Delayed affective recovery to daily-life stressors signals a risk for depression.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the time to affective recovery from daily-life stressors between healthy controls (HC) and two groups with an increased risk for developing depression: individuals with subclinical symptoms of depression (SSD), and individuals remitted from a depressive episode with residual symptoms of depression (RRS). METHOD: The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to measure affective recovery to daily-life stressors. Affective recovery was defined as the moment that negative affect (NA) returned to baseline level following the first stressful event of the day. We assessed two different operationalizations of the baseline: NA at the moment before the stressful event (t-1), and mean-person NA. The effect of stress intensity, and cumulative stress were also assessed. RESULTS: Survival analyses showed significantly longer recovery times for the at risk groups in comparison to healthy individuals, albeit no significant difference was found between the two at risk groups (i.e. SSD and RRS). There was also an effect of cumulative stress, but not stress intensity on time to recovery in that cumulative stress resulted in significantly longer recovery times for all three groups. LIMITATIONS: The present study is limited by the ESM sampling design, assessments take place post-stress and therefore do not capture peak stress. Additionally, we are only able to assess patterns at the group level. Finally, there is a significant age difference between groups. CONCLUSION: Individuals at risk for depression display a delayed recovery to daily-life stressors when compared to healthy controls, which is not explained by differences in stress intensity or cumulative stress. Understanding what is driving this delay may help combat the development of depression.

Is sensitivity to daily stress predictive of onset or persistence of psychopathology?

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to replicate findings in adults indicating that higher sensitivity to stressful events is predictive of both onset and persistence of psychopathological symptoms in a sample of adolescents and young adults. In addition, we tested the hypothesis that sensitivity to mild stressors in particular is predictive of the developmental course of psychopathology. METHODS: We analyzed experience sampling and questionnaire data collected at baseline and one-year follow-up of 445 adolescent and young adult twins and non-twin siblings (age range: 15-34). Linear multilevel regression was used for the replication analyses. To test if affective sensitivity to mild stressors in particular was associated with follow-up symptoms, we used a categorical approach adding variables on affective sensitivity to mild, moderate and severe daily stressors to the model. RESULTS: Linear analyses showed that emotional stress reactivity was not associated with onset (ß=.02; P=.56) or persistence (ß=-.01; P=.78) of symptoms. There was a significant effect of baseline symptom score (ß=.53; P<.001) and average negative affect (NA: ß=.19; P<.001) on follow-up symptoms. Using the categorical approach, we found that affective sensitivity to mild (ß=.25; P<.001), but not moderate (ß=-.03; P=.65) or severe (ß=-.06; P=.42), stressors was associated with symptom persistence one year later. DISCUSSION: We were unable to replicate previous findings relating stress sensitivity linearly to symptom onset or persistence in a younger sample. Whereas sensitivity to more severe stressors may reflect adaptive coping, high sensitivity to the mildest of daily stressors may indicate an increased risk for psychopathology.