Joint Contributions of Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality, and Effortful Control on Depressive Symptoms in Youth

Abstract

From a clinical developmental perspective, temperament has been shown to confer vulnerability to depression among youth. High negative emotionality (NE), low positive emotionality (PE), and low effortful control (EC) have repeatedly been independently associated with youth depressive symptoms. However, far less research has examined the joint contributions of NE, PE, and EC on such symptoms. The present study builds upon previous research by examining how NE, PE, and EC jointly predict change in depressive symptoms over time among 211 youngsters (7–14 years, M = 10.7, SD = 1.81) who participated in an 8-month prospective study. Self-reported temperament and symptoms were assessed at baseline; self-reported symptoms were measured again at follow-up. Results suggest that all 3 temperamental traits need to be considered jointly in predicting change in depressive symptoms. Furthermore, results provide further support for the “best two out of three” principle. Surprisingly, results reveal that high EC might be maladaptive in the context of high emotional reactivity. Last, results show that the combination of high NE and low EC could be a possible pathway to the development of symptoms. The current study clarified how NE, PE, and EC may jointly confer risk—or protection for developing depressive symptoms during adolescence. The results highlight the need of taking into account all three temperamental traits in order to provide a more nuanced understanding of the risk for developing depressive symptoms at an early stage, as well as to provide customized care targeting temperamental vulnerability in depressed youth.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the city of Deinze and Jeugd & School Deinze. We also thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier version of the manuscript.

Notes

¹ We also tested a cross-sectional model using depressive symptoms at T1 (CDI.T1) as the outcome variable. However, we found the model including the NE × PE × EC interaction to be not significantly better in describing CDI.T1, F_change(1, 201) = .82, p = .36.

² The NE × PE interaction did not reverse significantly at high levels of EC.

³ The NE × EC interaction did not reverse significantly at high levels of PE.

⁴ The PE × EC interaction did not reverse significantly at low levels of EC.