Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2013, pp.

424-445

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION

BOUCHARD AND SHIH

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION:

EXAMINATION OF INTERPERSONAL
PREDICTORS
Laura C. Bouchard and Josephine H. Shih
Saint Joseph’s University

Researchers have consistently found that women are twice as likely to be de-
pressed as men (as reviewed in Nolen-Hoeksema & Hilt, 2009). One possible
mechanism for this relationship is that women experience more interpersonal
stressful life events for which they played a part in their occurrence, a process
called stress generation (Hammen, 2003). The present study investigated two in-
terpersonal predictors of depression—neediness and co-rumination—as media-
tors of the relationship between gender and stress generation. It was hypothesized
that women would report higher levels of neediness and co-rumination, which
would in turn predict the greater occurrence of interpersonal stress generation.
Baseline levels of neediness and co-rumination were assessed in a sample of
college students (N = 364), and depressive symptoms and frequency of depen-
dent interpersonal stressors were assessed weekly for 8 weeks. Hierarchical linear
modeling was used to analyze gender differences and mediation models pre-
dicting stress generation. Both neediness and co-rumination explained women’s
higher levels of stress generation. These findings provide additional evidence sug-
gesting that the interpersonal domain is of particular importance when consider-
ing gender differences in stress processes and depression.

Two consistent findings in depression research are (1) women are

twice as likely to develop depression and experience depressive
symptoms than men (e.g., Kessler et al., 2003; reviewed in Nolen-
Hoeksema & Hilt, 2009) and (2) stressful life events play a role in the

Address correspondence to Laura C. Bouchard, who is now at University of Miami,

Department of Psychology, 5665 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Flipse Building Room 431, Coral
Gables, FL 33143; E-mail: lbouchard@psy.miami.edu.

© 2013 Guilford Publications, Inc.

424
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 425

onset of depression (e.g., Brown & Harris, 1978). Recent works have
demonstrated that women experience more stressful life events
than men (e.g., Barker, 2007; Davila, Bradbury, Cohan, & Tochluk,
1997; Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Shih, Eberhart, Hammen, & Bren-
nan, 2006). Moreover, women have been shown to be more reactive
to stress than men (Rudolph & Flynn, 2007; Shih et al., 2006) such
that women are more likely than men to be depressed in reaction to
stressful life events (Kessler & McLeod, 1984; Leadbeater, Blatt, &
Quinlan, 1995; Rudolph & Flynn, 2007; Shih et al., 2006).
Moving beyond the study of the impact of stress on depression,
researchers have noted the importance of considering the trans-
actional relationship between depression and stress in which the
consequences of an individual’s behaviors may also contribute to
further exposure to stress and exacerbate and/or maintain depres-
sive symptoms (Hammen, 1991; Hammen, 2006; Hammen & Shih,
2008; Liu & Alloy, 2010). Hammen (1991) demonstrated a stress gen-
eration effect such that when compared to healthy women, unipo-
lar depressed women experienced more dependent stress, defined
as events to which the individual played a part in its occurrence.
Notably, Hammen (1991) did not find differences in number of in-
dependent stressful events experienced by the different groups of
women. Rather, the difference in stress experiences seemed to occur
in the domain of controllable (dependent) stress. Research consider-
ing gender has found that women engage in stress generation more
than men (Davila et al., 1997; Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Shih et al.,
2006), meaning women are more likely than men to partially con-
tribute to the very stressors that put them at risk of further depres-
sion. It is important to explore why this might be the case.
Recently, studies have found that even in the absence of a de-
pressive episode, vulnerabilities of depression may contribute to
stress generation (e.g., as reviewed in Hammen & Shih, 2008). For
example, researchers have found support for neuroticism (Poulton
& Andrews, 1992), rumination (Flynn, Kecmanovic, & Alloy, 2010),
and co-rumination (Hankin, Stone, & Wright, 2010) contributing to
stress generation in the absence of a depressive episode. Moreover,
Shih (2006) found that the interpersonal vulnerability sociotropy
predicted generation of interpersonal events in women but not
men. Similarly, Eberhart and Hammen (2009) found that anxious
attachment significantly predicted romantic conflict stressors in
women. As indicated by these studies, researchers have begun to
examine vulnerabilities of depression as predictors of stress genera-
426 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

tion, particularly interpersonal vulnerabilities, for several reasons.

First, women are generally more interpersonally oriented than men
(Cross & Madson, 1997; McBride, Bacchiochi, & Bagby, 2005), and
researchers have proposed that this greater interpersonal orienta-
tion likely explains the gender difference in depression (Blatt & Ma-
roudas, 1992; Leadbeater et al., 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus,
1994). Additionally, women experience more interpersonal stress
than men (e.g., Kessler & McLeod, 1984; Rudolph & Hammen, 1999;
Shih et al., 2006), which in turn has been shown to predict increased
rates of depression (Rudolph & Hammen, 1999) and distress (Liu
& Kaplan, 1999). Finally, Hammen (1991) noted that the majority
of the dependent stressors in the seminal stress generation study
were interpersonal in nature. In an attempt to explain the gender
difference in stress generation, the current study identified two in-
terpersonal predictors of depression as potential predictors of stress
generation: neediness and co-rumination.
Researchers from different theoretical orientations have con-
verged upon the personality construct dependency as a vulner-
ability factor for depression (Coyne & Whiffen, 1995). Individuals
who score highly on dependency are characterized by severe and
persistent fears of abandonment, the need to be physically close
to need-gratifying others, and the desire to be “loved, cared for,
nurtured, and protected by others” (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992, p. 582).
However, while some studies have found dependency to predict
stress generation (Eberhart & Hammen, 2009, 2010), others have not
(Shih, Abela, & Starrs, 2009). A possible explanation for these mixed
findings is the use of general dependency by some researchers as a
predictor of stress generation. Research suggests that dependency
consists of two subfactors—neediness and connectedness (Alden &
Bieling, 1996; Blatt, Zohar, Quinlan, Zuroff, & Mongrain, 1995; Rude
& Burnham, 1995)—and parsing out these subfactors may allow for
a clearer relationship with stress generation to emerge. Neediness is
considered the maladaptive form of dependency and is character-
ized by anxiety, self-consciousness, vulnerability, unassertiveness,
and inactivity. Alternatively, connectedness is considered more
adaptive and is characterized by anxiety as well as warmth, agree-
ableness, and valuing of relationships (Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff,
Lecce, & Hui, 2006). It is possible that neediness is the mechanism
driving the potential relationship between interpersonal depen-
dency and stress generation. Consistent with this hypothesis, pre-
vious research by Eberhart and Hammen (2009, 2010) found that
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 427

love dependency, a construct related to neediness, was associated

with interpersonal stress in samples of women, whereas research
by Shih et al. (2009) found no such relationship when examining
general dependency. In an effort to explain these mixed findings,
and extending the previous work of Eberhart and Hammen (2009,
2010), the present study examined neediness as a predictor of stress
generation in the context of gender.
In addition to interpersonal orientation, researchers (e.g. Rose,
2002) have begun to focus on a dyadic ruminative process called
co-rumination as a vulnerability factor for depression. Co-rumina-
tion refers to a dyadic process in which an individual engages in
excessively discussing personal problems with another individual.
Such a process involves “discussing the same problem repeatedly,
mutual encouragement of discussing problems, speculating about
problems, and focusing on negative feelings” (Rose, 2002; p. 1830).
In the first empirical test of this construct, Rose (2002) found that
adolescent girls co-ruminated more than boys, and that co-rumina-
tion predicted increased internalizing symptoms. Since then, multi-
ple researchers have replicated the gender difference in co-rumina-
tion in samples of adolescents (Rose, 2002; Stone, Hankin, Gibb, &
Abela, 2011; Tompkins, Hockett, Abraibesh, & Witt, 2011; Waller &
Rose, 2010) and adults (Calmes & Roberts, 2008). The link between
co-rumination and depressive symptomatology has also been rep-
licated (Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007; Starr & Davila, 2009). Recent
work by Stone, Uhrlass, and Gibb (2010) has demonstrated that con-
current high levels of co-rumination predict lifetime history of di-
agnosable depressive episodes in adolescent girls, even while con-
trolling for current depressive symptoms. In terms of stress, Han-
kin et al. (2010) demonstrated that co-rumination predicted stress
generation, which in turn predicted higher levels of internalizing
symptoms in a sample of adolescents. However, Hankin et al. did
not examine gender differences in their model. The present study
integrated and extended these lines of research by examining co-
rumination as a mediator of the relationship between gender and
stress generation.
In summary, stress processes have been implicated as an impor-
tant factor in understanding the gender difference in rates of de-
pression (Nolen-Hoeksema & Hilt, 2009). Moreover, there is evi-
dence that women may experience more interpersonal stress than
men (e.g., Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Shih et al., 2006). The present
study examined (1) whether women experienced more interper-
428 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

sonal dependent stressful life events compared to men, (2) whether

the interpersonal vulnerability factors neediness and co-rumination
are associated with higher levels of dependent stressful events, and
(3) whether neediness and co-rumination are mediators and explain
why women experience higher levels of dependent interpersonal
stressful life events. To properly demonstrate the stress generation
effect (Hammen, 1991), it was proposed that the model would be
supported for dependent stressful life events but not independent
life events, in effect demonstrating that controllable (dependent)
stressors vary as a function of the present predictors, whereas un-
controllable (independent) stressors do not.

METHODS
Participants

Four hundred and seven participants (177 males, 230 females)

agreed to participate in this study. Of these participants, 364 (156
males, 208 females) provided the minimum data necessary for
lagged multi-level modeling analyses (i.e., four consecutive weeks
of complete data for hierarchical linear modeling). Participants
were college students at a private mid-Atlantic university who vol-
untarily signed up for the study. Participants were told the study
would examine weekly stress in college students, and received par-
tial credit in a psychology course for their participation. Of the final
sample (n = 364), 25.80% were freshmen, 32.40% were sophomores,
20.30% were juniors, 20.30% were seniors, 0.80% were fifth year stu-
dents, and 0.30% identified as Other. The mean age of the sample in
years was 19.66 (SD = 1.25). The sample was predominantly Cau-
casian (89.60%) with 4.40% Hispanic/Latino, 3.00% Black/African
American, 2.20% Asian/Asian American/South Asian, 0.50% Na-
tive American, and 0.30% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.
Participants who did not provide the minimum data necessary for
multi-level modeling analyses (n = 43) were not significantly differ-
ent from participants included in the analyses (n = 364) in terms of
gender, c2(1, 407) = .56, p = .454, year in college, c2(5, 407) = 5.44, p
= .245, or age t(405) = -.76, p = .447. However, participants who did
not provide the minimum data necessary for analyses were more
likely to identify as Black/African American (13.95%) than those
who did (3.02%), c2(5, 407) = 13.33, p = .020. On average, partici-
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 429

pants completed 7.29 weeks of weekly diaries (SD = 1.08) with a

compliance rate of 91%.

Procedure

This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review

Board. Participants were recruited from the undergraduate psy-
chology participant pool. Students in introductory level psychol-
ogy courses had the opportunity to read a short description of the
study and decide if they were interested in participating. Interested
students signed up for the study online and were taken to an in-
formed consent page. Immediately following consent, participants
completed a preliminary survey, which assessed mood and levels
of neediness and co-rumination. The first of eight weekly stress and
mood inventories began the following Sunday evening. Participants
received emails every Sunday evening at 5pm for eight weeks with
links to the weekly surveys. Each weekly survey assessed mood
and frequency of stressful life events for the week. Students were
given the opportunity to complete the survey until 10am Monday
morning.

Measures

Depressed Mood. The Beck Depression Inventory—Second Edition

(BDI-II; Beck, Steer, Ball, & Ranieri, 1996) consists of 21 groups of
statements scaled from 0–3 that assess depressive symptoms. The
BDI-II items reflect mood and cognitive symptoms of depression
such as sadness, pessimism, and worthlessness. Higher scores indi-
cate greater depressive symptomatology. The Cronbach’s alpha for
the present sample was .84.
Neediness. The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt,
D’Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976) was used to measure neediness. The
DEQ consists of 66 items reflecting feelings about the self and in-
terpersonal relationships. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) along three
factors—Dependency, Self-Criticism, and Efficacy. The dependency
subscale consists of items that refer to interpersonal relationships
and themes of concern about abandonment, feeling lonely and
helpless, of wanting to be close to and dependent on others, and of
430 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

avoiding hurting or offending others for fear of losing their gratifi-

cation. Scores on the dependency factor were calculated using the
weights derived from Blatt et al.’s (1976) sample as recommended
by Zuroff, Quinlan, and Blatt (1990), and the neediness sub-scale
was calculated based on Rude and Burnham’s (1995) factor analysis
of the dependency items. The neediness factor consists of 11 items
that reflect feelings of anxiety about being alone and of being criti-
cized (e.g., I become frightened when I feel alone). High positive
scores indicate high levels of neediness, and high negative scores
indicate low levels of neediness. In the present sample, the Cron-
bach’s alpha of the Dependency scale was .71 and .62 for the needi-
ness items.
Co-Rumination. The Co-Rumination Questionnaire (Rose, 2002)
was used to assess participants’ tendencies to co-ruminate in re-
sponse to distress. The measure consists of 27 items with three items
assessing each of nine content areas: (1) frequency of problem dis-
cussion, (2) tendency to talk about problems rather than doing other
activities, (3) how much the adolescent encourages her friends to
discuss problems, (4) how much the adolescent’s friends encourage
her to discuss problems, (5) tendency to repeatedly revisit the same
problems, (6) debate about potential causes of problems, (7) esti-
mating the consequences of problems, (8) speculation about aspects
of the problem that are not understood, and (9) heightened focus on
negative emotions. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from
1 (not at all true) to 5 (really true). The mean score of all 27 items is
taken to compute an overall co-rumination score, with higher scores
indicating a greater tendency to co-ruminate. The present sample
yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .96.
Stressful Life Events. A stressful life events checklist was developed
from the Negative Life Events Questionnaire (NLEQ; Metalsky &
Joiner, 1992) and the Life Events Scale (LES; Sarason, Johnson, &
Siegel, 1978). The NLEQ is a 66-item checklist covering several cat-
egories of events (e.g., school, work, family, romantic partner, etc.)
developed specifically for use with college students. Some items
are rated based on a scale from A (rarely) to E (always), and oth-
ers are rated as a simple yes/no. The NLEQ was modified in the
present study such that items taken from the NLEQ were scored as
a frequency count, and items representing chronic stressors were
re-worded to capture onset of events (e.g., “Family member has life
threatening illness” was re-worded to “Found out this week that
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 431

family member has life threatening illness”). Additionally, many

questions in the NLEQ assess the same interaction with different
groups of people. Such groups of questions were combined into
one, and participants were asked to report the incidence of the event
based on interactions with all relevant groups of people (e.g., I was
rejected or excluded by others; parents, family, friends, roommate,
significant other, classmate, etc.) in the present study.
The LES is a 68-item questionnaire, and participants are asked to
indicate which events occurred to them during the previous week
(Sarason et al., 1978). Five independent stressful items (e.g., Wit-
nessed an accident or act of violence) were taken from the LES in
order to balance the amount of dependent and independent stress-
ful events on the final checklist.
The final modified Stressful Life Events Checklist consists of 39
items capturing events concerning school, work, finances, family,
friends, and romantic life. Participants were asked to indicate the
number of times each event occurred during the past week. Two
raters independently coded the Stressful Life Events Checklist
items along two criteria—whether each event was dependent/in-
dependent and interpersonal/noninterpersonal in nature. Kappa
statistics for the dependent/independent and interpersonal/nonin-
terpersonal criteria were both .78. The independent raters consulted
with an expert coder (JS) to discuss the classification of items initial-
ly disputed until all 39 items were classified and agreed upon by all
raters. Raw frequency scores of each item were re-coded on a scale
from 0–5, with a frequency of 5 representing a stressor that occurred
5 or more times. The frequencies of the 19 events identified as both
dependent and interpersonal in nature were summed to create the
dependent interpersonal stress variable.

RESULTS
Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations for study variables are

presented in Table 1. For the dependent interpersonal stress and
independent stress variables, which were measured weekly, the
mean across the 8 weeks was used in these descriptive analyses.
The weekly dependent interpersonal stress variable was associated
with baseline BDI, neediness, and co-rumination scores, whereas
432 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations for All Study Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Baseline BDI - 0.36** 0.08 0.31** 0.03 0.25**
2. Baseline Neediness - 0.29** 0.25** 0.11* 0.21**
3. Baseline Co-Rumination - 0.18** 0.06 0.11*
4. Weekly Dependent Interpersonal
Stressors - 0.49** 0.90**
5. Weekly Independent Stressors - 0.58
6. Weekly Total Stress -
Mean 8.45 0.20 2.43 3.03 0.31 3.38
Standard Deviation 6.73 0.67 0.81 3.35 0.86 4.48
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01

the weekly independent stress variable was only associated with

baseline neediness.

Overview of Analyses

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002)

was utilized for its ability to examine both within-subject and be-
tween-subject differences simultaneously within a regression and
for correcting for nonindependence in the weekly survey results.
Level-1 models estimated relationships among within-subject
variables that were collected weekly. In the present study, Level-1
models estimated the average number of dependent interpersonal
stressful life events, controlling for the effect of passage of time,
prior week’s depressive symptoms, and prior week’s total stress.
Level-2 models regressed the intercept of Level-1 models (i.e., aver-
age levels of stressful dependent interpersonal events) on between-
subject variables (i.e., gender, neediness, co-rumination). Because
the dependent variable was a frequency count, all analyses utilized
a Poisson constant exposure distribution (Raudenbush & Bryk,
2002) and reported relative risk, exp(b), rather than the standardized
coefficient, β. In order to determine the unique effects of the study
predictors on dependent interpersonal stress, week number, previ-
ous week’s BDI score, and previous week’s total stress frequency
were entered as covariates to control for passage of time, mood,
and chronic stressors’ effects on stress generation. By controlling for
prior week’s total stress, we also controlled for a potential cascade
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 433

of stressful events occurring as a result of a single stressor—for ex-

ample, a single car crash causing additional stressors (e.g., interper-
sonal conflict, financial stress) in a subsequent week. Previous week
total stress did, in fact, predict subsequent dependent interpersonal
stress, exp(b) = 1.01, SE = 0.01, t(2185) = 5.28, p < .001, 95% CI [.99,
1.03].

Gender Differences in Stress Generation

Analyses of the relationships between gender and stress variables

examined whether gender predicted dependent interpersonal stress
and/or independent stress. The following equation depicts the hi-
erarchical linear models that examined whether gender predicted
dependent interpersonal stress:

Level-1 Model:

Weekly Dependent Interpersonal Stress = r0 + r1(BDIPW) + r2(Time)

+ r3(Total StressPW) + ε

Level-2 Model:

r0 = b00 + b01(Gender) + u0

Gender significantly predicted weekly dependent interpersonal

stress, exp(b) = 1.67, SE = .14, t(360) = 3.72, p < .001, 95% CI [1.25,
2.17], with women reporting a higher number of dependent inter-
personal stressors than men.
In order to test for the presence of a true stress generation effect,
the impact of gender on independent stress was also examined.
The same models were estimated substituting weekly independent
stress as the outcome variable. In support of the stress generation
effect, gender did not predict weekly independent stress, exp(b) =
.97, SE = .17, t(360) = -.16, p = .873, 95% CI [.70, 1.35].

Interpersonal Vulnerabilities as Mediators

Next, we tested whether the interpersonal vulnerability factors of

neediness and co-rumination mediated higher levels of dependent
interpersonal stress for women. Baron and Kenny (1986) outlined
434 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

four relationships that must be demonstrated in order to support

mediation. (1) Women report higher levels of dependent interper-
sonal stress compared to men, (2) women report higher levels of
neediness/co-rumination, (3) higher levels of neediness/co-ru-
mination predict higher levels of dependent interpersonal stress,
controlling for gender, and (4) the relationship between gender
and dependent interpersonal stress from Step 1 should be reduced
when controlling for neediness/co-rumination. Finally, a Sobel test
was used to confirm that any reduction in the relationship between
Steps 1 and 4 was statistically significant, thus supporting the vari-
able as a mediator.
Neediness. Because all proposed mediation models involved a
mediation of the relationship between gender and dependent in-
terpersonal stress, the first step of the mediation model (Do women
report higher levels of dependent interpersonal stress than men?)
has already been demonstrated above, exp(b) = 1.67, SE = .14, t(360)
= 3.72, p < .001, 95% CI [1.25, 2.17]. To test the second step of the
mediation model (Do women report higher levels of neediness than
men?), a linear regression was conducted. The linear regression re-
vealed gender as a significant predictor of neediness, b = .20, SE =
.07, t(362) = 3.91, p < .001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.34]. The third (Do higher
levels of neediness predict greater frequency of dependent interper-
sonal stressors when controlling for gender?) and fourth steps (Do
women still reporter higher levels of dependent interpersonal stress
than men after controlling for neediness?) of the mediation model
were tested using the following equation:

Level-1 Model:

Weekly Dependent Interpersonal Stress = r0 + r1(BDIPW) + r2(Time)

+ r3(Total StressPW) + ε

Level-2 Model:

r0 = b00 + b01(Neediness) + b02(Gender) + u0

Step 3 of the mediation model was supported: controlling for gen-

der, higher levels of neediness predicted greater frequency of de-
pendent interpersonal stress, exp(b) = 1.46, SE = .10, t(359) = 3.58, p
= .001, 95% CI [1.13, 1.74]. Step 4 of the mediation model revealed
that while controlling for the effects of neediness, the relationship
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 435

TABLE 2. Mediation Analyses - Neediness

95% CI
exp(b) b SE LL UL t p
Step 1 1.67 - 0.14 1.25 2.17 3.72 < .001
Gender -> Dep Int Stress
Step 2 - 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.34 3.91 < .001
Gender -> Neediness
Step 3 1.46 - 0.10 1.13 1.74 3.72 < .001
Neediness -> Dep Int Stress
Controlling for Gender
Step 4 1.52 - 0.14 1.15 1.98 3.00 0.003
Gender -> Dep Int Stress
controlling for Neediness
Note. Dep Int Stress = Dependent Interpersonal Stress

between gender and dependent interpersonal stress was reduced

from exp(b) = 1.67, SE = .14, t(360) = 3.72, p < .001, 95% CI [1.25, 2.17]
in Step 1 to exp(b) = 1.52, SE = .14, t(359) = 3.00, p = .003, 95% CI [1.15,
1.98] in Step 4. A Sobel test further confirmed that the mediation
effect for neediness was statistically significant (z = 2.63, p = .009).
Each step of these analyses is presented in Table 2.
Co-Rumination. As before, Step 1 of the mediation model (Do
women report greater dependent interpersonal stress than men?)
has already been demonstrated above, exp(b) = 1.67, SE = .14, t(360)
= 3.72, p < .001, 95% CI [1.25, 2.17]. A linear regression revealed that
Step 2 of the mediation model (Do women report higher levels of
co-rumination than men?) was significant, b = .23, SE = .08, t(362)
= 4.46, p < .001, 95% CI [.07, .39]. Similar to the HLM analyses con-
ducted to test neediness as a mediator, the same equations were es-
timated substituting co-rumination for neediness for Steps 3 and 4.
Step 3 of the mediation model was supported: controlling for gen-
der, higher levels of co-rumination predicted greater frequency of
dependent interpersonal stress, exp(b) = 1.28, SE = .08, t(359) = 3.10,
p = .003, 95% CI [1.10, 1.50]. Step 4 of the mediation model revealed
that while controlling for the effects of co-rumination, the relation-
ship between gender and dependent interpersonal stress was re-
duced from exp(b) = 1.67, SE = .14, t(360) = 3.72, p < .001, 95% CI
[1.25, 2.17] in Step 1 to exp(b) = 1.51, SE = .14, t(359) = 2.96, p = .004,
95% CI [1.15, 1.98] in Step 4. A Sobel test confirmed that the media-
436 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

TABLE 3. Mediation Analyses - Co-Rumination

95% CI
exp(b) b SE LL UL t p
Step 1 1.65 - 0.14 1.25 2.16 3.72 < .001
Gender -> Dep Int Stress
Step 2 - 0.23 0.08 0.07 0.39 4.46 < .001
Gender -> Co-Rumination
Step 3 1.28 - 0.08 1.10 1.50 3.10 0.003
Co-Rumination -> Dep Int Stress
controlling for Gender
Step 4 1.51 - 0.14 1.15 1.98 2.96 0.004
Gender -> Dep Int Stress
controlling for Co-Rumination
Note. Dep Int Stress = Dependent Interpersonal Stress

tion effect for co-rumination was statistically significant (z = 2.56, p

= .011). Each step of these analyses is presented in Table 3.

DISCUSSION

The present study utilized a weekly-assessment design to examine

the mediating effects of two interpersonal vulnerabilities of depres-
sion—neediness and co-rumination—on the relationship between
gender and stress generation. It was hypothesized that women
would experience higher levels of dependent interpersonal stress-
ful life events during the study period because women would re-
port higher levels of both neediness and co-rumination compared to
men. The mediation models were supported for both interpersonal
vulnerability factors, supporting both neediness and co-rumination
as partial mediators of the gender difference in stress generation.
The present study found a gender difference in interpersonal
stress generation such that women reported greater frequency of
dependent interpersonal stressors than men. This is consistent
with previous literature, which has demonstrated this gender dif-
ference in both adolescent (Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Shih et al.,
2006) and adult (Davila et al., 1997) samples. Additionally, in order
to adequately address the stress generation component of the hy-
potheses, independent stressors were examined. Gender was not
a significant predictor of independent stress, which demonstrated
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 437

the specificity of the current findings to dependent interpersonal

stressors. Women’s experiencing more interpersonal stress genera-
tion is particularly important when considering the negative out-
comes of increased stress, as it has been proposed that stress genera-
tion may play a role in the maintenance of depression (Hammen,
1991; Rudolph & Flynn, 2007; Shih et al., 2006). Further, even in the
absence of a depressive episode, vulnerabilities to depression have
been shown to predict increased dependent interpersonal stress (as
reviewed in Hammen & Shih, 2008), which in turn puts individuals
at risk of depression.
One hypothesis for why women experience more dependent
interpersonal stress compared to men is the greater interpersonal
orientation of women. In line with this notion, the present study’s
examination of two interpersonal vulnerability factors revealed a
gender difference such that women reported higher levels of needi-
ness and co-rumination. Thus, consistent with previous literature,
women in the present sample were more interpersonally oriented
than men in terms of both neediness and co-rumination. What’s
more, these higher levels of interpersonal vulnerabilities were as-
sociated with higher numbers of dependent interpersonal stressful
life events.
The present study contributed to the existing literature examining
the relationship between neediness and stress generation (i.e., Eber-
hart & Hammen 2009, 2010). Notably, the present study was the first
to consider this relationship in the context of gender, allowing for
the support of (1) the notion that women generally score higher on
neediness than men, and (2) the consequences women experience
as a result of having higher levels of neediness than men. Addition-
ally, the present study sought to explore one possibility as to why
previous research considering general dependency and its relation-
ship to stress generation has been mixed. Some studies have found
a relationship between dependency and stress generation (Eberhart
& Hammen, 2009, 2010), while others have not (Shih et al., 2009).
One possibility for this inconsistency is that previous studies did
not examine the unique contributions of neediness and connected-
ness dependency. Thus, the present study teased apart neediness
and connectedness’ unique contributions to general dependency,
and focused on the more maladaptive construct of neediness. Re-
sults indicate neediness as a predictor of stress generation, and also
that women’s higher levels of neediness contribute to the gender
difference in stress generation.
438 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

The second interpersonal mediator examined in the present study

was co-rumination. This study was the first to date to specifically
examine co-rumination as a predictor of stress generation while
considering gender differences. Consistent with previous research,
a gender difference emerged in co-rumination such that women re-
ported higher levels of co-rumination than men (Calmes & Roberts,
2008; Hankin et al., 2010; Rose, 2002; Waller & Rose, 2010). This gen-
der difference in co-rumination has been proposed by Rose (2002)
to play a role in why adolescent girls have higher rates of depres-
sion than boys (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994). Thus, it is pos-
sible that girls’ increased levels of co-rumination may be associated
with girls’ increased rates of depression. Indeed, in a 5-month pro-
spective study of middle school aged children, Hankin et al. (2010)
demonstrated that co-rumination predicted greater stress genera-
tion that in turn predicted higher levels of internalizing symptoms.
However, although data was collected from both male and female
students, the researchers did not examine potential gender differ-
ences in co-rumination. As such, the present study replicated the
finding that co-rumination predicted greater stress generation, and
extended the previous results by considering the role of gender. Ad-
ditionally, the present study serves as an extension of previous re-
search, which has typically focused on samples of adolescents (e.g.,
Hankin et al., 2010; Rose, 2002; Waller & Rose, 2010; for exceptions
see Calmes & Roberts, 2008; Ciesla et al., 2011). Extending the ex-
amination of co-rumination to a sample of college students has pro-
vided support that co-rumination and the gender difference therein
is relevant to age groups beyond adolescence.
The present co-rumination findings have interesting implications
when considering clinical applications. Apart from predicting de-
pression (Rose et al., 2007; Starr & Davila, 2009) and stress genera-
tion (Hankin et al., 2010), co-rumination is also conceptualized as a
form of self-disclosure, which is linked to adaptive emotional close-
ness (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994). In line with this conceptu-
alization, co-rumination predicts positive friendship quality (Rose
et al., 2007; Starr & Davila, 2009). Co-rumination as a predictor of
interpersonal stress generation, therefore, is particularly intriguing.
It seems that while engaging in co-rumination may make an indi-
vidual feel emotionally close to a friend, it also leads to the occur-
rence of increased dependent interpersonal stress. This finding in-
dicates that social support processes, such as close friendships, may
not always be helpful. Clinicians would benefit by considering the
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 439

potential negative affects of close interpersonal relationships held

by patients, particularly those who score highly on co-rumination.
While the current findings on neediness and co-rumination sug-
gest that these variables warrant additional attention from research-
ers, it is also noted that both neediness and co-rumination only par-
tially mediated the gender difference in stress generation. That is,
when controlling for their unique effects, the relationship between
gender and stress generation remained significant. This is not to say
that the impact of neediness and co-rumination is negligible. Rather,
these findings highlight the need for additional mechanisms to be
explored. It is likely that the gender difference in stress generation
is driven by multiple factors and no one variable will fully medi-
ate or explain the gender difference in stress generation. Other in-
terpersonal variables that may potentially help explain the gender
difference in stress generation include behaviors such as excessive
reassurance seeking (ERS; Joiner, 2000) and negative feedback seek-
ing (NFS; e.g., Casbon, Burns, Bradbury, & Joiner, 2004). Further-
more, while interpersonal vulnerability factors are likely mediators,
noninterpersonal vulnerability factors (e.g., neuroticism or rumina-
tion) may also explain gender differences in the interpersonal stress
generation effect. The current study findings of partial mediation
highlight the need to consider multiple mechanisms at work in ex-
plaining gender differences in stress generation.
The current study had several notable strengths and limitations.
One strength of the study was the stringent test of mediators of gen-
der and stress generation using multiple controls. By controlling for
previous week’s depressive symptoms, the results reflect the effects
of neediness and co-rumination on gender and stress generation
above and beyond the possibly confounding effect of depressive
symptoms. Additionally, controlling for prior week’s total stress
strengthened the present results by partialling out potential chronic
stressors from the analyses. Adding this covariate strengthens the
conclusions that can be drawn about stress generation because the
analyses only considered changes in stress frequency from week to
week, distinguishing it from ongoing stress. Furthermore, by par-
tialling out the effect of prior week total stress, we controlled for
the potential cascade effect that a stressful event may have on likeli-
hood of future events. For example, a car accident (non-interperson-
al, independent event) one week may contribute to more stressors
the following week (interpersonal conflict, financial stress, etc.). By
partialling out the effect of prior week total stress, the current re-
440 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

sults offer a conservative test of interpersonal vulnerability’s effect

on prospective stress generation. Another strength of the study was
the weekly assessment of mood and stress. In this way, mean levels
of depressive symptoms and frequencies of stressful events over 8
weeks were calculated for each participant, allowing for a more ac-
curate representation of mood and the occurrence of stressful life
events than if mood and stress were assessed only once.
One limitation of the present study was the use of self-report
measures to assess the study variables, particularly of stressful life
events. Thus, one cannot say with certainty that the reported gen-
der difference in stress generation is not purely due to a reporting
bias with men tending to report less stressful life events in general.
However, the present study included analyses demonstrating that
gender was not predictive of independent stress, and it is therefore
not likely that a reporting bias may account for the gender differ-
ence found in dependent interpersonal events. In future research, a
solution to this problem would be to have a friend of each partici-
pant corroborate the events reported. Alternatively, the contextual-
threat-based interview method is a more objective assessment of
stress, which has been used in previous research (Brown & Harris,
1978; Eberhart & Hammen, 2009, 2010; Hammen, 1991). Another
limitation of the present study was the 8-week duration of assess-
ment. It is possible that the stress generation captured over the 8
weeks was of everyday hassle-type stressors. Use of a more long-
term assessment period and follow-up would allow researchers to
capture more highly significant events (i.e., deaths, ending of long-
term relationships). Finally the present study used a college sample.
Experiences and stressors of college students may not be compara-
ble to community or clinical samples, and it cannot be assumed that
the results of this study generalize to such samples. Nonetheless,
the present study provides results important to understanding the
transition to college and experience of college in terms of the impact
of interpersonal variables on stress.
Overall, the findings of the current study highlight the impor-
tance of the interpersonal realm when exploring stress generation.
Women reported higher levels of dependent interpersonal stress
than men, and this relationship was partially mediated by both
neediness and co-rumination—two interpersonal vulnerabilities to
depression. It is becoming increasingly clear that the interpersonal
realm is of great importance and may help explain the gender dif-
ference in not only depression but also in interpersonal stress pro-
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 441

cesses. A logical next step would be to explore whether the gender

difference in stress generation as a result of interpersonal predictors
in turn predicts gender differences in depressive symptoms. Addi-
tionally, when considering the personality characteristic dependen-
cy, the present study provides support of the importance of teas-
ing apart neediness from connectedness dependency, which may
account for some of the mixed findings in previous research (Eber-
hart & Hammen, 2009, 2010; Shih et al., 2009). Finally, the present
study provides additional support of co-rumination as a predictor
of stress generation, and extends previous research by considering
the gender differences therein.

REFERENCES
Alden, L. E., & Bieling, P. J. (1996). Interpersonal convergence of personality con-
structs in dynamic and cognitive models of depression. Journal of Research in
Personality, 30, 60–75. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1996.0004
Barker, D. (2007). Antecedents of stressful experiences: Depressive symptoms, self-
esteem, gender, and coping. International Journal of Stress Management, 14,
333–349. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.4.333
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator—mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-
erations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression. In P. J. Clayton & J. E. Barrett
(Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–
290). New York: Raven.
Beck, A., Steer, R., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. (1996). Comparison of Beck depression
inventories-IA and –II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 67, 588–597. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_13
Blatt, S., D’Afflitti, J., & Quinlan, D. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal
young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383–389.
Blatt, S. J., & Maroudas, C. (1992). Convergences among psychoanalytic and cogni-
tive-behavioral theories of depression. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 9, 157–190.
doi: 10.1037/h0079351
Blatt, S. J., Zohar, A. H., Quinlan, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Mongrain, M. (1995). Sub-
scales within the dependency factor of the depressive experiences question-
naire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 319–339. doi: 10.1207/s15327752j-
pa6402_11
Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition:
Two prototypes for depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 527–562. doi:
10.1016/0272-7358(92)90070-O
Brown, G., & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression. London: Free Press.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality dur-
ing pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric proper-
ties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 11, 471–484. doi: 10.1177/0265407594113011
442 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

Butler, L. D., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1994). Gender differences in responses to

depressed mood in a college sample. Sex Roles, 30, 331-346. doi: 10.1007/
BF01420597
Calmes, C. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2008). Rumination in interpersonal relationships:
Does co-rumination explain gender differences in emotional distress and
relationship satisfaction among college students. Cognitive Therapy and Re-
search, 32, 577-590. doi: 10.1007/s10608-008-9200-3
Casbon, T. S., Burns, A. B., Bradbury, T. N., & Joiner, T. E. (2004). Receipt of negative
feedback is related to increased negative feedback seeking among individu-
als with depressive symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 485–504.
doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2004.03.009
Ciesla, J. A., Dickson, K. S., Anderson, N. L., & Neal, D. J. (2011). Negative repetitive
thought and college drinking: Angry rumination, depressive rumination, co-
rumination, and worry. Cognitive Therapy Research, 35, 142–150. doi: 10.1007/
s10608-011-9355-1
Cogswell, A., Alloy, L. B., & Spasojevic, J. (2006). Neediness and interpersonal life
stress: Does congruency predict depression? Cognitive Therapy Research, 30,
427–443. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9052-7
Coyne, J. C., & Whiffen, V. E. (1995). Issues in personality as diathesis for depres-
sion: The case of sociotropy-dependency and autonomy-self-criticism. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 118, 358–378. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.358
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.
Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5
Davila, J., Bradbury, T. N., Cohan, C. L., & Tockluk, S. (1997). Marital functioning
and depressive symptoms: Evidence for a stress generation model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 849–861. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.849
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Zuroff, D. C., Lecce, S., & Hui, D. (2006). Needi-
ness and connectedness and the five-factor model of personality. European
Journal of Personality, 20, 123–136. doi: 10/1002/per.578
Eberhart, N. K., & Hammen, C. L. (2009). Interpersonal predictors of stress gen-
eration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1177/0146167208329857
Eberhart, N. K., & Hammen, C. L. (2010). Interpersonal style, stress, and depression:
An examination of transactional and diathesis-stress models. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 29, 23–38. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2010.29.1.23
Flynn, M., Kecmanovic, J., & Alloy, L. B. (2010). An examination of integrated cog-
nitive-interpersonal vulnerability to depression: The role of rumination, per-
ceived social support, and interpersonal stress generation. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 34, 456-466. doi: 10.1007/s10608-010-9300-8
Hammen, C. (1991) Generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 555–561. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.555
Hammen, C. (2003). Social stress and women’s risk for recurrent depression. Ar-
chives of Women’s Mental Health, 6, 9–13. doi: 10.1007/s00737-002-0160-4
Hammen, C. (2006). Stress generation in depression: Reflections on origins, re-
search, and future directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1065–1082. doi:
10.1002/jclp.20293
Hammen, C., & Shih, J. H. (2008) Stress generation and depression. In K. S. Dobson
& D.J.A. Dozois (Eds.), Risk factors in depression (pp. 409–428). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier Inc.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 443

Hankin, B., Stone, L., & Wright, P. (2010). Corumination, interpersonal stress gen-
eration, and internalizing symptoms: Accumulating effects and transactional
influences in an multiwave study of adolescents. Development and Psychopa-
thology, 22, 217–235. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409990368
Joiner, T. E. (2000). Depression’s vicious scree: Self-propagating and erosive process-
es in depression chronicity. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 203–218.
doi: 10.1093/clipsy/7.2.203
Just, N., & Alloy, L. B. (1997). The response styles theory of depression: Tests and
an extension of the theory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 221–229. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.106.2.221
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin. R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, K. R. et al.
(2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: Results from the na-
tional comorbidity survey replication (NCS-R). Journal of the American Medical
Association, 289, 3095–4105. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095
Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1984). Sex differences in vulnerability to undesirable
life events. American Sociological Review, 49, 620–631. doi: 10.2307/2095420
Leadbeater, B. J., Blatt, S. J., & Quinlan, D. M. (1995). Gender-linked vulnerabilities
to depressive symptoms, stress, and problem behaviors in adolescents. Jour-
nal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 1–29. doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0501_1
Little, S., & Garber, J. (2000). Interpersonal and achievement orientations and specific
stressors predicting depressive and aggressive symptoms in children. Psycho-
social & Personality Development, 24, 651–670. doi: 10.1023/A:1005535327428
Liu, R. T., & Alloy, L. B. (2010). Stress generation in depression: A systematic review
of the empirical literature and recommendations for future study. Clinical
Psychology Review, 30, 582–593. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.010
Liu, X., & Kaplan, H. B. (1999). Explain gender differences in symptoms of subjec-
tive distress in young adolescents. Stress Medicine, 15, 41–51. doi: 10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1700(199901)15:1<41::AID-SMI784>3.0.CO;2-3
McBride, C., Bacchiochi, J. R., & Bagby, R. M. (2005). Gender differences in the mani-
festation of sociotropy and autonomy personality traits. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 38, 129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.014
McBride, C., Zuroff, D., Bacchiochi, J., & Bagby, R. (2006). Depressive experiences
questionnaire: Does it measure maladaptive and adaptive forms of depen-
dency? Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 1–16.
Metalsky, G., & Joiner, T. (1992). Vulnerability to depressive symptamotology: A
prospective test of the diathesis-stress and causal mediation components of
the hopelessness theory of depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 63, 667–675.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and
mixed anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109,
504–511. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.504
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences
in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 424–443. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.424
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Hilt, L. M. (2009). Gender differences in depression. In I.
H. Gotlib & C. L. Hammen (Eds.), Handbook of depression (pp. 386–404). New
York: Guilford Press.
444 BOUCHARD AND SHIH

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Parker, L. E., & Larson J. (1994). Ruminative coping with de-
pressed mood following loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
92–104. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.92
Poulton, R. G., & Andrews, G. (1992). Personality as a cause of adverse life events.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 85, 35–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1992.
tb01439.x
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods. London: Sage.
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Develop-
ment, 73, 1830–1843. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00509
Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller E. M. (2007). Prospective associations of co-rumi-
nation with friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering the socioemo-
tional trade-offs of co-rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1019–1031.
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1019
Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1995). Connectedness and neediness: Factors of the
DEQ and SAS dependency scales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 323–340.
doi: 10.1007/BF02230403
Rudolph, K. D., & Flynn, M. (2007). Childhood adversity and youth depression:
Influence of gender and pubertal status. Development and Psychopathology, 19,
497–521. doi: 10.1017/S0954579407070241
Rudolph, K. D., & Hammen, C. (1999) Age and gender as determinants of stress ex-
posure, generation, and reactions in youngsters: A transactional perspective.
Child Development, 70, 660–667. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00048
Sarason, J., Johnson, J., & Siegel, J. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: De-
velopment of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 46, 932–946.
Shih, J. H. (2006). Sex differences in stress generation: An examination of sociot-
ropy/autonomy, stress, and depressive symptoms. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 32, 434–446. doi: 10.1177/0146167205282739
Shih, J., Abela, J., & Starrs, C. (2009). Cognitive and interpersonal predictors of stress
generation in children with affectively ill parents. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 37, 195–208. doi: 10.1007/x10802-008-9267-z
Shih, J. H., Eberhart, N. K., Hammen, C. L., & Brennan, P. A. (2006). Differential ex-
posure and reactivity to interpersonal stress predict sex differences in adoles-
cent depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 103–115.
doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3501_9
Starr, L. R., & Davila, J. (2009). Clarifying co-rumination: Associations with internal-
izing symptoms and romantic involvement among adolescent girls. Journal of
Adolescence, 32, 19–37. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.12.005
Stone, L. B., Hankin, B. L., Gibb, B. E., & Abela, J. R. (2011). Co-rumination predicts
the onset of depressive disorders during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 120, 752–757. doi: 10.1037/a0023384
Stone, L. B., Uhrlass, D. J., & Gibb, B. E. (2010). Co-rumination and lifetime history
of depressive disorders in children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psy-
chology, 39, 597–602. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2010.486323
Tompkins, T. L., Hockett, A. R., Abraibesh, N. A., & Witt, J. L. (2011). Journal of Ado-
lescence, 34, 801–811. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.02.005
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS GENERATION 445

Waller, E. M., & Rose, A. J. (2010). Adjustment trade-offs of co-rumination in moth-

er-adolescent relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 487–497. doi: 10.1016/j.
adolescence.2009.06.002
Wisco, B. E., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2008). Ruminative response style. In K. S. Dob-
son & D. J. A. Dozois (Eds.), Risk factors in depression (pp. 221–236). San Diego,
CA: Elsevier.
Zuroff, D., Quinlan, D., & Blatt, S. (1990). Psychometric properties of the depressive
experiences questionnaire in a college population. Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 55, 65­–72.
Copyright of Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology is the property of Guilford Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.