Perplexing Sex Difference in Depression With Far

¶ … perplexing sex difference in depression with far more females than males showing vulnerability to depression. The study (Dreer et al., 2007) investigated whether the hopelessness theory of depression could explain sex difference in depression. Specifically, it was examined whether it was sex that caused the different cognitive patterns in thinking, or whether the reverse was the case. (The hopelessness theory suggests that a person attributes negative aspects of self to negative events that happen to him or her regardless of actual correspondence.

He also draws negative subjective global consequence from the phenomena). A longitudinal study was conducted on 458 students recruited from a state university. 62% of the participants were female, and the mean age was 18.14 years. The majority of the students were Caucasian. The Cognitive Style Questionnaire was used to assess cognitive susceptibly to depression in terms of the hopelessness theory. The Beck Depression Inventory -- II was also used to Asses the participants' levels of depressive symptoms. Negative life events were measured with the Life Experiences Survey (LES).

The participants completed the surveys at four different interspersed intervals (including baseline and at the end) and the different negative inferential styles were examined separately (i.e. causes, consequences, self-characteristics, composite, and weakest link).

Results discovered that it was the individual's sex that predicted the depressive symptoms with vulnerability stress-effects more common for men than for women, in other words that the hopelessness theory of inferential styles and negative events was more common for men than for women who experienced depression in the presence of high negative events, whereas the hopelessness theory did not apply to women in that women experienced depression even at low levels of negative events. Strengths of this study were its large sample and multi-wave design.

Limitations, however, included utilization of self-report measures, as well as that participant's response may have been biased by their negative recall of events. The possible bias in this study is that, although the sample was large (n=458) and culturally diverse they were all students from one university. Depression is a condition that transcends age and may be a determinant of various reasons. College students may be more prone to depression given variables such as academic factors, fatigue, possible conflicts with dating and so forth.

Other objectives with this skewed sample are the observations that an older age and another status sector may have economic concerns that this age and sector population lacks. Another observation is that the sample skewed towards Caucasian (66%). The White culture may be more prone to depression that individuals of another ethnicity. The construct of depression itself is so complex involving so many causative factors that to simply reduce it to gender is too simplistic. Authors are rejecting the possibility that hopelessness theory is tied up with depression.

If they are wrong they have committed a Type II error where they have failed to identify a true relationship between two variables when one, in fact, exists. Summary Studies have found that approximately 50% of caregivers suffer from depression. Stone et al. (2010) theorized that caregivers who have lower problem solving abilities might likely have greater tendency towards depression. The purpose of this study, accordingly, was to test the hypothesis that dysfunctional reasoning abilities would make caregiver's more prone to depression after considering demographic characteristics and the caretaker's health.

Corelational and logistic regression analysis of data was collected in a cross-sectional design. The sample was 18 men and 103 women with SCI. Participants ranged in age from 20-85 years old. The instrument that was used was the Inventory to Diagnose Depression. Social problem solving abilities and caregiver health were separately evaluated according to relevant scales. Correlaional analysis was then preformed. The results showed that 19 caretakers met the criteria on the instrument for major depressive disorder.

Results showed that regardless of physical impairment and physical health of the caregiver, it was the element of dysfunctional problem-solving style that made him or her more prone to depression rather than ill health in particular. Authors concluded that family caregivers with a dysfunctional problem-solving style who assist individuals with severe injuries may have probable depression and that it is their dysfunctional problem-solving abilities that largely lead to this above that of many other factors.

They, therefore, recommended, "teaching effective problem-solving skills to family caregivers may be useful for promoting their physical and psychosocial well-being" (356). The bias in this research includes the fact that an imbalanced sample is presented with far more women than men included. The bias is reinforced by the fact that it may be gender rather than other variables that may be more conducive to depression. To verify that point, the authors would have needed a more balanced sample.

The fact that their sample was large is advantageous although the authors note that their cross-sectional study impeded them from understating and arriving at explanations of causal factors. One also doesn't know how the depression was caused as well as factors that led to its development and maintained it over time. Furthermore, self-reports surveys are problematic in that the participants may have intentionally or unintentionally erred, misinterpreted or misunderstood some questions, as well as other confounding elements existing such as interviewer and interviewee bias.