Characterizing life events as risk factors for depression: The role of fateful loss events.
Abstract
Empirical associations between life events and health are often weak, in part because event exposure measures may group together very different kinds of experiences within a single event category. Attempts to refine the measures (by using respondents' subjective appraisals of event stressfulness or by taking into consideration situational and personal factors that influence the contextual threat of the events) may strengthen the association, but they cloud the clarity of any causal inference by confounding the measure with extraneous variation. Instead, the use of descriptive information about what actually happened before, during, and after each event is recommended to define exposure to potent, fateful life events. In a comparison of 96 patients with major depression and 404 community residents with no apparent depression, the odds that a person would have experienced one or more events meeting criteria for fatefulness and disruptiveness was 2.5 times greater in the depressed group.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Depressed persons have a 2.5-fold greater likelihood of experiencing a major life event prior to onset of depression compared to nondepressed persons during the same time period, based on the most conservative estimate from a patient sample restricted to fateful life events independent of the person's actions.
“the most conservative estimate of the relation between stress and depression-which is based on a patient sample and restricted to fateful life events that are entirely independent of the person's actions or behaviors-is that depressed persons have a 2.5-fold greater likelihood of experiencing a major life event prior to onset of depression compared to nondepressed persons during the same time”
From From stress to inflammation and major depressive disorder: A social signal transduction theory of depression. (2014) · cites this paper as Shrout et al., 1989
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 167
- Authors
- Shrout, P. E., Link, B. G., Dohrenwend, B. P., Skodol, A. E., Stueve, A., & Mirotznik, J.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- City University of New York (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology
- Published
- 1989-11
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 460-467
- ISSN
- 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1846
- OpenAlex
- W2076617492
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH-36208, MH30906, MH 14663)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- life events, depression, risk factors, major depressive disorder, causal inference, community residents
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Internal-External Control, Life Change Events, Middle Aged, Risk Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review