find
a similar relationship between provisions of positive feedback and positive feedback seeking
behaviors by depressive individuals. That is, when provided with positive feedback, depressive
individuals may immediately seek further positive feedback in an attempt to cement and/or shape
that feedback. In this instance, such efforts would serve to capitalize on and enhance the
immediate sense of emotional satisfaction associated with positive feedback. Again, it might be
that, only after ruminating on the fact that such feedback is inconsistent with one’s own selfimage, would the shift to negative feedback seeking occur.
In this context, we note the possibility that the negative feedback provided to depressed
individuals in Study 2 was actually solicited by them earlier in the discussion clip with their
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
501
spouse. This possibility would be very complex to track and to empirically test (e.g., was one
instance of negative feedback seeking related, via a later negative feedback provision, to
subsequent negative feedback seeking?). If this occurred, it could represent an instance of the
‘‘cementing’’ processes mentioned earlier.
Although these explanations are plausible, limitations of the current studies impede our ability
to determine the extent to which such processes may be occurring. One such limitation is the lack
of a direct measure of positive feedback seeking (see footnote 1). Despite efforts to include such a
measure in Study 2, inter-rater reliability estimates were too low to allow for meaningful analyses
of these data. The reasons for the reliability differences between ratings of negative and positive
feedback seeking are unclear. However, this disparity may result from differences in the
presentation of the two types of feedback seeking, particularly among individuals with depressive
symptoms. Specifically, because depressive individuals are likely to have a negative self-view, they
may be more clear or direct when soliciting negative feedback than when soliciting positive
feedback. That is, due to their negative self-view, they may be more sure of themselves when
asking for negative feedback than when asking for positive feedback, which may lead to clearer,
non-ambiguous examples of negative feedback seeking, but more indirect, subtle, and ambiguous
examples of positive feedback seeking. Further, when indirect or ambiguous examples of negative
feedback seeking do occur, they may carry with them a negativistic/depressive tone (e.g., through
tone of voice) that facilitates raters in identifying them as negative feedback seeking as they use
their subjective intuitions and impressions to appropriately adjust objective heuristic scores. In
contrast, positive feedback seeking may not carry such an identifiable tone, thereby interfering
with raters’ abilities to reliably rate unclear or ambiguous examples of positive feedback seeking.
Together, these possibilities would make it easier for raters to reliably rate negative feedback
seeking than to rate positive feedback seeking. With these possibilities in mind, future research
efforts should be aimed at ways to more effectively and reliably identify instances of positive
feedback seeking.
Because the current investigation lacked a direct and reliable measure of positive feedback
seeking, it could be argued that depressed individuals are actually likely to seek both negative and
positive feedback in response to negative feedback provisions, but that our studies did not detect
the positive feedback seeking because no such measure was included. Although this certainly may
be true, the results from Study 1 provide at least some evidence against this argument. Specifically,
the increase in negative feedback seeking scores among depressive individuals who were evaluated
negatively by their roommates indicates that they endorsed higher numbers of negative feedback
seeking items and, thus, fewer positive feedback seeking items. Although this does not rule out the
possibility that depressive individuals sought both types of feedback, it does suggest that they
were more interested in receiving negative feedback.
A second limitation of the current studies is that they did not provide an appropriate timecourse for addressing the speculated ‘‘immediate capitalization/later shifting’’ hypothesis
mentioned above. The feedback seeking behaviors assessed in Study 1 were not time-locked to
a specific feedback provision, and those assessed in Study 2 were time-locked to a very brief
two-minute window immediately following the provision. Thus, even if a positive feedback
seeking measure had been included in Study 2, the brief two-minute assessment window quite
possibly would have been insufficient for detecting any shifting patterns of feedback seeking
which might be expected according to Joiner et al.’s (1993) integrated theory. It is currently
ARTICLE IN PRESS
502
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
unknown just how much time might be necessary in order to capture both positive and
negative feedback seeking behavior in spousal and other interactions. This is a matter for future
research.
Additionally, the limited time course used in Study 2 did not allow for examination of whether
or not the negative feedback seeking of depressed individuals in response to receipt of negative
feedback was associated with (a) escalations in later negative feedback, criticism, or interpersonal
rejection from the helper, or (b) continuation/increases in depressive symptoms. Future studies
will need to investigate this issue to help confirm or refute the assertions of Joiner’s model of
depression chronicity (Joiner, 2000).
We would also emphasize that the prediction of self-verification theory is for relative,
not absolute, preference for negative feedback among depressed people. Our findings
across the two studies are quite consistent with this, at least insofar as choice (Study 1)
and seeking (Study 2) of negative feedback indicates relative preference. Everyone responds
to the need for self-enhancement; they also respond to the need for self-confirmation,
which implies relatively more negative feedback seeking among depressed vs. non-depressed
individuals.
4. Summary
The results of these studies provide evidence that, when faced with negative evaluation or
criticism, depressed individuals respond in a manner that is potentially self-damaging by
increasing risk for further interpersonal rejection and continuation of depressive symptoms.
Specifically, the results offer an interesting new perspective on the phenomenon of negative
feedback seeking behavior in depressed individuals, by indicating that when such negative
feedback is provided, depressed people may immediately seek more, whereas non-depressed
individuals will not. We have speculated that perspectives associated with self-verification theory
(e.g., Joiner et al., 1993; Swann et al., 1987) may account for this phenomenon, in predicting that
while non-depressed individuals are likely to desire only positive feedback (i.e., feedback which is
both emotionally pleasant and cognitively congruent with their self-images) from others in their
interpersonal environments, depressed individuals may desire and be temporarily satisfied by
feedback of either positive or negative tone. To capitalize on and enhance this initial satisfaction,
the depressed individual may attempt to ‘‘cement’’ and ‘‘shape’’ the feedback of those around
them, to assure that it is not merely a fluke, but is accurate and consistent with the individual’s
self-image. Later in time, after some rumination, it may be that the unmet needs of the depressed
individual would become more and more salient, ultimately prompting a polar shift in feedback
seeking behavior. Though additional research on this topic is needed to replicate and extend the
findings from the current pair of studies, they do appear to have preliminary implication for
cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression. Namely, such treatment should include assessment of
the depressed individual’s responses to interpersonal rejection/criticism. Based on the results of
this assessment, when needed, such treatment should provide education on how to effectively
respond to such feedback to minimize the likelihood of further rejection and maximize the
chances of interpersonal acceptance.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
503
References
Abela, J. R. Z., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Dechef, M. L. E. (2003). Personality predispositions to depression: A test of the
specific vulnerability and symptom specificity hypotheses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(5), 493–514.
Alloy, L. B., Just, N., & Panzarella, C. (1997). Attributional style, daily life events, and hopelessness depression:
Subtype validation by prospective variability and specificity of symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(3),
321–344.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Manual for the revised Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Epstein, N. (1992). Self-concept dimensions of clinical depressed and anxious. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 48, 423–432.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: 25 years of
evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100.
Bradbury, T. N. (1994). Unintended effects of marital research on marital relationships. Journal of Family Psychology,
8, 187–201.
Brown, G., & Moran, P. (1994). Clinical and psychosocial origins of chronic depressive episodes: I. A community
survey. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 447–456.
Coryell, W., & Winokur, G. (1992). Course and outcome. In E. Pakyel (Ed.). Handbook of affective disorders (pp.
89–108). New York: Guilford Press.
Coyne, J. C. (1976). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28–40.
Diego, M. A., Field, T., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2001). CES-D depression scores are correlated with frontal EEG alpha
asymmetry. Depression and Anxiety, 13(1), 32–37.
Hooley, J. M., & Teasdale, J. D. (1989). Predictors of relapse in unipolar depressives: Expressed emotion, marital
distress, and perceived criticism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 229–235.
Joiner Jr., T. E. (1994). Relation between judges’ and roommates’ ratings on a measure of target subjects’ likability.
Unpublished data.
Joiner, T. E., Jr. (1995). The price of soliciting and receiving negative feedback: Self-verification theory as a
vulnerability to depression theory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 364–372.
Joiner, T. E. (1999). Self-verification and bulimic symptoms: Do bulimic women play a role in perpetuating their own
dissatisfaction and symptoms?. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 145–151.
Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2000). Depression’s vicious scree: Self-propagating and erosive processes in depression chronicity.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 203–218.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., Alfano, M. S., & Metalsky, G. I. (1992). When depression breeds contempt: Reassurance-seeking, selfesteem, and rejection of depressed college students by their roommates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101,
165–173.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., Alfano, M. S., & Metalsky, G. I. (1993). Caught in the crossfire: Depression, self-consistency, selfenhancement, and the response of others. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 113–134.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., Katz, J., & Lew, A. (1997). Self-verification and depression in youth psychiatric inpatients. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 106, 608–618.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., & Metalsky, G. I. (1995). A prospective test of an integrative interpersonal theory of depression: A
naturalistic study of college roommates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 778–788.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., & Metalsky, G. I. (2001). Excessive reassurance-seeking: Delineating a risk factor involved in the
development of depressive symptoms. Psychological Science, 12, 371–378.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.
Karney, B. R., Davila, J., Cohan, C. L., Sullivan, K. T., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). An empirical
investigation of sampling strategies in marital research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 909–920.
Kendall, P. C., Hollon, S. D., Beck, A. T., Hammen, C. L., & Ingram, R. E. (1987). Issues and recommendations
regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 289–299.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
504
T.S. Casbon et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 485–504
Lara, M. E., Leader, J., & Klein, D. N. (1997). The association between social support and course of depression: Is it
confounded with personality?. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 478–482.
McCabe, S. B., & Gotlib, I. H. (1993). Interactions of couples with and without a depressed spouse: Self-report and
observations of problem-solving interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 589–599.
Miller, G. E., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). Refining the association between attributions and behavior in marital
interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 196–208.
Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 219–230.
Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social support behavior in
marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4, 361–378.
Riedel, W. J., Klaassen, T., Griez, E., Honig, A., Menheere, P. P. C. A., & van Praag, H. M. (2002). Dissociable
hormonal, cognitive, and mood responses to neuroendocrine challenge: Evidence for receptor-specific serotonergic
dysregulation in depressed mood. Neuropsychopharmacology, 26(3), 358–367.
Rosenberg, S. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schmitz, N., Kugler, J., & Rollnik, J. (2003). On the relation between neuroticism, self-esteem, and depression: Results
from the National Comorbidity Survey. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 44(3), 169–176.
Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (1998). Depression and verbal behavior in conversations with friends and strangers. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 17, 494–505.
Shapiro, R. W., & Keller, M. B. (1981). Initial 6-month follow-up of patients with major depressive disorder. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 3, 205–220.
Shelton, R. C., Davidson, J., Yonkers, K. A., & Koran, L. (1997). The undertreatment of dysthymia. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 58, 59–65.
Sullivan, K. T., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Are premarital prevention programs reaching couples at risk for marital
dysfunction?. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 24–30.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls, & A. G.
Greenwald (Eds.). Social psychological perspectives on the self, Vol. 2 (pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
1038–1051.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be known or to be adored: The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In R.
M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 2 (pp. 408–448). New York:
Guilford.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Griffin, J. J., Predmore, S., & Gaines, B. (1987). The cognitive-affective crossfire: When selfconsistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 881–889.
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981a). Acquiring self-knowledge: The search for feedback that fits. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1119–1128.
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981b). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-concepts. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 351–372.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Wenzlaff, R. M., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B. W. (1992a). Allure of negative feedback: Self-verification
strivings among depressed persons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 293–305.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Wenzlaff, R. M., & Tafrodi, R. W. (1992b). Depression and the search for negative evaluations:
More evidence of the role of self-verification strivings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 314–317.
Tarlow, E. M., & Haaga, D. A. F. (1996). Negative self-concept: Specificity to depressive symptoms and relation to
positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 120–127.