1. The
Impact
of
Fear
of
Depressed
Mood
and
Emo5on
Regula5on
in
Veterans
with
Unipolar
Depression
1Dick,
A.
M.,
Khan,
1A.
J.,
Kind,
S.,
1Suvak,
M.,
2,3,4Kamholz,
B.
W.,
2,5Sloan,
D.
M.,
1Liverant,
G.
I.
1
Department
of
Psychology,
Suffolk
University;
2Department
of
Psychiatry,
Boston
University
School
of
Medicine;
3VA
Boston
Healthcare
System;
4Department
of
Psychology,
Boston
University;
5NaPonal
Center
for
PTSD
-­‐
Behavioral
Science
Division,
Boston,
MA
Method
Data
AnalysisResults
Background
Results
ConPnued
Data
analy(c
approach
•
3
(EmoPon
RegulaPon)
x
4
(Phase)
x
FOD
(ConPnuous
variable)
mixed
factorial
design
•
MulPlevel
regression
analyses
were
conducted
to
examine
interacPons
among
FOD,
emoPon
regulaPon,
and
phase
of
experiment.
Results
•
Significant
three-­‐way
FOD
x
ER
condiPon
x
Phase
interacPons
emerged
for
both
self-­‐reported
sadness
(Figure
1)
and
PA
(Figure
2).
Figure
1.
Emo$on
Regula$on
x
Phase
Interac$ons
Predic$ng
Sadness
At
Low
(-­‐1SD)
and
High
(+1SD)
Levels
of
FOD
•
When
sadness
was
examined
as
a
dependent
variable,
regression
coefficients
revealed
that
all
pairwise
phase
comparisons
(represenPng
differences
in
sadness
across
the
phases)
with
the
emoPon
inducPon
phase
(e.g.,
BL
v
EI,
ER
v
EI,
EI
v
Rec)
significantly
differed
as
a
funcPon
of
FOD
between
the
acceptance
and
suppression
condiPons.
•
For
parPcipants
reporPng
low
levels
of
FOD,
these
phase
pairwise
comparisons
were
similar
across
the
acceptance
and
suppression
condiPons
indicaPng
that
differences
across
phases
in
sadness
were
consistent
between
acceptance
and
suppression.
•
For
parPcipants
reporPng
high
levels
of
FOD,
parPcipants
in
the
suppression
condiPon
showed
smaller
increases
in
sadness
relaPve
to
the
other
phases
compared
to
the
acceptance
condiPon.
•
Regression
coefficients
also
revealed
that
the
BL-­‐EI
and
BL-­‐Rec
pairwise
comparisons
significantly
differed
as
a
funcPon
of
FOD
between
the
control
and
suppression
condiPons.
•
Again,
this
pa`ern
was
characterized
by
an
a`enuated
sadness
response
for
suppression
during
the
EI
phase.
•
The
findings
of
the
current
project
indicate
that
Suppression
does
impact
emoPonal
responses;
however,
this
impact
is
nuanced
varying
as
a
funcPon
of
both
level
of
FOD
and
mode
of
responding
(i.e.,
sadness
versus
posiPve
affect).
•
These
findings
differed
from
exisPng
findings
(Liverant
et
al.,
2008)
that
showed
suppression
led
to
lower
levels
of
sadness
only
for
those
who
reported
low
levels
of
FOD.
This
discrepancy
may
be
due
to
differences
in
the
study
samples
or
methods.
•
FOD
appears
to
be
a
consistent
moderator
of
ER
outcomes
in
depressed
individuals,
however,
future
research
is
needed
to
understand
this
influence
across
different
individuals
and
contexts.
For
more
informaPon
about
this
project
or
for
complete
references
please
contact
Alexandra
Dick
at
amdick@suffolk.edu
Discussion
Figure
2.
Emo$on
Regula$on
x
Phase
Interac$ons
Predic$ng
PA
At
Low
(-­‐1SD)
and
High
(+1SD)
Levels
of
FOD
•
When
posiPve
affect
was
examined
as
a
dependent
variable,
regression
coefficients
indicated
significant
difference
between
the
suppression
condiPon
and
the
acceptance
and
control
condiPons
in
change
from
baseline
to
emoPon
inducPon;
however,
only
for
parPcipants
low
in
FOD.
•
EmoPon
regulaPon
(ER)
research
suggests
suppression
has
negaPve
effects
(Gross
&
John,
2003)
while
acceptance
has
generally
been
associated
with
posiPve
outcomes
(Ma
&
Teasdale,
2004).
Less
is
known
about
intra-­‐individual
difference
factors
that
may
influence
the
efficacy
of
different
ER
strategies
in
parPcular
populaPons
and
contexts.
•
Preliminary
findings
have
highlighted
fear
of
depressed
mood
(FOD)
as
a
moderator
of
ER
outcomes
associated
with
regulaPon
of
sadness
among
individuals
with
depression
such
that
suppression
produced
short-­‐term
reducPons
in
sadness
at
lower
levels
of
FOD,
compared
to
moderate
or
high
levels
of
FOD
(Liverant
et
al.,
2008).
•
The
current
study
aimed
to
further
examine
the
influence
of
FOD
on
ER
outcomes
in
a
large
sample
of
Veterans
with
unipolar
depression.
We
hypothesized
that
suppression
would
lead
to
short-­‐term
reducPons
in
sadness
but
that
this
effect
would
be
moderated
by
FOD.
Examined
the
impact
of
FOD
and
ER
strategies
on
negaPve
affect
(NA),
sadness,
posiPve
affect
(PA),
and
happiness
in
response
to
a
sad
autobiographical
mood
inducPon
in
80
Veterans
(87.5%
Male,
Mean
age
=
51.2)
diagnosed
with
unipolar
depression.
ParPcipants
completed
the
AffecPve
Control
Scale
(ACS)
and
PosiPve
and
AffecPve
Affect
Scales
(PANAS)
at/following:
Phase
1:
Baseline
(BL)
Phase
2:
ER
instrucPons
(control,
acceptance
or
suppression)
(ER)
Phase
3:
Sad
mood
inducPon
(EI)
Phase
4:
Recovery
period
(Rec)
Autobiographical
mood
induc(on
Two
previously
validated
3-­‐minute
film
segments
were
used
to
elicit
the
emoPon
of
sadness:
The
Champ
and
Bambi
(Gross
&
Levenson,
1995;
Ro`enberg,
Ray,
&
Gross,
2007).
Segments
were
counterbalanced
across
ER
groups.
ACS
(Williams
et
al.,
1997):
42-­‐item
self-­‐report
measure
that
assesses
anxiety
about
loss
of
control
over
emoPons
and
reacPons
to
those
emoPons.
The
ACS
was
used
to
measure
FOD.
PANAS
(Watson,
Clark,
&
Tellegen,
1988)
20
item
self-­‐report
measures
of
posiPve
and
negaPve
affect
(two
subscales)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
BL
ER
EI
Rec
Self-­‐Report
Sadness
(1-­‐5)
(1b)
High
FOD
Controll
Acceptance
Supression
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
BL
ER
EI
Rec
Self-­‐Report
of
Sadness
(1-­‐5)
(1a)
Low
FOD
Controll
Acceptance
Supression
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
BL
ER
EI
Rec
(2a)
Low
FOD
Controll
Acceptance
Supression
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
BL
ER
EI
Rec
(2b)
High
FOD
Controll
Acceptance
Supression