- 學位論文
解釋的風格、彈性及多樣性在壓力與憂鬱間的調節功能
Explanatory Style, Explanatory Flexibility and Explanatory Diversity as Moderators between Stress and Depression
摘要
目的：根據絕望理論，解釋風格為憂鬱特異質與壓力模型中的認知脆弱因子之一。過去研究也證實解釋風格在壓力與憂鬱間的調節效果。此外，有學者提出解釋彈性－個體在跨情境間解釋的變異程度，認為較低的解釋彈性亦可能是憂鬱的認知特異性之一，研究結果亦支持解釋彈性在壓力與憂鬱之間的調節效果。綜合上述，除了個體對事件的解釋內容傾向之外，個體在解釋的變異亦可能是憂鬱的認知脆弱因子。然而，過去少有研究探討個體對相同情境產生的多個解釋之變異（本研究稱之為解釋多樣性），對壓力與憂鬱關聯的影響。因此，本研究除了嘗試驗證解釋風格與解釋彈性在壓力與憂鬱間的調節效果，更試圖檢驗解釋多樣性在壓力與憂鬱間所的調節角色。此外，過去在解釋變異的研究，未曾以個體的真實生活事件作為評量材料，故本研究同時以假設性壓力事件與真實性壓力事件，探討三項解釋型態指標在特異質與壓力模式中的角色。方法：本研究以 146 位大學生為樣本，進行間隔約兩週的跨時間點研究。在第一個時間點，請參與者填寫「解釋風格、彈性及多樣性評量量表」、「生活壓力量表」以及「中文版貝克憂鬱量表第二版」，間隔約兩週後，再請參與者填寫「生活壓力量表」與「中文版貝克憂鬱量表第二版」。本研究以階層性迴歸分析，探討控制基準生活壓力與憂鬱症狀後，三個解釋型態變項在壓力與憂鬱間關聯的調節效果。結果：（1）假設性壓力事件下之解釋風格，可以顯著預測兩週後的憂鬱症狀，但在壓力與憂鬱之間未有顯著的調節效果。真實性壓力事件下之解釋風格，無法預測兩週後的憂鬱症狀，在壓力與憂鬱間亦無調節效果。（2）假設性壓力事件下之解釋彈性與真實性壓力事件下之解釋彈性，皆可調節壓力與憂鬱的關聯，相較於解釋彈性較低的個體，解釋彈性較高者，壓力與憂鬱的正向關聯較強。（3）假設性壓力事件下之解釋多樣性可調節壓力與憂鬱的關聯，在解釋多樣性較低時，壓力與憂鬱無顯著關聯，但在解釋多樣性較高者，壓力與憂鬱有顯著的正向關聯。真實性壓力事件下之解釋多樣性，無法預測兩週後的憂鬱，在壓力與憂鬱間亦無調節效果。討論：本研究嘗試以解釋複雜性、因果不確定性，以及測量上的限制等因素，來探討本研究結果的發現，並討論本研究結果的貢獻、臨床應用，以及研究限制與未來研究方向。
並列摘要
OBJECTIVE: According to the hopelessness theory, explanatory style is a cognitive vulnerability in the diathesis-stress model of depression. Findings validate the moderating role of explanatory style in the relations between stress and depression. Recently, researchers propose the construct of explanatory flexibility－the variations of one’s explanations to different situations, and findings indicate that explanatory flexibility interacts with life stress to predict depressive symptoms. The above research findings suggest, in addition to the content of one’s explanations to negative events, the explanatory flexibility is also a possible cognitive vulnerability factor. However, no past study has examined the role of individual differences in variations among several explanations one attribute to the same event (we named it explanatory diversity) in the relation with stress and depression. Therefore, the current study not only tried to replicate the moderating roles of explanatory style and explanatory flexibility on the relationship between life stress and depression, but also to assess whether explanatory diversity has moderating effect on the relationship of stress and depression. What’s more, past studies on variations of explanation have never used real life stressful events as the target events of attribution, so the current study included both hypothetical and real life stressful events to explore the role of the above-mentioned three explanatory variables in the model of diathesis-stress model. METHOD: We recruited 146 undergraduate students to carry out two time-points measurements with about two-week interval. At time 1, we asked participants to complete “the Explanatory Style, Flexibility, and Diversity Scale”, “Life Stress Scale (LSS)”, and “Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition, BDI-II”. At time 2, participants completed the LSS and BDI-II again. We used hierarchical regression analyses to explore the interaction effect between the three explanatory variables and life stress on depressive symptoms, after controlling baseline life stress and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: The findings include: (1) Explanatory style for hypothetical stressful life events could significantly predict depressive symptoms two weeks later, but couldn’t moderate the relationship between stress and depression. Explanatory style for real stressful life events couldn’t predict depressive symptoms, nor did it moderate the relationship between stress and depression. (2) Explanatory flexibility for both hypothetical and real stressful life events had a moderating effect on life stress and depressive symptoms. Relative to individuals with low explanatory flexibility, those with high explanatory flexibility displayed stronger positive association between life stress and depressive symptoms. (3) Explanatory diversity for hypothetical stressful life events interacts with life stress to predict depressive symptoms. Among those with low explanatory diversity, their life stress did not correlate with depressive symptoms, but for individuals with high explanatory diversity, life stress correlated with depressive symptoms significantly. However, explanatory diversity for real stressful life events could not predict depressive symptoms or moderate the relationship between stress and depression. DISSCUTION: The current study attempts to explain the above findings by discussing the construct of attributional complexity and causal uncertainty, and measurements limitations. Possible applications, clinical implications, and future directions are further discussed.