A PROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION OF BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY OF

A PROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION OF BECKrsquoS COGNITIVE THEORY OF

DEPRESSION IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN MAINLAND CHINA

by

DARREN STOLOW

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School ndash New Brunswick

Rutgers The State University of New Jersey

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Graduate Program in Psychology

Written under the direction of

John R Z Abela PhD

And approved by

Robert Karlin PhD

Robert Woolfolk PhD

Benjamin Hankin PhD

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

New Brunswick New Jersey

May 2011

ii

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

A Prospective Examination of Beckrsquos Cognitive Theory of Depression in University

Students in Mainland China

by DARREN STOLOW

Thesis Director

John R Z Abela PhD

The current multi-wave longitudinal study examined the applicability of Beckrsquos (1967

1983) cognitive theory of depression to university students in mainland China During an

initial assessment participants completed measures assessing dysfunctional attitudes and

depressiveanxious symptoms Participants subsequently completed measures assessing

negative events and depressiveanxious symptoms once a month for six months Results

provided support for the applicability of Beckrsquos cognitive theory to university students in

mainland China More specifically higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes were

associated with greater increases in depressive symptoms following the occurrence of

negative events At the same time contrary to findings obtained in Western samples

higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes were also associated with greater increases in

anxious symptoms following the occurrence of negative events These findings may

suggest that dysfunctional attitudes exhibit non-specificity as a predictor of depressive

symptoms in mainland China

iii

Table of Contents

Title Page i

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iii

List of Tables and Figures iv

Section I Introduction 1

Section II Methods 8

Section III Results 11

Section IV Discussion 16

Section V References 22

Section VI Tables and Figures 27

iv

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Demographic Variables 27

Table 2 Means Standard Deviations and Inter-correlations Between Time 1

Measures 28

Table 3 Dysfunctional Attitudes Predicting Within-Subject Fluctuations in

CES-D (Upper Section) and MASQ (Lower Section) Scores during the

Follow-up Interval 29

Figure 1 Predicted slope of the relationship between stress and depressive

symptoms (Left Panel) and anxious symptoms (Right Panel) as a function of

dysfunctional attitudes 30

1

INTRODUCTION

Depression in China

The results of epidemiological studies suggest that the prevalence rate of depression in

China has been rising in recent decades More specifically whereas research conducted

during the 1980s estimated the point-prevalence rate of depression to be 03 (Xiang

1986) research conducted during the 1990s estimated it to be 14 (Murray amp Lopez

1996) More recently findings from a comprehensive epidemiological survey

conducted within China yielded a one-month prevalence rate of depression of 60

(Phillips et al 2009) In response to this upward trend depression has become a major

public health concern in China increasingly drawing the attention of both Chinese and

Western mental health researchers One demographic group within Chinarsquos population that

has received considerable attention is Chinarsquos university student population Although no

formal epidemiological studies have been conducted examining the prevalence rate of

depression among university students recent reports in the Chinese media highlight the

growing problem of depression among this demographic (eg Qiang 2006) Most distressing

in these reports is the strong association noted between depression and suicidal behavior

Estimated mortality rates reveal that suicide is the leading cause of death among

Chinese young adults between the ages of 15 and 34 (Philipps Li amp Zhang 2002)

Despite these findings however little research has examined models of the etiology of

depression in university students in mainland China Furthermore of the studies

conducted the majority are cross-sectional providing little insight into causal

mechanisms

2

Cognitive Vulnerability-Stress Models of Depression

One theoretical perspective that has proven useful in understanding the

development of depression in Western young adults is the cognitive vulnerability-stress

perspective (Abela amp Hankin 2008) Cognitive theories of depression define

vulnerability as an internal and stable feature of an individual that predisposes himher

to develop depression following the occurrence of negative events (Ingram Miranda amp

Segal 1998) Cognitive models are fundamentally diathesis-stress models in that they

posit that depression is produced by the interaction between cognitive vulnerability

factors (the diatheses) and certain environmental conditions (the stressors) that trigger

such diatheses into operation (Ingram et al 1998) Evidence suggests that under

ordinary conditions individuals vulnerable to depression are indistinguishable from the

general population Only when confronted with certain stressors do differences between

vulnerable and non-vulnerable individuals emerge (Ingram et al 1998 Ingram amp

Luxton 2005 Monroe amp Simons 1991) For individuals who possess cognitive

vulnerability factors negative events trigger a pattern of negatively biased self-referent

information processing that initiates a downward spiral into depression Non-vulnerable

individuals react to such events with an appropriate level of distress and depressive

affect but do not spiral downwards into depression

Beckrsquos Cognitive Theory of Depression

One prominent cognitive vulnerably-stress model of depression is Beckrsquos (1967

1983) cognitive theory Central to Beckrsquos cognitive theory is the construct of schema

Beck defines schema as stored bodies of knowledge (ie mental representations of the

3

self and prior experiences) that are relatively enduring characteristics of a persons

cognitive organization When an individual is confronted with a situation the schema

most relevant to the situation is activated Schema activation subsequently influences

how the person perceives encodes and retrieves information regarding the situation

Beck proposed that certain individuals posses depressogenic schema that confer

vulnerability to depression Beck (1983) hypothesizes that depressogenic schemata are

typically organized as sets of dysfunctional attitudes such as ldquoI am nothing if a person I

love doesnrsquot like merdquo or ldquoIf I fail at my work then I am a failure as a personrdquo Among

individuals who possess depressogenic schema the occurrence of negative events

triggers a pattern of negatively biased self-referent information processing

characterized by negative errors in thinking (eg negatively skewed interpretations of

negative life events such as overgeneralization and catastrophizing) Negative errors in

thinking increase the likelihood that the individual will develop the negative cognitive

triad comprising three types of depressogenic thought patterns (1) negative views of

the self (eg the belief that one is deficient inadequate or unworthy) (2) negative

views of the world (eg construing life experiences in terms of themes of defeat or

disparagement) and (3) negative views of the future (eg the expectation that ones

difficulties will persist into the future and there is nothing one can do to change this)

According to the theory the development of the negative cognitive triad triggers the

onset of depressive symptoms

Research Support for Beckrsquos Cognitive Model of Depression

Prospective studies using Western university student samples have provided

support for Beckrsquos (1967 1983) cognitive theory of depression More specifically

4

several studies have found that dysfunctional attitudes interact with the occurrence of

negative life events to predict increases in depressive symptoms (Hankin Abramson

Miller Haeffel 2004 Hankin Fraley amp Abela 2005 Joiner Metalsky Lew amp Klocek

1999 Klocek Oliver amp Ross 1997 Brown Hammen Craske and Wickens 1995) as

well as a greater likelihood of developing a depressive episode (Hankin et al 2004) In

addition individuals possessing a high level of dysfunctional attitudes have been found

to be more likely to report a past history of depressive episodes (Alloy et al 2000) and

to experience future depressive episodes (Alloy et al 2006 Hankin et al 2004) than

individuals without such a vulnerability

Far less research has examined the applicability of Beckrsquos (1983 1967)

cognitive theory to Chinese samples Preliminary cross-sectional research however

has yielded findings consistent with the theoriesrsquo hypotheses For example Xu Li and

Wang (2007) found that psychiatric patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder

showed significantly higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes than did non-depressed

controls Simiarly Bian Yang and Li (2007) reported higher levels of dysfunctional

attitudes in remitted depressives as compared to normal controls Last several studies

conducted with Chinese university students have found higher levels of dysfunctional

attitudes ndash particularly those centered on themes of perfectionism - to be associated

with higher levels of psychiatric symptoms (eg Yang amp Zhang 2004 Yang 2007

Fang Qian Luo amp Zi 2009)

5

Goals of the current study

The primary goal of the current study was to examine the applicability of

Beckrsquos (1967 1983) cognitive theory of depression to university students in mainland

China The procedure involved an initial assessment during which students completed

measures assessing dysfunctional attitudes and symptoms of depression The procedure

also involved a series of six follow-up assessments occurring once a month for six

months during which symptoms of depression and the occurrence of negative events

were assessed The use of a multi-wave longitudinal design allowed us to take an

idiographic approach towards examining the diathesis-stress hypotheses of Beckrsquos

(1967 1983) theory More specifically we examined whether the slope of the

relationship between negative events and symptoms of depression within participants

varied across participants as a function of level of dysfunctional attitudes In line with

the vulnerability-stress hypothesis of Beckrsquos (1967 1983) cognitive theory we

hypothesized that higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes would be associated with

greater increases in depressive symptoms following the occurrence of negative events

The second objective of the current study was to examine the specificity of

dysfunctional attitudes as a predictor of depressive symptoms Beckrsquos (1967 1983)

theory posits that dysfunctional attitudes predict the development of depressive

symptoms but not symptoms of other forms of psychopathology Prospective studies

using Western university student (Alloy et al 2000 2006 Hankin Abramson Miller

amp Haeffel 2004) and adolescent samples (Hankin Wetter Cheely amp Oppenheimer

2008) have provided support for the specificity hypothesis of the theory More

specifically dysfunctional attitudes have been found to interact with negative events to

6

predict increases in depressive symptoms but not symptoms of anxiety or other

disorders in both university student (Hankin et al 2004) and adolescent samples

(Hankin et al 2008) Similarly although university students possessing a high level of

dysfunctional attitudes have been found to be more likely than other university students

to report a past history of depressive episodes (Alloy et al 2000) and to experience

future depressive episodes (Alloy et al 2006) they have not been found to differ from

their low-risk counterparts in terms of past history or future occurrence of other

psychological disorders (Alloy et al 2000 2006)

With respect to the current study it is possible that differences may emerge

between Chinese and Western samples in terms of the types of symptoms predicted by

dysfunctional attitudes More specifically cultural psychopathologists have proposed

that cultural factors shape the phenomenology of psychiatric symptoms as well as the

conceptualization and classification of disorders (Kleinman 2004 Mezzich et al

1999) As such the experience of psychopathology may exhibit unique features in

different cultures with diagnostic categories developed in one cultural context not being

valid in another (Kleinman 1977 1996) Neuresthenia known in China as shenjing

shuairuo (SJSR) is a diagnostic entity characterized by (1) physical and mental

weakness and fatigability (2) sleep disturbances (3) irritability and worry (4)

excitability (5) nervous pain and (6) memory difficulty (Taylor 2001) Historically

SJSR was a Western disease concept that subsequently evolved to become a widely

utilized diagnostic entity within China (Lee amp Wong 1995) Some cultural

psychopathologists have posited that SJSR represents a somatized form of depression

This claim however has been met with significant controversy (eg Lee 1997

7

Parker Gladstone amp Chee 2001 Xu JM 1987 Xu YX 1994 Zhang 1995)

Critics dispute the notion that Chinese psychiatric patients are ldquosomatizersrdquo who

manifest few or no emotional symptoms and who attribute distress to physical causes

Rather they argue that SJSR gained widespread acceptance in China as it was a non-

stigmatizing diagnosis that allowed individuals experiencing psychosocial distress to

seek help during a time in which traditional cultural beliefs and political influences led

to severe sanction and stigmatization of individuals suffering from mental illnesses

(Lee 1998 1999 Phillips 1998 Shixie 1989) At the same time other Chinese

researchers and clinicians have continued to defend neurasthenia as both a valid

diagnostic category and a clinically useful means of communicating with patients (Rin

amp Huang 1989 Yan 1989 Young 1989) Due to continued debate on this topic it is

essential that researchers examining models of vulnerability to depression within China

assess multiple symptom outcomes as the types of symptoms predicted by vulnerability

factors may vary as a function of cultural context Hence in the current study we also

assessed levels of anxious symptoms to provide a test of the specificity hypothesis of

Beckrsquos (1967 1983) cognitive theory

In order to provide a powerful examination of our hypotheses concerning (1) the

applicability of the diathesis-stress component of Beckrsquos (1967 1983) cognitive theory

to Chinese university students and (2) the specificity of dysfunctional attitudes as

predictors of depressive as opposed to anxious symptoms participantsrsquo scores on the

neuroticism subscale of the Five-factor Inventory (FFI-N) were included as a control

variable in all analyses Several critical reviews of the literature examining theories of

cognitive vulnerability to depression (eg Barnett amp Gotlib 1998 Coyne amp Whiffen

8

1995) have argued that cognitive vulnerabilities to depression such as that featured in

Beckrsquos cognitive theory may be equivalent to or reducible to trait neuroticism and thus

may not confer independent risk for depression In response to such claims a recent

study conducted with university students examining the degree of factorial

independence versus overlap between trait neuroticism and dysfunctional attitudes has

shown them to be distinct constructs each loading onto separate factors (Hankin et al

2007) At the same time however there remains a need to examine whether

dysfunctional attitudes and trait neuroticism represent unique risk factors for

depression particularly in young adults in China Hence in the current study

participantsrsquo scores on the neuroticism subscale of the Five-factor Inventory (FFI-N)

were included as a control variable in order to account for any of the variance in

fluctuations in depressive (and anxious) symptoms that may be shared between

dysfunctional attitudes and trait neuroticism thereby isolating and highlighting their

unique predictive effects

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 662 university students (aged 19-21) from Changsha ndash an

industrial city in the province of Hunan with a population of approximately 6000000

In terms of the annual gross domestic product Hunan ranks 23rd

(10336 RMB) out of

the 34 provinces in China placing it well below the national provincial average (micro =

29719 RMB SD = 47462 RMB National Bureau of Statistics of China 2006)

Demographic variables for the sample are presented in Table 1

9

Procedure

Consent forms were distributed to all students in participating classes Consent

rates were greater than 95 in all the classes After consent forms were collected

researchers returned to the school to meet with participating students Written consent

was obtained from each participant at the beginning of the initial assessment During

the initial assessment students completed a demographics form and each of the

following questionnaires (1) Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale

(CES-D Radloff 1977) (2) Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ

Clark amp Watson 1991) (3) Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS Weissman amp Beck

1978) and (4) NEO Five Factor Inventory- Neuroticism Subscale (FFI-N Costa amp

McCrae 1992) Once a month for the subsequent six-months researchers returned to

the school and met with participating students to conduct follow-up assessments At

each of these follow-up assessments students were asked to complete each of the

following questionnaires (1) CES-D (2) MASQ and (3) the General Academic

Social Hassles Scale for Students (GASHSS Blankstein amp Flett 1993)

Measures

The Chinese versions of all self-report measures were developed using the

back-translation method Original English versions were translated into Chinese by a

bilingual translator from the Psychology department at Second Xiangya Medical

College of Central South University Hunan Translated Chinese versions were then

back-translated into English by another bilingual translator from the Psychology

department at McGill University Quebec Original versions were then compared with

the back-translation If inconsistencies were found in the back-translation translators

10

worked together to make corrections to the final Chinese versions until all final

versions were agreed upon No items from any of the measures were removed or

significantly altered during the translation process

Depressive Symptoms Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale

(CES-D Radloff 1977) The CES-D is a 20-item self-report measure designed to

assess depressive symptoms in the general population For each item participants are

asked to indicate how often they experienced the particular symptom over the last

week Responses range from 1 (eg rarely or none of the time) to 4 (eg most or all of

the time) Scores range from 20-80 with higher score indicating higher levels of

depressive symptoms In the current study the CES-D exhibited high internal

consistency with Cronbachrsquos alpha values ranging from 90 to 94 (micro = 2918 SD =

814) over the 7 time points

Anxious Symptoms Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ

Watson amp Clark 1991) The MASQ is a 62-item questionnaire designed to assess both

specific and nonspecific depressive and anxious symptoms For each item participants

are asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 the extent to which they have felt this way ldquoduring

the past 24 hoursrdquo Within the current study we utilized the anxious symptoms (11

items) and anxious arousal (17 items) subscales which together provide an index of

overall anxious symptoms Higher scores on each subscale reflect greater levels of

anxious symptoms In the current study the MASQ exhibited high internal consistency

with Cronbachrsquos alpha values ranging from 90 to 95 (micro = 3847 SD = 1117) over the

7 time points

11

Dysfunctional Attitudes Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS Weissman amp

Beck 1978) The DAS (Form A) is a 40-item questionnaire designed to measure the

cognitive vulnerability factor featured in Beckrsquos cognitive theory Examples of items

include ldquoIf I do not do well all the time people will not respect merdquo ldquoIf a person asks

for help it is a sign of weaknessrdquo and ldquoMy value as a person depends greatly on what

others think of merdquo Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally

disagree) to 7 (totally agree) providing a range of scores from 40 to 280 with higher

scores reflecting more dysfunctional attitudes In the current study the DAS exhibited

high internal consistency with Cronbachrsquos alphas of 89 and 88 obtained for the first

and second administrations respectively In addition a test-retest reliability coefficient

of 72 was obtained indicating strong stability over time

Neuroticism NEO Five Factor Inventory - Neuroticism Subscale (FFI-N

Costa amp McCrae 1992) The FFI-N is a 12- item self-report measure that assesses

neuroticism Examples of questions include I often feel inferior to others I am

seldom sad or depressed and Sometimes I feel completely worthless Items are rated

on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)

providing scores ranging from 0 to 48 with higher scores indicating higher levels of

neuroticism The NEO-FFI-N has proven reliable across different cultural samples and

item pools (Costa amp McCrae 1992) In the current study Cronbachs alpha was 81

indicating strong internal consistency

Negative Life Events General Academic Social Hassles Scale for Students

(GASHSS Blankstein amp Flett 1993) Participants completed a 30-item abbreviated

version of the GASHSS The measure is comprised of items assessing general hassles

12

(8 items) academic hassles (10 items) and social hassles (12 items) For each item

participants are asked to rate how persistent the given hassle was (ie its frequency and

duration) over the last 30 days (0 = no hassle not at all persistent to 6 = extremely

persistent hassle high frequency andor duration)

13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data

Means standard deviations and inter-correlations between Time 1 measures are

presented in Table 2

Prospective Diathesis-Stress Analyses - Depression

Multilevel modeling was used to test our hypothesis that higher levels of dysfunctional

attitudes would be associated with greater increases in depressive symptoms following

increases in stress Analyses were carried out using the SAS (version 81) MIXED

procedure and maximum likelihood estimation Our dependent variable was within-

subject fluctuations in CES-D scores during the follow-up interval (DEPRESSION)

Our primary predictors of DEPRESSION were DAS scores (DYSFUNCTIONAL

ATTITUDES) and fluctuations in GASHSS scores during the follow-up interval

(STRESS) As DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES is a between-subject predictor DAS

scores were standardized prior to analyses As STRESS is a within-subject predictor

STRESS reflects upward or downward fluctuations in an individualrsquos level of stress

compared to hisher mean level of stress

When fitting hierarchical linear models one must specify appropriate mean and

covariance structures Mean structures refer to the various fixed and random effect

components that can be included in the model Covariance structures refer to alternative

methods of specifying the pattern of covariance between observations taken from the

same subject at different time points It is important to note that mean and covariance

structures are not independent of one another Rather an appropriate covariance

structure is essential in order to obtain valid inferences for the parameters in the mean

14

structure Overparametrization of the covariance structure can lead to inefficient

estimation and poor assessment of standard errors (Altham 1984) On the other hand

too much restriction of the covariance structure can lead to invalid inferences when the

assumed structure does not hold (Altham 1984)

In our first set of analyses we were interested in examining the effects of

DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES STRESS and the DYSFUNCTIONAL

ATTITUDES STRESS interaction on participantrsquos CES-D scores during the follow-

up interval Consequently in line with Diggle Liang and Zegers (1994)

recommendation that one use a ldquosaturatedrdquo model for the mean structure while

searching for an appropriate covariance structure we chose a mean structure that

included DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES STRESS and the DYSFUNCTIONAL

ATTITUDES STRESS interaction Four additional effects were also included in this

mean structure First as different individuals report different levels of depressive

symptoms when at their own average level of stress a random effect for intercept was

included in the model Second given that STRESS is a within-subject predictor whose

effect is expected to vary from participant to participant a random effect for slope was

included in the model Third in order to control for individual differences in baseline

levels of depressive symptoms Time 1 CES-D scores were included in the model

Fourth in order to examine whether DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES represent a

vulnerability factor independent of neuroticism participantsrsquo FFI-N scores were

entered in the model

Commonly used covariance structures in studies in which multiple responses

are obtained from the same individual over time (and consequently within-subject

15

residuals over time are likely to be correlated) include compound symmetry first-order

autoregressive heterogeneous autoregressive and banded Toeplitz In order to select

one of these covariance structures for our analyses we fitted models using each

structure and chose the ldquobestrdquo fit based on Akaike information criterion (AIC and

AICC) and Schwarz Bayesian criterion (BIC) In all cases the best fit for our data was

a first-order heterogeneous autoregressive structure (ARH [1]) After choosing the

appropriate covariance structure we next examined the random-effects component of

our model

With respect to random effects the ARH [1] parameter (r = 31 plt001)

RE_INTERCEPT (plt001) and RE_SLOPE (plt001) were each significant and thus

were retained in the model The final results with respect to the fixed-effects

component of the model are presented in the upper section of Table 3 Of primary

importance the DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES STRESS interaction was a

significant predictor of fluctuations in depressive symptoms during the follow-up

interval In order to examine the form of this interaction the model summarized in the

upper section of Table 3 was used to calculate predicted CES-D scores for individuals

exhibiting either high or low levels of dysfunctional attitudes (plus or minus 15 SD)

who are experiencing either high or low levels of stress in comparison to their own

average level of stress (plus or minus 15 times mean within-subject SD) The results of

such calculations are presented in the left panel of Figure 1

Analyses were conducted for each DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES

condition examining whether the slope of the relationship between stress and

depressive symptoms significantly differed from 0 Analyses indicated that both

16

individuals exhibiting high (t(2459) = 862 p lt 0001) and low (t(2459) = 347 p lt

0001) levels of dysfunctional attitudes reported significantly higher levels of

depressive symptoms when experiencing high levels of stress than when experiencing

low levels of stress Planned comparisons of the slopes of the relationship between

stress and depressive symptoms however revealed that the slope was significantly

greater in individuals exhibiting high levels of dysfunctional attitudes (slope = 013)

than in individuals exhibiting low levels of dysfunctional attitudes (slope = 005

t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)

Prospective Diathesis-Stress Analyses - Anxiety

The same data-analytic approach as described above was used to examine

whether higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes would be associated with greater

increases in anxious symptoms following increases in stress Again in order to examine

whether DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES represent a vulnerability factor

independent of neuroticism participantsrsquo FFI-N scores were entered in the model

With respect to random effects the ARH[1] parameter (r = 23 p lt 001)



component of the model are presented in the lower section of Table 3 Of primary


significant predictor of within-subject fluctuations in anxious symptoms during the

follow-up interval In order to examine the form of this interaction the model

summarized in the lower section of Table 3 was used to calculate predicted MASQ

scores for individuals exhibiting either high or low levels of dysfunctional attitudes

17

(plus or minus 15 SD) who are experiencing either high or low levels of stress in

comparison to their own average level of stress (plus or minus 15 times mean within-

subject SD) The results of such calculations are presented on the right panel of in

Figure 1


condition examining whether the slope of the relationship between stress and anxious

symptoms significantly differed from 0 Analyses indicated that both individuals

exhibiting high (t(2470) = 768 p lt 0001) and low (t(2470) = 337 p lt 0001) levels of

dysfunctional attitudes reported higher levels of anxious symptoms when experiencing

high levels of stress than when experiencing low levels of stress Planned comparisons

of the slopes of the relationship between stress and anxious symptoms however

revealed that the slope was significantly greater in individuals exhibiting high levels of

dysfunctional attitudes (slope = 009) than in individuals exhibiting low levels of

dysfunctional attitudes (slope = 003 t(2470) = 278 p lt 001)

Additional Analyses

Given that the DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES STRESS interaction

prospectively predicted both symptoms of depression and anxiety two additional

analyses were conducted in order to examine (1) whether the DYSFUNCTIONAL

ATTITUDES STRESS interaction continued to be a significant predictor of within-

subject fluctuations in depressive symptoms after controlling for within-subject

fluctuations in anxious symptoms and (2) whether the DYSFUNCTIONAL

ATTITUDES STRESS interaction continued to predict within-subject fluctuations in

anxious symptoms after controlling for within-subject fluctuations in depressive

18

symptoms Such analyses allowed us to examine whether the above mentioned pattern

of findings may have been due to the high correlation observed in the current study

between depressive and anxious symptoms

Analyses were conducted in the same manner as described above with the

exception that an additional within-subject variable (ie DEPRESSION or ANXIETY)

was included in each model in order to control for within-subject fluctuations in the

alternate symptom With respect to the prediction of depressive symptoms the

DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES STRESS interaction remained a significant

predictor after controlling for within-subject fluctuations in anxious symptoms (β =

001 SE = 000 F = 410 p lt 05) With respect to the prediction of anxious

symptoms however the DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES STRESS interaction

was no longer a significant predictor after controlling for within-subject fluctuations in

depressive symptoms (β = 001 SE = 000 F = 148 p = 22)

DISCUSSION

The results of the current study provide support for the cross-cultural

applicability of Beckrsquos (1967 1983) cognitive theory to university students in Hunan

China More specifically consistent with hypotheses and with results obtained from

past research examining Beckrsquos cognitive theory in Western samples of university

students (Hankin et al 2004 Hankin et al 2005 Joiner et al 1999 Klocek et al

1997 Brown et al 1995) higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes were associated with

greater increases in depressive symptoms following increases in negative event

frequency during the six-month follow-up interval Given the considerable differences

between the current sample and Western samples in terms of demographic

19

characteristics and cultural factors such a finding strongly attests to the robustness of

Beckrsquos cognitive theory Moreover integrating the current findings with those obtained

in research examining Beckrsquos theory in other non-Western samples suggests that

Beckrsquos theory may represent a powerful explanatory model of the development of

depressive symptoms among individuals from diverse cultural settings For example

consistent with the theory higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes have been shown to

be associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms in Japanese (Tanaka et al

2006) Puerto-Rican (Bonilla Bernal Santos amp Santos 2003) Turkish (Sahin amp Sahin

1992) Norwegian (Chioqueta amp Stiles 2004) Singaporean (Oei Goh amp Kwon 1996)

and Swedish (Ohrt amp Thorell 1998) adult samples In addition it is important to note

that the current findings expand upon past correlational research examining the

association between dysfunctional attitudes and depression in Chinese samples through

the use of a multi-wave longitudinal design

When examining the specificity of dysfunctional attitudes as a predictor of

depressive symptoms the current study did not obtain support for specificity More

specifically contrary to the specificity hypothesis of Beckrsquos cognitive theory and to

results obtained in Western samples of university students (Alloy et al 2000 2006

Hankin et al 2004) higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes were associated with

greater increases in both depressive and anxious symptoms following increases in

negative event frequency There are two alternative ways of interpreting the non-

specificity finding observed in the current study First it is possible that the types of

thoughts individuals possessing high levels of dysfunctional attitudes experience

following negative events varies as a function of cultural context In other words in

20

Western samples such individuals may primarily experience the types of cognitions

that are associated with the development of depressive symptoms (ie appraisals of

personal loss and failure) In contrast in Chinese samples individuals possessing high

levels of dysfunctional attitudes may experience a wider array of cognitions some of

which are associated with the development of depressive symptoms and some of which

are associated with the development of anxious symptoms (ie evaluations of

impending threat or danger) Such an explanation would be consistent with Beckrsquos

cognitive content-specificity hypothesis (Clark amp Beck 1999) which posits that each

affective state and psychological disorder has a specific cognitive profile Second it is

possible that the types of symptoms individuals possessing high levels of dysfunctional

attitudes experience following negative events varies as a function of cultural context

More specifically it may be that dysfunctional attitudes specifically predict symptoms

of depression in both samples except that in Western samples depression manifests in

pure depressive symptoms whereas in Chinese samples depression manifests as a

combination of depressive and anxious symptoms Such an explanation would be

consistent with cultural psychopathologistsrsquo hypotheses that cultural factors shape the

phenomenology of psychiatric symptoms (Kleinman 2004 Mezzich et al 1999)

Moreover dysfunctional attitudes predicting a combination of depressive and anxious

symptoms in Chinese samples would be consistent with the construct of neurasthenia -

a construct hypothesized by some to represent a somatized form of depression that is

still widely seen within China (Lee amp Wong 1995)

Interesting in this regard and perhaps speaking to the primacy of depressive

symptoms in the current findings analyses indicated that the DYSFUNCTIONAL

21

ATTITUDES times STRESS interaction no longer predicted anxious symptoms after

controlling for depressive symptoms The reverse however was not true as the

DYSFUNCTIONAL ATTITUDES times STRESS interaction continued to predict

depressive symptoms after controlling for anxious symptoms

It is important to note that the current study employed a particularly

conservative approach to analyses in that we examined the effects of dysfunctional

attitudes on depressive and anxious symptoms after controlling for the effect of

neuroticism on such symptoms Providing particularly powerful support for Beckrsquos

(1967 1983) cognitive theory across analyses dysfunctional attitudes predicted levels

of depressive andor anxious symptoms experienced during the six month follow-up

interval independent of the effect of neuroticism Thus contrary to past critical reviews

of the cognitive literature (Barnett amp Gotlib 1998 Coyne amp Whiffen 1995) and

consistent with past findings (Hankin et al 2007) the current results indicate that

cognitive vulnerabilities to depression such as dysfunctional attitudes are not reducible

to trait neuroticism but rather represent factors that confer independent risk for

depression

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations of the current study should be noted First self-report

measures were used to assess depressive and anxious symptoms Although the CES-D

and MASQ both possess high degrees of reliability and validity it is difficult to draw

conclusions about clinically diagnosed depression or anxiety based on self-report

questionnaires Second self-report measures were used to assess stress Although

measures of stress that require participants only to indicate whether or not an event

22

occurred are less likely to be influenced by informant bias than those that ask

participants to rate the subjective impact of each event more sophisticated methods of

analysis such as interviewing procedures that assess contextual threat may provide

better assessments of stress Third the measures of dysfunctional attitudes stress and

depressive and anxious symptoms used in the current study were each Western-

developed Future research should examine these hypotheses using indigenous

measures in addition to Western-developed measures in order to assess possible

similarities andor differences in patterns of findings Fourth the current study only

examined depression and anxiety as symptom outcomes Future research conducted

within China should examine a wider array of symptom outcomes such as

somatization physical complaints and externalizing behaviors in order to provide a

more thorough and culturally sensitive test of the specificity hypotheses of Beckrsquos

cognitive model Fifth the current study examined the applicability of Beckrsquos (1967

1983) cognitive theory to Chinese undergraduate students and thus the extent to which

our findings may be generalized to other demographics within Chinarsquos population is

unclear Last the current study broadly examined the applicability of Beckrsquos (1967

1983) cognitive theory to Chinese university students Future research should examine

the constructs and processes posited by this model in greater detail in order to develop a

deeper understanding of how they may be uniquely molded by socio-cultural factors

Such research would benefit from examining the specific types of stressors experienced

by Chinese university students as they may vary as a function of socio-cultural factors

from those experienced by Western undergraduates For example severe pressure to

succeed academically in order to secure access to a limited number of post-

23

undergraduate educational opportunities - one of the few paths towards upward

mobility available to Chinese students seeking secure and gainful employment in what

has increasingly become a very highly competitive job market - may represent a

particularly salient stressor for the development of depressive symptoms among this

population (Qiang 2006)

In conclusion the results from the current study provide support for the

applicability of Beckrsquos cognitive theory to university students in mainland China More

specifically consistent with findings obtained in the West results indicate that

dysfunctional attitudes confer vulnerability to the development of depressive symptoms

following the occurrence of negative events in Chinese university students At the same

time however the current findings suggest cultural variation in the profile of

symptoms which emerge following the occurrence of negative events in cognitively

vulnerable individuals in Western and Chinese samples Specifically whereas in the

West dysfunctional attitudes have been shown to confer vulnerability to depressive

symptoms in Chinese university students dysfunctional attitudes appear to confer

vulnerability to a combined depressive and anxious symptom profile Future research

using more sophisticated assessments of stress and depressive symptoms more diverse

samples and symptom outcome measures and indigenously-developed measures is

likely to enhance our understanding of the cognitive and environmental mechanisms

underlying the development of depression in Chinese university students Discovering

that cognitive theories of vulnerability to depression extend to university students in

China highlights the potential role for cognitive-behavioral depression prevention and

treatment interventions in stemming the tide of distress experienced by this population

24

REFERENCES

Abela J R Z amp Hankin B L (2008) Cognitive vulnerability to depression in

children and adolescents A developmental psychopathology perspective In J

R Z Abela and B L Hankin (Eds) Handbook of child and adolescent

depression (pp 35-78) New York The Guilford Press

Alloy L B Abramson L Y Hogan M E Whitehouse W G Rose D T

Robinson MS Kim R S amp Lapkin J B (2000) The Temple-Wisconsin

cognitive vulnerability to depression project Lifetime history of axis-I

psychopathology in individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression

Journal of Abnormal Psychology 109 403-418

Alloy L B Abramson L Y Whitehouse W G Hogan M E Panzarella C amp

Rose D T (2006) Prospective incidence of first onsets and recurrences of

depression in individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression Journal

of Abnormal Psychology 115 145ndash156

Altham P M E (1984) Improving the precision of estimation by fitting a model

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 46 11

Barnett PA amp Gotlib I H (1988) Psychosocial functioning and depression

Distinguishing among antecedents concomitants and consequences

Psychological Bulletin 104 97-126

Beck AT (1967) Depression Clinical experimental and theoretical aspects New

York Harper amp Row

Beck AT (1983) Cognitive therapy of depression New perspectives In PJ Clayton

amp JE Barrett (Eds) Treatment of depression Old controversies and new

approaches New York Raven Press

Bian Q Yang K amp Li C (2007) Dysfunctional attitudes of patients with depression

or bipolar disorder Chinese Mental Health Journal 21 759-761

Blankstein K R amp Flett G L (1993) Development of the General Academic and

Social Hassles Scales for Students Unpublished manuscript

Bonilla J Bernal G Santos A amp Santos D (2003) A revised Spanish version of

the Beck Depression InventoryPsychometric properties with a Puerto Rican

sample of college students Journal of Clinical Psychology 60 119-130

Brown G P Hammen C L Craske M G amp Wickens T D (1995) Dimensions of

dysfunctional attitudes as vulnerabilities to depressive symptoms Journal of

Abnormal Psychology 104 431-435

25

Chioqueta A P amp Stiles T C (2004) Psychometric properties of the Norweigian

version of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (Form A) Cognitive Behaviour

Therapy 33 83-86

Clark DA amp Beck AT (1999) Cognitive theory and therapy of depression New

York John Wiley amp Sons Inc

Clark L A amp Watson D (1991) Tripartite model of anxiety and depression

Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications Journal of Abnormal

Psychology 100 316ndash336

Costa P T amp McCrae R R (1992) NEO PI-R Professional manual Revised NEO

personality inventory NEO PR-R and NEO five-factor inventory NEO-RRI

Odessa FL Psychological Assessment Resources

Coyne J C amp Whiffen V E (1995) Issues in personality as diathesis for depression

The case of sociotropy-dependency and autonomy-self-criticism Psychological

Bulletin 118 358-378

Fang X Qian M Luo S amp Zi F (2009) A correlational study on college students

perfectionism parental rearing patterns and mental health Chinese Mental

Health Journal 23 56-59

Hankin B L Abramson L Y Miller N amp Haeffel G (2004) Cognitive

vulnerability-stress theories of depression Examining affective specificity in

the prediction of depression versus anxiety in three prospective studies

Cognitive Therapy and Research 28 309ndash345

Hankin BL Fraley RC amp Abela JRZ (2005) Daily depression and cognitions

about stress Evidence for a traitlike depressogenic cognitive style and the

prediction of depressive symptoms in a prospective daily diary study Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 88 673-685

Hankin B L Lakdawalla Z Carter I L Abela J R Z amp Adams P (2007) Are

neuroticism cognitive vulnerabilities and self-esteem overlapping or distinct

risks for depression Evidence from confirmatory factor analyses Journal of

Social amp Clinical Psychology 26 29-63

Hankin B L Wetter E Cheely C amp Oppenheimer C W (2008) Becks cognitive

theory of depression in adolescence Specific prediction of depressive

symptoms and reciprocal influences in a multi-wave prospective study

International Journal of Cognitive Therapy 1 313-332

Ingram R E Miranda J amp Segal Z V (1998) Cognitive Vulnerability to

Depression New York NY Guilford Press

26

Ingram R E amp Luxton DD (2005) Vulnerability-stress models In BL Hankin amp

JRZ Abela (Eds) Development of psychopathology A vulnerability-stress

perspective (pp 32-46) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Joiner T E Metalsky G I Lew A amp Klocek J (1999) Testing the causal

mediation component of Becks theory of depression Evidence for specific

mediation Cognitive Therapy and Research 23 401-412

Kleinman A (2004) Culture and depression New England Journal of Medicine 351

951-953

Kleinman A (1977) Depression somatization and the new cross-cultural psychiatry

Social Science and Medicine 11 3-10

Kleinman A (1996) How is culture important for DSM-IV In J E Mezzich A

Kleinmam H Fabrega Jr amp L Delores (Eds)Culture and psychiatric

diagnosis A DSM-IV perspective (pp 15-25) Washington DC US American

Psychiatric Association

Klocek J W Oliver J M amp Ross M J (1997) The role of dysfunctional attitudes

negative life events and social support in the prediction of depressive

dysphoria A prospective longitudinal study Social Behavior and Personality

25 23-136

Lee S (1997) A Chinese perspective on somatoform disorders Journal of

Psychosomatic Disorders 43 115-119

Lee S (1998) Estranged bodies simulated harmony and misplaced cultures

Neurasthenia in contemporary Chinese society Psychosomatic Medicine 60

448ndash457

Lee S (1999) Diagnosis postponed Shenjing shuairo and the transformation of

psychiatry in post-Mao China Culture Medicine and Psychiatry 23 349ndash380

Lee S amp Wong K C (1995) Rethinking neurasthenia the illness concepts of

shenjing shuairuo among Chinese undergraduates in Honk Kong Culture

Medicine and Psychiatry 19 91ndash111

Lee S Tsang A Huang YQ He YL Liu ZR Zhang MY Shen YC amp

Kessler RC (2009) The epidemiology of depression in metropolitan China

Psychological Medicine 39 735-747

Mezzich J E Kirmayer L J Kleinman A Fabrega Jr H Parron D L Good B

J Lin K amp Manson S M (1999) The place of culture in DSM-IV Journal

of Nervous and Mental Disease 187 457-464

27

Monroe S M amp Simons A D (1991) Diathesisndashstress theories in the context of life

stress research Implications for the depressive disorders Psychological

Bulletin 110 406ndash425

Murray C J L amp Lopez A D (1996) The global burden of disease Cambridge

Harvard University Press

National Bureau of Statistics of China (2006) The China 2005 statistical yearbook

China Statistics Press Beijing PR China

Oei T P S Goh Y Kwon S M(1996) A cross-cultural study of the integrated

cognitive model of depression Current Psychology of Cognition 15 265-281

Ohrt T amp Thorell L (1998) Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS) Psychometrics and

norms of the Swedish version Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy 27

105-113

Parker G Gladstone G Chee KT (2001) Depression in the planetrsquos largest ethnic

group The Chinese American Journal of Psychiatry 158 857-864

Phillips M R Zhang J Shi Q Song Z Ding Z Pang S Li X Zhang Y amp

Wang Z (2009) Prevalence treatment and associated disability of mental

disorders in four provinces in China during 2001ndash05 an epidemiological

survey The Lancet 373 2041-2053

Phillips M R Li X amp Zhang Y (2002) Suicide rates in China Lancet 359 835-

840

Phillips M R (1998) The transformation of Chinarsquos mental health services The China

Journal 39 1ndash36

Qiang G (2006) Depression number one killer of Ivory Tower students China Daily

Retrieved from httpwwwchinadailycomcnchina2006-

1128content_744880htm

Radloff L S (1977) The CESndashD scale A self-report depression scale for research in

the general population Applied Psychological Measurement 1 385ndash401

Rin H amp Huang M G (1989) Neurasthenia as nosological dilemma Culture

Medicine and Psychiatry 13 215-226

Sahin NH amp Sahin N (1992) How dysfunctional are the dysfunctional attitudes in

another culture British Journal of Medical Psychology 65 17-26

Shixie L (1989) Neurasthenia in China Modern and traditional criteria for its

diagnosis Culture Medicine and Psychiatry 13 163-186

28

Tanaka N Uji M Hiramura H Chen Z Shikai N amp Kitamura T (2006)

Cognitive patterns and depression Study of a Japanese university student

population Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 60 358-364

Taylor R E (2001) Death of neurasthenia and its psychological reincarnation a study

of neurasthenia at the National Hospital for the Relief and Cure of the Paralysed

and Epileptic Queen Square London 1870ndash1932 British Journal of

Psychiatry 179 550ndash557

Weissman A N amp Beck A T (1978 April) Development and validation of the

Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale A preliminary investigation Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Educational Research Association Toronto Canada

Xiang M Z (1986) Epidemiological study of neuroses in 12 regions (districts) of

China Chinese Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry 19 87-91

Xu JM (1987) Some issues in the diagnosis of depression in China Canadian

Journal of Psychiatry 32 368-370

Xu Y X (1994) About ICD-10 Journal of Clinical Psychology and Medicine 4 224-

226

Xu Z Li Z amp Wang Z (2007) Dysfunctional attitudes and cognitive bias in major

depressive disorder Chinese Mental Health Journal 21 488-491

Yan H Q (1989) The necessity of retaining the diagnostic concept of neurasthenia

Culture Medicine and Psychiatry 13 139-145

Yang H (2007) The Test of the Chinese version of Frost Multi-dimensional

Perfectionism Scale Chinese Mental Health Journal 21 97-100

Yang H amp Zhang X (2004) Perfectionism and mental health of college students

(2004) Chinese Mental Health Journal 18 647-648

Young D (1989) Neurasthenia and related problems Culture Medicine and

Psychiatry 13 131-138

Zhang D (1995) Depression and culture A Chinese perspective Canadian Journal of

Counseling 29 227ndash233

29

TABLE(S)

Table 1 Demographic Variables

Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523

Parentsrsquo Marital Status Married

Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20

Fatherrsquos Job Unemployed

Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91

Motherrsquos Job Unemployed

Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134

Fatherrsquos Education Some Primary School

Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137

Motherrsquos Education Some Primary School

Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667

Monthly Income lt 1000 RMB

1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30

Table 2 Means Standard Deviations and Inter-correlations Between Time 1 Measures

__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________

1 Depressive Symptoms 2963 (780)

2 Anxious Symptoms 52 3753 (918)

3 Dysfunctional Attitudes 48 33 18120 (2304)

4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________

Note Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are on the diagonal Depressive

Symptoms = Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Anxious Symptoms

= Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire Overall Anxiety subscale Dysfunctional

Attitudes = Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale Neuroticism = NEO Five Factor Inventory

Neuroticism subscale p lt 01

31

Table 3 Dysfunctional Attitudes Predicting Within-Subject Fluctuations in CES-D

Scores (upper section) and MASQ Scores (lower section) during the Follow-Up

Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572

Dysfunctional Attitudes -055 040 -183 1572

Dysfunctional Attitudes times Stress 001 000 1078 12459

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________

Note Time 1 CES-D = Time 1 Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale

Stress = Within-Subject Fluctuations in General Academic Social Hassles Scale for

Students (GASHSS) scores during the follow-up interval Neuroticism = NEO Five

Factor Inventory Neuroticism subscale Dysfunctional Attitudes = Dysfunctional

Attitudes Scale Time 1 MASQ = Time 1 Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire

Overall Anxiety subscale p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001

32

FIGURES


symptoms (left panel) and anxious symptoms (right panel) as a function of

dysfunctional attitudes

20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress

High dysfunctional attitudes

Low dysfunctional attitudes

25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

ii

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

A Prospective Examination of Beckrsquos Cognitive Theory of Depression in University

Students in Mainland China

by DARREN STOLOW

Thesis Director

John R Z Abela PhD

The current multi-wave longitudinal study examined the applicability of Beckrsquos (1967

1983) cognitive theory of depression to university students in mainland China During an

initial assessment participants completed measures assessing dysfunctional attitudes and

depressiveanxious symptoms Participants subsequently completed measures assessing

negative events and depressiveanxious symptoms once a month for six months Results

provided support for the applicability of Beckrsquos cognitive theory to university students in

mainland China More specifically higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes were

associated with greater increases in depressive symptoms following the occurrence of

negative events At the same time contrary to findings obtained in Western samples

higher levels of dysfunctional attitudes were also associated with greater increases in

anxious symptoms following the occurrence of negative events These findings may

suggest that dysfunctional attitudes exhibit non-specificity as a predictor of depressive

symptoms in mainland China

iii

Table of Contents

Title Page i

Abstract ii









iv




Measures 28







1

INTRODUCTION

Depression in China




















mechanisms

2























3
























4





















5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

iii

Table of Contents

Title Page i

Abstract ii









iv




Measures 28







1

INTRODUCTION

Depression in China




















mechanisms

2























3
























4





















5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

iv




Measures 28







1

INTRODUCTION

Depression in China




















mechanisms

2























3
























4





















5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

1

INTRODUCTION

Depression in China




















mechanisms

2























3
























4





















5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

2























3
























4





















5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

3
























4





















5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

4





















5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

5
























6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

6
























7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

7
























8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

8















METHOD

Participants




(10336 RMB) out of




9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

9

Procedure















Measures








10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

10






















7 time points

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

11
























12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

12





13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

13

RESULTS

Descriptive Data






















14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

14
























15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

15








our model
















16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

16








t(2459) = 328 p = 0001)
















17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

17




Figure 1











Additional Analyses









18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

18














DISCUSSION










19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

19
























20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

20
























21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

21
















depression








22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

22
























23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

23
























24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

24

REFERENCES




















York Harper amp Row














25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

25



Therapy 33 83-86

































26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

26








951-953










25 23-136





448ndash457












27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

27












105-113








840


Journal 39 1ndash36












28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

28
















226













29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

29

TABLE(S)


Age 2011

Gender Male

Female

472

523


Divorced

Single

Remarried

938

23

18

20


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

Government Official

51

356

187

95

124

91


Farmer

Worker

Small Business

Professional

122

406

144

76

134


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

29

139

222

403

137


Primary School

Some High School

High School

University

63

192

264

350

76

Only Child No

Yes

331

667


1000 ndash 1500 RMB

1500 ndash 2000 RMB

2000 ndash 3000 RMB

3000 ndash 4000 RMB

4000 ndash 5000 RMB

gt 5000 RMB

334

204

175

140

59

20

20

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

30


__________________________________________________________________

1 2 3

__________________________________________________________________




4 Neuroticism 63 42 53 3110 (712)

_________________________________________________________________________






31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

31



Interval

______________________________________________________________________

β SE F df

______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 CESD-D 297 026 12987 1572

Stress 005 000 10860 12459

Neuroticism 134 027 2518 1572



______________________________________________________________________

Time 1 MASQ 502 033 23158 1575

Stress 006 000 8963 12470

Neuroticism 080 033 596 1575



______________________________________________________________________







32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

32

FIGURES




20

25

30

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

CE

S-D

sco

re

Level of stress



25

30

35

40

Low High

Pre

dic

ted

MA

SQ

sco

re

Level of stress



Intercept Intercept

A PROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION OF BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY OF

Documents

Transcript of A PROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION OF BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY OF