Childhood abuse and vulnerability to depression: Cognitive scars in otherwise healthy young adults

Abstract

Models of depression vulnerability posit that negative early experiences, such as exposure to childhood abuse (CA), increase vulnerability to depression later in life. Though most victims of CA do not go on to develop depression, the question remains as to whether these individuals retain cognitive ‘scars’ that may contribute to depression vulnerability. The present study examined the relationship between self-reported, retrospective CA and cognitive vulnerability to depression in a carefully selected sample of young adults without current or past psychopathology. We measured cognitive vulnerability with both a self-report questionnaire, the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS), and a measure of information processing bias, the Scrambled Sentences Test (SST). Self-reported severity of CA was associated with increased cognitive vulnerability to depression on both the DAS and SST. Vulnerability to depression as measured by the SST, but not by the DAS, prospectively predicted increases in depressive symptoms over a 6-month period. Scores on the SST also interacted with CA to predict increases in depressive symptoms. These findings demonstrate the pernicious effects of CA even in those without current or past psychopathology.

Keywords:

• Childhood abuse
• Depression
• Vulnerability
• Dual process models

The authors thank the research assistants from the Mood Disorders Laboratory at the University of Texas for their help with data collection. Preparation of this article was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health [grant number R01MH076897] to Christopher G. Beevers.

The authors thank the research assistants from the Mood Disorders Laboratory at the University of Texas for their help with data collection. Preparation of this article was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health [grant number R01MH076897] to Christopher G. Beevers.

Notes

¹ In the current sample, reported childhood sexual abuse was low (M = 5.3, SD = 1.3) and was not significantly correlated with DAS or SST scores or CESD scores at baseline or 6-month follow-up (all r < .11, p > .19). As a result, we do not examine sexual abuse in our analyses or discussion below.

² Because a significant portion of the sample did not present for follow-up, we re-examined the mediational analyses while including a dummy coded variable for only the group that presented for follow-up as a covariate, to address potential differences between the two groups. Analyses indicated that even after including this covariate, CA continued to significantly predict DAS (B=.18, t=2.25, p <.05), and DAS continued to predict depression while controlling for CA (B=.20, t=2.47, p<.05). PRODCLIN also indicated a significance range that did not include zero (.0001 – .06), supporting the indirect effect. This finding suggests that the mediational effects were not simply a function of a unique characteristic for those who presented for follow-up.