Brooding and reflecting in an interpersonal context

Highlights

• Extension of intrapersonal brooding and reflection by looking at it interpersonally.

• Support for a two-dimensional model with components co-brooding and co-reflection.

• Co-brooding uniquely positively associated with prospective depressive symptoms.

• Co-reflection uniquely negatively associated with prospective depressive symptoms.

• Results are the same when controlling for intrapersonal brooding and reflection.

Abstract

Rumination consists of two components: brooding, which increases depressive feelings, and reflection, which appears to be unrelated to or protective against depression. The present study is the first to extend the intrapersonal constructs of brooding and reflection to the interpersonal context, thereby relying on previous work in the domain of co-rumination. In this two-wave longitudinal study, a community sample of 371 pupils (63.1% girls) aged 9–15 years was followed up over a three-month interval. Using items drawn from the Co-Rumination Questionnaire (Rose, 2002), a two-factor model distinguishing between co-brooding and co-reflection was validated using confirmatory factor analysis. Both co-brooding and co-reflection emerged as significant unique predictors of depressive symptoms over a three-month interval, above and beyond sex and baseline depressive symptoms. Co-brooding had a positive association with prospective depressive symptoms, whereas co-reflection was inversely related to prospective symptom levels. This pattern of results was unchanged when controlling for intrapersonal brooding and reflection. Post-hoc analyses revealed that co-brooding and co-reflection could be framed as higher order factors, each encompassing two lower-order factors and that the effects are carried by specific aspects of co-brooding and co-reflection, i.e., co-brooding on consequences and co-reflecting on causes of problems.

Introduction

Adolescence is a critical developmental period for the first onset of depression. By the end of adolescence, prevalence rates have increased as much as sixfold (e.g., Costello, Erkanli, & Angold, 2006). Because recurrence rates from adolescence to adulthood are substantial (Birmaher, Arbelaez, & Brent, 2002) and even subclinical depressive symptoms are linked with impaired functioning (Roberts, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1991), it is important to identify factors that contribute to the onset and maintenance of depressive symptoms in youth.

An influential model of depression vulnerability is the Response Styles Theory (RST; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991), which posits that the way in which individuals respond to their depressive symptoms influences both the duration and the severity of these symptoms. Central to this theory is the concept of rumination, which refers to the “behaviors and thoughts that focus one’s attention on one’s depressive symptoms and on the implications of these symptoms” (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991, p. 569). Rumination has been repeatedly shown to predict the onset, severity, persistence, and recurrence of depressive symptoms in both adult and youth populations (for a review, see e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008).

More recently, rumination is considered as a two-dimensional construct, with brooding and reflection representing two components (Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003). Brooding is defined as “a passive comparison of one’s current situation with some unachieved standard” (e.g., thinking about a recent situation, wishing it had gone better), whereas reflection refers to “purposeful turning inward to engage in cognitive problem solving” (e.g., analyzing your personality to try to understand why you are depressed) (Treynor et al., 2003, p. 256). A growing body of evidence in both adult and preadult samples suggests that brooding predicts increases in depressive symptoms over time (e.g., Burwell and Shirk, 2007, Schoofs et al., 2010, Treynor et al., 2003), whereas reflection can be protective against prospective depression (e.g., Treynor et al., 2003, Verstraeten et al., 2010; but see Burwell and Shirk, 2007, Schoofs et al., 2010).

Previously, rumination has been studied mainly as an intrapersonal response. However, researchers have begun to direct their attention to the interpersonal context of this response style. It was Rose (2002) who introduced the concept of co-rumination, i.e., “excessively discussing personal problems within a dyadic relationship” (p. 1830). Co-rumination is associated with greater positive friendship quality, but also with increased risk for emotional problems (Rose, 2002). For instance, higher levels of co-rumination were found to predict higher levels of concurrent depressive symptoms in both youth (Schwartz-Mette and Rose, 2012, Starr and Davila, 2009) and adults (Calmes & Roberts, 2008), and to be associated with a lifetime history of depressive disorders (Stone, Uhrlass, & Gibb, 2010). Also, co-rumination was found to predict increases in depressive symptoms over time (Hankin et al., 2010, Rose et al., 2007), as well as future depressive episodes, including first onsets (Stone, Hankin, Gibb, & Abela, 2011).

Given the value of considering interpersonal aspects of rumination, it makes sense to explore whether the intrapersonal aspects of the brooding and reflection components might also occur interpersonally and, if they do, to examine their unique associations with depressive symptoms. Toward this goal, the first aim of the current study was to identify relevant items within an existing measure of co-rumination (i.e., the Co-Rumination Questionnaire, Rose, 2002) and to determine if a distinction can be made between a more passive, repetitive and catastrophizing manner of co-rumination (i.e., co-brooding) and a more active, analyzing, and reflective form (i.e., co-reflection). To the best of our knowledge, no study thus far has looked at interpersonal variants of brooding and reflection.

If interpersonal aspects of brooding and reflection can indeed be distinguished, then it is reasonable to expect co-brooding, like intrapersonal brooding, to be related to higher levels of concurrent and prospective depressive symptoms. Predicting effects of co-reflection is less clear, as some authors in the rumination literature have found a positive relationship between reflection and depressive symptoms, whereas others found a negative relationship or no relationship at all. Thus, the second aim of this study was to examine to what extent the interpersonal aspects of brooding and reflection are differentially related to depressive symptoms, both concurrently and prospectively.

The third and final aim of the study was to investigate the extent to which interpersonal variants of brooding and reflection add to the prediction of depressive symptoms, over and above their intrapersonal counterparts. This way, the possibility can be ruled out that a potential relationship between components of co-rumination and depressive symptoms would be a mere consequence of a shared association with components of intrapersonal rumination.