Testing a Revised Interpersonal Theory of Depression Using a Laboratory Measure of Excessive Reassurance Seeking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether core beliefs with themes of abandonment and rejection moderated the link between trait and behavioral excessive reassurance seeking (ERS) and interpersonal rejection. METHOD: = 1.24) levels of depression symptoms and their male romantic partners. Couples reported their depression, ERS, abandonment/rejection cognitions, and relationship quality. We also coded women's reassurance-seeking behavior during an audiotaped discussion task. RESULTS: Among women with high levels of depression symptoms and low levels of abandonment/rejection core beliefs, behavioral ERS was associated with lower partner-reported relationship quality. Self-reported ERS was significantly associated with partner relationship quality, but the effect was not moderated by depression or core beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: ERS is a potent predictor of stress and subsequent depression. Our findings underscore the need to better understand factors (e.g., cognitions, partner characteristics) that may determine whether ERS behaviors beget interpersonal stress and rejection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".