Re-examining the relationship between cognitive styles, ruminative styles, and depression

Abstract

Rumination has been consistently found to be a risk factor of depression.

However, few studies examined rumination and its relationship with depression,

and the protective role of such individual positive traits as hope, in a Hong Kong

Chinese context. As opposed to western findings, a recent local study found that

the two components of rumination (Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema,

2003), namely brooding and reflective pondering, were not correlated, and the

latter was rather adaptive in predicting depressive symptoms (Lo, Ho, & Hollen,

2008). Together with some psychometric issues revealed in the same study, it is

unclear if the two-factor model of rumination is applicable in the Hong Kong

Chinese context. In addition, given that hope only buffers against negative impact

of risk factors of depression, whether the moderating effect of hope on the

relationship of brooding and reflective pondering with depressive symptoms in

Geiger and Kwon’s (2010) western sample can be replicated in Hong Kong

Chinese populations is not clear. Therefore, the present study re-examines the

two-factor model of rumination and its relationship with depressive symptoms,

and the moderating role of hope in a Hong Kong Chinese sample using a

longitudinal design.

Adult Trait Hope Scale, Ruminative Response Scale, and Center for

Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale were administered to 189 Hong Kong

Chinese university students at lectures with a four-week interval between the two

time-points. Analyses using hierarchical linear regression were conducted to

examine the relationship of brooding and reflective pondering, and their

relationship with depressive symptoms and the role of hope, both concurrently

and prospectively.

Results confirmed the applicability of the two-factor model of rumination in

the Hong Kong Chinese college sample. Rumination (total) and brooding

consistently predicted depressive symptoms. Also, moderating effect of hope on

the relationship of brooding and depressive symptoms was replicated using the

time 1 data in the present study. Nonetheless, contrary to the recent local finding

by Lo et al. (2008), brooding and reflective pondering were positively correlated

as in western samples, and there was some evidence of one-way relationship from

reflective pondering to brooding as shown by the longitudinal data. Reflective

pondering itself was neither adaptive nor maladaptive, because there was no

significant relationship between reflective pondering and depressive symptoms

after controlling for level of brooding. Hence, hope had no interaction with

reflective pondering in predicting depressive symptoms. For longitudinal data,

after controlling for baseline level of the dependent variables, the one-way

relationship from reflective pondering to brooding, the relationship of rumination

(total) and brooding with depressive symptoms, and the moderating effect of hope

on the relationship between brooding and depressive symptoms, all became

nonsignificant.

The findings of the present study support the use of the two-factor model of

rumination in Hong Kong Chinese context, and suggest that the two components

of rumination were correlated probably because reflective pondering tended to

lead to brooding. This study also offers further empirical support for brooding

being a more robust risk factor of depression than reflective pondering and the

buffering impact of hope on psychological well-being. Implications of the results,

limitations of this study and recommendations for further research were also

addressed.