Unpacking affect maintenance and its association with depressive symptoms: integrating positive and negative affects

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. BDI	9.49	11.56	–
2. RRS brooding	9.59	3.66	.699***	–
3. RPA PR	21.16	6.25	–.439***	–.183**	–
4. Negative accuracy	0.82	0.13	–.040	–.098	–.109	–
5. Positive accuracy	0.78	0.13	–.181**	–.194**	–.100	.472***	–
6. Negative intensity ratings	58.74	15.27	–.053	.121†	.369***	–.188**	–.029	–
7. Positive intensity ratings	38.54	16.86	–.099	–.005	.390***	–0.172*	.123†	.709***	–

Note. N = 219. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; † p < .08.

BDI, Beck Depression Inventory-II; RRS, Ruminative Response Scale; RPA PR, Response to Positive Affect questionnaire – positive rumination subscales. Negative and positive accuracies as measures in the AMT.

Table 2. Hierarchical regression analysis prediction depression scores from brooding, positive rumination and accuracy scores.

	β	SE	t
Brooding	.70	.57	14.35**
Negative accuracy	.03	.57	.58
Step 1. R^2= 48.87%, F (2,216) = 103.24**
Brooding	.62	.52	13.71**
Negative accuracy	.04	.57	.74
Positive rumination	–.33	.52	–7.44**
Positive accuracy	–.11	.58	–2.21*
Step 2. R^2= 59.73%, F (4,214) = 79.34**

* p < .05, ** p < .001.

Negative and positive accuracies as measures in the AMT.