Cited by 544Health disparities and outcomesHealth and Well-being StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Sex differences in the relationship between social support and risk for major depression: a longitudinal study of opposite-sex twin pairs

Kendler, Kenneth S., Myers, John, Prescott, Carol A.·2005·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Compared to men, women have larger and more intimate social networks and higher rates of major depression. Prior studies have suggested that women are more sensitive to the depressogenic effects of low social support, but most of these studies had substantial methodologic limitations. METHOD: In two interview waves at least 1 year apart, 1,057 pairs of opposite-sex dizygotic twin pairs ascertained from a population-based register were assessed. The authors predicted risk of major depression in the year before the wave 2 interview from levels of social support assessed at wave 1. RESULTS: Women reported higher levels of global social support than their twin brothers. Global social support at wave 1 predicted risk for major depression at wave 2 significantly more strongly in female than in male members of these pairs, and the same effect was seen when the analysis controlled for the history of major depression in the year prior to wave 1. Women were more sensitive than men to the depressogenic effects of low levels of social support, particularly from the co-twin, other relatives, parents, and spouses. Levels of social support did not explain the sex difference in risk for major depression. CONCLUSIONS: Emotionally supportive social relationships are substantially more protective against major depression for women than for men. While these effects cannot explain sex effects on the prevalence of major depression, they do suggest important sex differences in pathways of risk. Clarification of the nature of the causal links between low social support and depression in women is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.250

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kendler, K. S., Myers, J., & Prescott, C. A.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
162
Issue
2
Pages
250-256
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2145197998
Cited by
544
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 18
FWCI
23.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA-49492)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-49492, R01MH049492)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (/DA-49492)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
sex differences, major depressive disorder, social support, depression risk, opposite-sex twins
MeSH terms
Adult, Major Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Diseases in Twins, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Social Support, Sociometric Techniques, Twins, Dizygotic, Virginia, Logistic Models, Sex Distribution, Principal Component Analysis

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