The purpose of this study is to explore the role of family environment on mood and social well-being in college students. The connection between family and psychological well-being is supported by multiple and comprehensive bodies of research. Two exceedingly influential theories on the relationship between family life and psychological well-being are attachment theory and family systems theory.
Attachment theory states that a secure, loving bond between a child and their primary caregiver is paramount for normal social and emotional development (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). There are several types of attachment: secure, avoidant, anxious, and disorganized. A secure attachment between a primary caregiver and child will lead to the child feeling loved and safe, without being overly attached to the caregiver. Conversely, avoidant, anxious, and disorganized attachments have a greater inclination to future emotional and attachment problems for the child (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991).
Similar to attachment theory, family systems theory accentuates the necessity of well- balanced rules, roles, and boundaries in the family environment to ensure healthy psychological
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 3
development (Bowen, 1996). This theory posits that an individual can only be understood within the context of family as a whole. Detrimental disruption to the family system of interaction adversely affects the well-being and mental health of an individual (Bowen, 1996).
These two conceptual foundations have influenced countless empirical studies exploring the nature of the relationship between family and mental health. The goal of this study is to contribute to the extant volumes of research. Some studies have isolated predictors of depression exclusively in childhood and adolescence. One longitudinal study conducted by Briere, Archambault, and Janosz (2013), explored the connection of early adolescent depression to the perceived relationship with their parents. Based upon self reports of subjects throughout their early adolescence, they found sufficient circumstance to imply the covariation of significant reciprocal relationship between depression and perceived conflict with parents (Briere et al., 2013). Another longitudinal study by Reinherz, Giaconia, Pakiz, Silverman, Frost and Lefkowitz (1993) analyzed psychological and social risk factors for major depression throughout adolescence. Subjects were studied for 14 years from the ages of 5 to 18. Researchers collected data on various risk factors and later assessed major depression at age 18. Reinherz et al. (1993) discovered that a dysfunctional family environment significantly predicted depression during adolescence, with a notable gender difference. For males, a parent’s remarriage and long-term family strife were significantly correlated with major depression in late adolescence. Alternately for females, larger families and older parents were significant predictors of major depression at age 18. Additional research by Jacobvitz, Hazen, Curran, and Hitchens (2004) sought to explore the role of dysfunctional family structures as predictors of future depression in adolescents.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 4
Their studies ascertained that enmeshed families where the parent is hyper-involved in the child’s life lead to emotional issues for the child later in development. Furthermore, emotionally disengaged and cold families strongly predicted the presence of depressive symptoms in children (Jacobvitz et al., 2004).
Analogous to the aforementioned studies, this study seeks to understand the role of family functioning on depression. In particular, the current study wishes to elaborate upon the research of Jacobvitz et al.’s (2004), with an emphasis on the influential role of emotional domain in predicting depression. Deviant from the longitudinal design of their research, this cross-sectional study targets young adults, rather than young adolescents or children.
The effect of family environment on the elderly is of interest to many researchers. In a cross-sectional study, Taqui, Itrat, Qidwai, and Qadri (2007) analyzed the relationship between depression and type of family system among elderly subjects in Pakistan. Structured interviews and geriatric depression questionnaires about family structure and depression levels found that living in a nuclear family system was positively correlated with higher levels of depression in the elderly subjects (Taqui et al., 2007). The support system of nuclear families is not as effective because elderly members must assume more taxing roles and responsibilities leading to higher depression rates. On the contrary, a joint family structure decreases individual burdens and expands the support system required to care for elderly family members. These findings strengthen the idea that a strong support system and balanced role distributions are crucial for the well-being of its members (Taqui et al. 2007). Similar to the research of Taqui et al. (2007), this goal of this current study is to investigate the relationship of family structure and depression.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 5
Unlike Taqui et al. (2007), the data from this study is derived from self-report questionnaires and not structured home interviews. Furthermore, participants are only aged 18–22.
Some other studies related to the topic of family and emotional well-being focus primarily on the significance of sibling relationships. One study about attachment between elderly siblings by Cicirelli., (1989) interviewed participants about various aspects of their sibling relationship. He found that a troublesome or detached relationship with a sister was positively correlated with depression for both genders, although sisters seem to be especially important for emotional well-being later in life. Cicirelli suggests this finding is especially deleterious to an elderly person’s mental health because women are a strong source of help which make them more appealing attachment figures (Cicirelli, 1989). Another study organized by Ponzetti and James (1997) assessed college students’ levels of loneliness in conjunction with the quality of their relationship with siblings. The sibling relationship was evaluated on four qualities: closeness, power, conflict, and rivalry. The research indicated closer sibling relationships and higher levels of of sibling rivalry were more significantly correlated with less loneliness than those with more severe levels of conflict. There was no statistically significant connection between power and loneliness. In conclusion, they determined sibling relationship plays a very influential role in the loneliness of college students (Ponzetti & James, 1997). The current study focuses predominantly on the interactions and functions of family as a whole, instead of specific questions on qualitative details of participants’ sibling relationships. The number of siblings is considered, however, due to the potential link between number of siblings and levels of depression and loneliness.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 6
Finally, some family and mental health research explores the link between psychological issues and dysfunctional families in addition to depression and loneliness. A study conducted by Brady (2008), researched the relationship between family dysfunction and eating disorders among college students. Participants were evaluated based upon completion of scales that screened for depression, history of family violence, and symptoms of eating disorders. The results concluded that witnessing or experiencing long-term exposure to family violence contributes to depression, which may have a profound role in the development of eating disorders in male and female adolescents. Though Brady’s study suggests a correlational rather than causal relationship, there is an undeniable impact of family life on mental health (Brady, 2008). The current study also hopes to examine the role of family environment in psychological health, focusing solely on depression and loneliness.
Although small amid a sea of impressive and dynamic research, this study aspires to reinforce contemporary evidence strongly linking family environment to psychological and social well-being. Above all, this study strives to examine the influence of specific family domains: communication, roles, problem solving, behavior control, affective involvement, affective responsiveness, and general functioning. Additionally, this research aims to identify which tenet of family life is the greatest predictor of loneliness and depression among college students.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 7
There are, in my opinion, five viable hypotheses in question. Firstly, I believe there will be at least a partial correlation between the total family dysfunction score and level of depression, with social desirability. Second, I hypothesize depression and loneliness will be significantly correlated when controlling for social desirability. Thirdly, I posit the total family dysfunction score will positively correlate with loneliness when social desirability is included as a partial correlate. Fourth, I hypothesize that affective responsiveness and involvement will be the largest predictor of loneliness on the published quantitative clinical subscales. Finally, I believe scores on affective involvement and affective responsiveness will be the strongest predictors of depression.
Method Participants:
For this study, the 66 participants were volunteers from Psychology 201–202 courses in addition to the Psychology 416 course. Of these 66 participants, 24 (36.4%) were males, 42 (63.6%) were females, 13 (19.7%) were seniors, 10 (15.2%) were juniors, 8 (12.1%) were sophomores, and 35 (53%) were freshmen. 11 participants did not complete the study. This demographic information can be visualized in Table 1 of Appendix A.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 8
Procedure:
To better understand and evaluate the relationship between social functioning, family, and mood, participants were asked to complete five online questionnaires following their informed consent to take part in the study. After they completed the questionnaires, participants received a debriefing about the purpose and hypotheses of the study.
Measures:
Five questionnaires provided informational data for this study. The first was a short demographic questionnaire that asked for the participant’s gender, social class, and number of siblings. The second questionnaire was the McMaster Family Assessment Device. This 60-item scale assesses family functioning based on seven subscales related to various realms of family life: communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavior control, and general functioning (Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985). For each question, the participant can choose between a range of “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”. The higher the score the greater the family dysfunction. The Cronbach’s alphas for each subscale are as indicated: problem solving (r=.83); behavior control (r=.72), communication (r=.75); roles (r=. 72), affective involvement (r=.78); affective responsiveness (r=.83);general functioning (r=.92) (Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985). The third questionnaire was the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory, which assesses various behavioral, cognitive, and physical symptoms of depression (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961). Each question related to a specific symptom rated by the participant from 1 to 4, 1 signifying an absence of the symptom, and 4 signifying a strong display of the symptom. The Beck Depression Inventory possesses a reliability alpha of r=.85 (Beck et al., 1961). The fourth questionnaire completed by participants
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 9
was the UCLA Loneliness Scale-Version 3. This 20-item scale measures feelings of loneliness and social isolation, with a response range from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often) (Russell, 1996). This scale has a Cronbach’s reliability value of r=.89-.94 (Russell, 1996). Lastly, the participants filled out the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Shore Form C, which consists of 13 True/False items that evaluate the extent to which participants exemplify a social desirability bias that would otherwise skew test results. The reliability alpha for this scale is r=.76 (Reynolds, 1982). The McMaster FAD, Beck Depression Inventory, UCLA Loneliness Scale, and Marlowe- Crowne Short Form Scale are attached as Appendices B, C, D, and E, respectively.
Data Acquisition/Analysis:
All data was gathered and saved using the Qualtrics database. If participants were enrolled in the Introductory Psychology courses, they completed the Qualtrics database. If participants were enrolled in the Introductory Psychology courses, they completed the Qualtrics- based study within the SONA system at William and Mary. Participants who were not enrolled in the Psychology 201–202 classes did not use SONA, and completed the study by opening a link that took them directly to the study on Qualtrics. Data was subsequently analyzed using SPSS software. Tests consisted of partial correlations, multiple regressions, and one-way ANOVAs.
Results
Before conducting the analyses, the 11 participants who did not fully complete the study were retracted from the data set. After this, the mean scores were extracted for each of the main variables: depression, loneliness, and total family dysfunction. The mean depression score was 28.94 (SD=7.51); the mean loneliness score was 42.84 (SD=12.20), and the mean for
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 10
the total family dysfunction score was 127.86 (SD=25.87). The mean dysfunction score for each family subscale in the Family Assessment Device were also calculated and are as indicated: the mean problem solving score was 13.78 (SD=2.81); the mean communication score was 17.78 (SD=3.71); the mean roles score was 19.58 (SD=3.75); the mean affective involvement score was 14.88 (SD=4.00); the mean affective responsiveness score was 16.09 (SD=5.05); the mean behavior control score was 17.23 (SD=3.73); and the mean general functioning score was 28.19 (SD=8.26). The results can be found in Table 2 of Appendix A.
After these scores were determined, a partial correlation matrix was conducted between depression, loneliness, and total family dysfunction, while controlling for social desirability bias. This data corresponded to the hypotheses that (1) depression and loneliness would be significantly correlated, (2) depression and total family dysfunction would be significantly correlated, and (3) loneliness and total family dysfunction would be significantly correlated. The correlation between depression and loneliness was significant, with r=.69 and p=.000. The correlation between depression and total family dysfunction was also significant (r=.58, p=. 000). The correlation between loneliness and family dysfunction was significant, with r=.68 and p=.000. The significance level was set at .05.
To assess the hypothesis that affective involvement and affective responsiveness are the greatest predictors of depression, a regression analysis using depression as the dependent variable and all 7 subscales of the Family Assessment Device as predictor variables. The model significantly predicted depression F(7,51)=6.92, p=.000). Then each predictor variable was subsequently removed from the full model in order to evaluate the individual weight of each predictor variable on the full model. Affective responsiveness accounted for 0.4% of the
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 11
variance (R2=-.004, p=0.524). Affective involvement explained 6.8% of the variance (R2=-.068, p=.012). Behavior control scores accounted for 1% of the variance (R2=-.010, p=.316). Roles accounted for 0% of the variance (R2=-.000, p=.947). Communication scores explained 3.2% of the variance (R2=-.032, p=.082). Problem solving accounted for 10.5% of the variance (R2=-. 105, p=.002), and general functioning scores explained 0.1% of the variance (R2=-.001, p=.720). Of these calculations, problem solving and affective involvement were the only subscales that significantly decreased the predictability of the full model upon their removal.
To assess the hypothesis that affective responsiveness and affective involvement are the family variables most associated with loneliness, a regression analysis was conducted using loneliness as the dependent variable and the 7 family subscales as predictor variables. The full model, using all 7 subscales as predictors, was a signficant predictor of loneliness, with F(7.47)=7.78 and p=.000, and accounted for 53.7% of the variance in depression scores (R2=. 537, p=.000). Subsequently each predictor variable was removed one at a time from the full regression model in order to evaluate the predictive strength of each variable. Responsiveness accounted for 0.4% of the variance in depression (R2=-.004, p=.546). Behavior control explained 0.2% of the variance (R2=-.002, p=.672). The roles subscale accounted for 0.1% of the variance (R2=-.001, p=.706). Scores on the communication domain explained 0% of the variance (R2=. 000, p=.894). Problem solving explained 3.9% of the variance (R2=-.039, p=.051), and 0.4% of the variance was attributed to general functioning subscale (R2=-.004, p=.530). No single family subscale was a significant contributor to the full model’s predictability of loneliness scores.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 12
Finally, in this experiment two one-way ANOVAs were conducted to test any possible relationship between the participants’ number of siblings and their loneliness and depression scores. The relationship between number of siblings and depression yielded F(5, 60)=.61 and p=.695. The relationship between number of siblings and loneliness had F (5, 56)=.78 and p=. 566. Neither result was of significance.
Discussion
The goal of this research was to explore the connection between loneliness, depression, and family environment in college students. The results supported the hypothesis that depression and loneliness would be positively correlated, that a greater incidence of overall family dysfunction would be significantly correlated with higher levels of depression in participants, and finally there would be a positive relationship between total family dysfunction and loneliness in participants. The results did not support the final hypotheses that affective involvement and affective responsiveness were positively correlated with depression and loneliness.
The results aide us in our preexisting understanding of the nature of psychological health: the relationship between depression and loneliness and thus feeling depressed can lead to feeling lonely is not uni-directional. Likewise, it is equally plausible that feelings of loneliness can lead to increased depression. Causal directionality aside, it is imperative to understand the comorbidity of these two psychological issues. To improve and accelerate psychological healing and well-being, students should place equal emphasis on addressing both loneliness and depression.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 13
The study also implies that unhealthy family environments can lead to increased feelings of both loneliness and depression. This finding is related to family systems theory, which states that disruptions in overall family systems will negatively impact the psychological health of its individual members (Bowen, 1966). Similarly in our study, overall family dysfunction across all seven domains: affective involvement, affective responsiveness, roles, behavior control, communication, problem solving, and general functioning — was found to be a significant predictor of depression and loneliness in college students; however, there is no single domain of family life that was exceedingly influential above the rest. This further supports the idea that family environment as a whole, is instrumental towards the maintenance of psychological health.
Of the seven domains comprising family life, this study hypothesized that affective
domains would be the most influential determinants of depression and loneliness. The results failed to confirm this hypothesis. This would lend credibility to the statement that the mental health of a family and its members is dependent on the seven domains as a whole. These findings also contrast the study of Jacobvitz et al. (2004) which discovered unhealthy levels of affective responsiveness and involvement were significantly related to greater emotional disturbances in adolescents.
Problem solving was a surprisingly revealing domain of the overall family system that stood out as the domain most influential in predicting students’ levels of depression. This could be related to the idea of learned helplessness and the loss of hope that comes from repeated situations of a sense of hopelessness. If family members feel an insurmountable pressure to solve problems they cannot solve within their family dynamic, they may feel as though they have
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 14
no control over the situation which can lead to feelings of depression over time. Despite the finding that problem solving is slightly more influential than the other dynamics, it is important to emphasize that an overall combination of all seven domains is the key ingredient to fostering a healthy sense of psychological well-being and health.
The participants’ number of siblings did not have a strong effect on the incidence of depression and loneliness for participants in the study. Superficially this seems to contradict previous research suggesting sibling closeness and conflict are related to loneliness and depression (Cicirelli, 1989; Ponzetti, 1997). It could be the quality of sibling relationships, not quantity, that affects psychological health to the greatest extent.
There are several limitations to this study. First of all, the sample size was predominantly female, which may have skewed the results. Secondly, there were limitations to the depth and scope of the Family Assessment Device; although there were seven distinct FAD subscales, only six to ten questions were devoted to each family life domain. This may have not been enough to accurately measure dysfunction levels in each specific domain. Future research would yield more thorough results with a scale tailored specifically to individual areas of the family environment. Furthermore, the self-report nature of this study along with the subjective nature of depression, loneliness, and family life may deter some participants from portraying a truly honest evaluation of their familial, emotional, and social states (even if it was anonymous).
In future research, it would be wise to focus on further expanding upon which specific component of the family environment is most influential in psychological health. Results of this study revealed that problem solving was the most influential, but many other studies place
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 15
greater emphasis on the role of affective domains. Further research could aide in determining which of these domains (problem solving or affective responsiveness and involvement) plays a greater role in mood and social functioning. Additionally, it would be beneficial to use several different questionnaires aside from the McMaster FAD to assess the various domains of family environment.
In conclusion, the results of this study support the idea that overall family harmony is a major indicator of mood levels and social functioning for college students. With this knowledge, students and families would find it beneficial to their well-being to work together in achieving healthy, highly functioning home environments for all facets of family life. This is not an entirely easy process or task to undertake, but if a student has an opportunity to do so, their risk of depression and loneliness may significantly decrease.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 16
References
Ainsworth, M., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development.
American Psychologist, 46, 331–341.
Beck, A., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring
depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571.
Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7,
345–374.
Brady, S. (2008). Lifetime family violence exposure is associated with current symptoms of eating disorders among both young men and women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 347–351.
Briere, F., Archambault, K., Janosz, M. (2013). Reciprocal prospective associations between depressive symptoms and perceived relationship with parents in early adolescence. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 58, 169–176.
Cicirelli, V. (1989). Feelings of attachment to siblings and well-being in later life. Psychology and Aging, 4, 211–16.
Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N., Curran, M., Hitchens, K. (2004). Observations of early triadic family interactions: Boundary disturbances in the family predict symptoms of depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 577–592.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 17 Miller, I.W., Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D.S., Keitner, G.I. (1985). The McMaster Family Assessment
Device: Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 345–356. Ponzetti, J., & James, C. (1997). Loneliness and sibling relationships. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 12, 103–112.
Reinherz, H., Giaconia, R., Pakiz, B., Silverman, A., Frost, A., Lefkowitz, E. (1993). Psychosocial risks for major depression in late adolescence: A longitudinal community study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 1155–1163.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.
Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.
Taqui, A., Itrat, A., Qidwai, W., Qadri, Z. (2007). Depression in the elderly: Does family system play a role? A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry, 7. 412–423.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING
18
A. Demographics and Descriptive Statistics
Table 2
Mean and Standard Deviation for Depression, Loneliness, and Family Dysfunction
Variable Minimum
Maximum 62 69 186 23 28 28 28
Mean 28.94 42.84
127.96 13.78 17.78 19.58 14.88
SD 7.51 12.20 25.87 8.26 3.71 3.75 4.00
Depression
Loneliness
Total Family Dysfunction Problem Solving Communication
Roles
Affective Involvement
21 20 79
8 12 12 7
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING
19
Affective Responsiveness Behavior Control General Functioning
B. McMaster Family Assessment Device
7 27
9 25 14 47
16.09 17.23 28.19
505 3.73 8.26
Read each statement carefully, and decide how well it describes your own family. You should answer according to how you see your family. Do not spend too much time thinking about each statement, but respond as quickly and as honestly as you can. Please be sure to answer every statement. There are 4 possible responses for each statement:
Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A)
Disagree (D)
Strongly Disagree (SD)
1. Planning family activities is hard because we misunderstand each other.
SA A D SD
1. We resolve most everyday problems around the house.
SA A D SD
1. When someone is upset the others know why.
SA A D SD
1. When you ask someone to do something, you have to check that they did it.
SA A D SD
1. If someone is in trouble, the others become too involved.
SA A D SD
1. In times of crisis we can turn to each other for support.
SA A D SD
1. We don’t know what to do when an emergency comes up.
SA A D SD
1. We sometimes run out of things that we need.
SA A D SD
1. We are reluctant to show our affection for each other.
SA A D SD
1. We make sure members meet their family responsibilities.
SA A D SD
1. We cannot talk to each other about the sadness we feel.
SA A D SD
1. We usually act on our decisions regarding problems.
SA A D SD
1. You only get the interest of others when something is important to them.
SA A D SD
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 20
1. You can’t tell how a person is feeling from what they are saying.
SA A D SD
1. Family tasks don’t get spread around enough.
SA A D SD
1. Individuals are accepted for what they are.
SA A D SD
1. You can easily get away with breaking the rules.
SA A D SD
1. People come right out and say things instead of hinting at them.
SA A D SD
1. Some of us just don’t respond emotionally.
SA A D SD
1. We know what to do in an emergency.
SA A D SD
1. We avoid discussing our fears and concerns.
SA A D SD
1. It is difficult to talk to each other about tender feelings.
SA A D SD
1. We have trouble meeting our financial obligations.
SA A D SD
1. After our family tries to solve a problem, we usually discuss whether it worked or not.
SA A D SD
1. We are too self-centered.
SA A D SD
1. We can express feelings to each other.
SA A D SD
1. We have no clear expectations about toilet habits.
SA A D SD
1. We do not show our love for each other.
SA A D SD
1. We talk to people directly rather than through go-betweens.
SA A D SD
1. Each of us has particular duties and responsibilities.
SA A D SD
1. There are lots of bad feelings in the family.
SA A D SD
1. We have rules about hitting people.
SA A D SD
1. We get involved with each other only when something interests us.
SA A D SD
1. There is little time to explore personal interests.
SA A D SD
1. We often don’t say what we mean.
SA A D SD
1. We feel accepted for what we are.
SA A D SD
1. We show interest in each other when we can get something out of it personally.
SA A D SD
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 21
1. We resolve most emotional upsets that come up.
SA A D SD
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 22
1. Tenderness takes second place to other things in our family.
SA A D SD
1. We discuss who are responsible for household jobs.
SA A D SD
1. Making decisions is a problem for our family.
SA A D SD
1. Our family shows interest in each other only when they can get something out of it.
SA A D SD
1. We are frank with each other.
SA A D SD
1. We don’t hold to any rules or standards.
SA A D SD
1. If people are asked to do something, they need reminding.
SA A D SD
1. We are able to make decisions about how to solve problems.
SA A D SD
1. If the rules are broken, we don’t know what to expect.
SA A D SD
1. Anything goes in our family.
SA A D SD
1. We express tenderness.
SA A D SD
1. We confront problems involving feelings.
SA A D SD
1. We don’t get along well together.
SA A D SD
1. We don’t talk to each other when we are angry.
SA A D SD
1. We are generally dissatisfied with the family duties assigned to us.
SA A D SD
1. Even though we mean well, we intrude too much into each other’s lives.
SA A D SD
1. There are rules in our family about dangerous situations.
SA A D SD
1. We confide in each other.
SA A D SD
1. We cry openly.
SA A D SD
1. We don’t have reasonable transport.
SA A D SD
1. When we don’t like what someone has done, we tell them.
SA A D SD
1. We try to think of different ways to solve the problem.
SA A D SD
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 23
C. Beck Depression Inventory
For each question, please indicate the statement that best describes you.
1.
0 I do not feel sad.
1 I feel sad
2 I am sad all the time and I can’t snap out of it. 3 I am so sad and unhappy that I can’t stand it.
2.
0 I am not particularly discouraged about the future.
1 I feel discouraged about the future.
2 I feel I have nothing to look forward to.
3 I feel the future is hopeless and that things cannot improve.
3.
0 I do not feel like a failure.
1 I feel I have failed more than the average person.
2As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of failures. 3 I feel I am a complete failure as a person.
4.
0 I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to. 1 I don’t enjoy things the way I used to.
2 I don’t get real satisfaction out of anything anymore. 3 I am dissatisfied or bored with everything.
5.
0 I don’t feel particularly guilty
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 24
1 I feel guilty a good part of the time. 2 I feel quite guilty most of the time. 3 I feel guilty all of the time.
6.
0 I don’t feel I am being punished. 1 I feel I may be punished.
2 I expect to be punished.
3 I feel I am being punished.
7.
0 I don’t feel disappointed in myself. 1 I am disappointed in myself.
2 I am disgusted with myself.
3 I hate myself.
8.
0 I don’t feel I am any worse than anybody else.
1 I am critical of myself for my weaknesses or mistakes. 2 I blame myself all the time for my faults.
3 I blame myself for everything bad that happens.
9.
0 I don’t have any thoughts of killing myself.
1 I have thoughts of killing myself, but I would not carry them out. 2 I would like to kill myself.
3 I would kill myself if I had the chance.
10.
0 I don’t cry any more than usual.
1 I cry more now than I used to.
2 I cry all the time now.
3 I used to be able to cry, but now I can’t cry even though I want to.
11.
0 I am no more irritated by things than I ever was.
1 I am slightly more irritated now than usual.
2 I am quite annoyed or irritated a good deal of the time. 3 I feel irritated all the time.
12.
0 I have not lost interest in other people.
1 I am less interested in other people than I used to be.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 25
2 I have lost most of my interest in other people. 3 I have lost all of my interest in other people.
13.
0 I make decisions about as well as I ever could.
1 I put off making decisions more than I used to.
2 I have greater difficulty in making decisions more than I used to. 3 I can’t make decisions at all anymore.
14.
0 I don’t feel that I look any worse than I used to.
1 I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive.
2 I feel there are permanent changes in my appearance that make me look unattractive 3 I believe that I look ugly.
15.
0 I can work about as well as before.
1 It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something. 2 I have to push myself very hard to do anything.
3 I can’t do any work at all.
16.
0 I can sleep as well as usual.
1 I don’t sleep as well as I used to.
2 I wake up 1–2 hours earlier than usual and find it hard to get back to sleep. 3 I wake up several hours earlier than I used to and cannot get back to sleep.
17.
0 I don’t get more tired than usual.
1 I get tired more easily than I used to.
2 I get tired from doing almost anything. 3 I am too tired to do anything.
18.
0 My appetite is no worse than usual.
1 My appetite is not as good as it used to be. 2 My appetite is much worse now.
3 I have no appetite at all anymore.
19.
0 I haven’t lost much weight, if any, lately. 1 I have lost more than five pounds.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 26
2 I have lost more than ten pounds.
3 I have lost more than fifteen pounds.
20.
0 I am no more worried about my health than usual.
1 I am worried about physical problems like aches, pains, upset stomach, or constipation. 2 I am very worried about physical problems and it’s hard to think of much else.
3 I am so worried about my physical problems that I cannot think of anything else.
21.
0 I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex. 1 I am less interested in sex than I used to be.
2 I have almost no interest in sex.
3 I have lost interest in sex completely.
D. UCLA Loneliness Scale-Version 3
Indicate how often each of the statements below is descriptive of you.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY ON MOOD AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING 27
E. Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally.
It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I’m not encouraged. (T) or (F)
I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. (T) or (F)
Occasionally, I’ve given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. (T) or (F)
There have been times when I feel like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. (T) or (F)
No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener. (T) or (F)
There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. (T) or (F)
I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. (T) or (F)
I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. (T) or (F)
I’m always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. (T) or (F)
I’ve never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. (T) or (F) There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. (T) or (F) I’m sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. (T) or (F)
I’ve never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings. (T) or (F)
