by Michael D. Anestis, M.S.
Every once in a while, researchers are faced with apparently paradoxical findings and are forced to rethink their approaches to particular ideas. Take, for instance, the role of social support in depression. It seems intuitively obvious and, in fact, research supports the idea that positive social relationships serve as a protective factor against emotional distress (Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hartup, 1996). On average, however, females reports closer relationships than do males (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994) and yet females are significantly more likely to develop depressive episodes than are males (Kessler et al., 1993). So, females have closer friendships and close friendships protect against depression, and yet women have much higher rates of depression. Seems problematic, right? Perhaps, but only if we think about the situation in such broad terms.
In response to this apparent empirical contradiction, several researchers, particularly Amanda Rose, have looked into why certain aspects of close friendships might actually serve as risk factors for depression. Their answer - co-rumination. Co-rumination is defined as the tendency to excessively discuss and revisit problems, speculate on problems, and focus on negative feelings (Rose, 2002). Much like the idea of self-focused rumination conceptualized by Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, co-rumination is a passive process in which little attention is given towards developing and enacting potential solutions to problems. Instead, the focus centers on explanations for the problem, emotional consequences of the problem, and the manner in which the problem relates to other troubling aspects of the lives of those who are co-ruminating.
Research on co-rumination has provided several important insights that might help to explain the apparent contradictory findings relative to relationships, biological sex, and vulnerability to depression. In her initial study on this topic, using a sample of 608 students in third, fifth, seventh, and ninth grade, Rose (2002) found that females co-ruminate more often than do males. Additionally, she reported that higher levels of co-rumination predicted greater friendship quality as well as higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. These findings indicate that, while females, on average, have higher quality, closer friendships, their conversations with friends tend to be more ruminative in nature than do the conversations between male friends and, as such, the protective nature of friendships might differ depending upon an individual's sex. The relationship between co-rumination and friendship quality, Rose indicated, makes sense in that, even if co-rumination is harmful emotionally, frequent self-disclosure and intense conversations will likely increase individuals' sense of closeness to one another.
Calmes and Roberts (2008) built off the Rose (2002) findings by examining these variables with greater specificity. Their sample was comprised of 345 students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of Buffalo and ranged in age from 18 to 45. They found that females report greater levels of co-rumination with their closest friend than do males, but that there are no sex differences in levels of co-rumination in other types of relationships (e.g., romantic relationships, roommates). Additionally, they found that co-rumination mediated the relationship between sex and both friendship quality and depressive symptoms. In other words, while females again reported higher levels of friendship quality and depressive symptoms than did males, these findings were statistically explained by co-rumination. Once the effects of co-rumination were accounted for, there was no longer a significant relationship between sex and friendship quality or depressive symptoms. This study, importantly, highlighted particular types of relationships that might contribute to problematic interpersonal behaviors.
In a follow-up to the original Rose (2002) study, Rose, Carlson, and Waller (2007) examined the role of co-rumination longitudinally. Their sample included 999 students and participants again were in either third, fifth, seventh, or ninth grade. Participants filled out a series of questionnaires on two separate occasions separated by six months, enabling the authors to examine whether the tendency to co-ruminate would predict changes in friendship quality and depressive symptoms. Females again reported greater levels of co-rumination than did males. Additionally, there was an interaction between grade level and sex predicting rumination, such that, for females, levels of co-rumination increased with age. This finding mirrors the emergence of sex differences in depression at the onset of adolescence (Clark & Ayers, 1993). The authors also reported that, for females, co-rumination predicted both an increase in friendship quality and depressive and anxiety symptoms, which in turn predicted increases in co-rumination. For males, however, co-rumination only predicted an increase in friendship quality.
The inclusion of only two time points does not make for an ideal longitudinal study; however, it provides an important initial glimpse of the impact of co-rumination across time. It appears that co-rumination might be more problematic for females than for males and that, because of the increase in self-reported friendship quality, females who co-ruminate might not be assessed for depression and anxiety because of they have what appears to be a strong support system. The authors note that future research needs to be done to determine why co-rumination appears more problematic for females than males. Some suggestions they offered included the possibility that females might assign self-blame for problems more often than do males, thus leading to depressing cognitions in response to co-rumination.
All of the above mentioned research relied upon self-report questionnaires for their findings. Although this does not diminish the importance of the findings, such methods rely on a variety of assumptions that mitigate confidence in their strength (e.g., did participants understand the question? did they answer honestly?). In a recent study by Byrd-Craven, Geary, Rose, and Ponzi (2008), however, this methodological weakness was addressed quite well. Their sample was comprised of 48 undergraduate females. The authors assigned participants to either a "problem talk" condition or a control condition. Participants in the problem talk condition were told to discuss a problem experienced by one of the participants. Participants in the control condition were told to design a recreation center. Prior to the experimental procedure, participants in both conditions filled out a series of questionnaires and provided saliva samples used to measure cortisol (stress hormone) levels. After a 17-minute discussion period, the friends in both conditions were then separated and given benign magazines to read for 15 minutes, thus allowing for a post-stressor measurement of cortisol levels that would allow for a measurement of peak stress hormone levels. The authors found that individuals in the problem talk condition experienced significant increases in cortisol levels, even when controlling for self-reported levels of co-rumination and pre-stressor levels of cortisol. Obviously, this experiment does not precisely mirror the process of co-rumination outside the lab; however, it does provide experimental evidence that simply talking about a problem can, at times, actually be problematic.
So what does this research ultimately tell us? The take-home point is not that talking about problems is, in and of itself, problematic. If that were the case, psychotherapy would always be iatrogenic. Instead, the point is that, when passively talking about problems without enacting solutions becomes a frequent component of a close friendship, the protective nature of friendships is diminished and, in fact, can essentially be reversed, serving as a vulnerability to depressive symptoms. This, in fact, is consistent with the research that indicates catharsis - relieving tension by "getting it out" - is not all it is cracked up to be, at least with respect to talking about problems. In fact, some believe that the reason certain "talk therapies" have not proven to be effective when tested empirically is that they simply encourage co-rumination between the therapist and the client rather than leading to the development and implementation of solutions capable of reducing symptoms.
There is clear evidence that close friendships are a vital protective factor against emotional difficulties, so these findings should not leave parents concerned about their children forging strong bonds with peers. At the same time, these findings do highlight the importance of developing a tendency to work towards solutions rather than simply dwelling upon problems. When a pattern is formed between close friends that involves repeatedly discussing upsetting situations, the friendship itself can, in fact, become a problem.
If you would like to learn more about rumination or depression, we recommend the following products, all of which can be found in our online store:
- Women Who Think Too Much: How to Break Free of Overthinking and Reclaim Your Life
- Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy Revised and Updated
- The Feeling Good Handbook
- The Mindful Way through Depression: Freeing Yourself from Chronic Unhappiness
- Handbook of Depression, Second Edition
Mike Anestis is a doctoral candidate in the clinical psychology department at Florida State University
Subscribe in a reader
