By: D. Gage Jordan
Close relationships
Depression is a heterogeneous construct associated with a wide array of symptoms, from a loss of interest in people and/or things, to difficulties concentrating and issues with weight (i.e., recent increases or decreases). These symptoms, such as social anhedonia (i.e., a lack of interest in people), may be detrimental to formulating or maintaining close relationships (Troisi et al., 2010). However, whether or not depression impacts close relationships, and how, are important questions. Previous research has shown that close social relationships are important for subjective well-being (Lucas, Dyrenforth, & Portia, 2006), a construct involving life satisfaction (e.g., evaluating one’s life positively) and affect balance (i.e., experiencing relatively more positive than negative emotions).
In regards to close relationships, several factors are associated with the beginning stages of a relationship, as well as maintenance of that relationship. In relation to maintenance, Le and colleagues’ (2010) meta-analysis found that relationship factors, as opposed to individual factors (e.g., the personality of the husband) are better predictors of relationship breakup (i.e., dissolution). One noteworthy relationship factor was network support, or support from other individuals not involved in the relationship. In addition, the couple’s commitment to the relationship, as well as dependence on the relationship, were also highly predictive of breakup (an inverse pattern, naturally). Indeed, other relationship factors, such as love, trust, and self-disclosure to the other person, are also particularly strong predictors (although relationship satisfaction, not so much).
Moreover, Niehuis, Huston, and Rosenband (2006) postulated that it is the interaction between Partner A’s and Partner B’s attributes that help foster the initial stages of the relationship, and ultimately marital success, leading to the notion proposed by Le and colleagues (2010) that these relationships factors are crucial for various stages of the relationship. That is, it is not only variables such as premarital attitudes about sex and marital roles for one person in the relationship, rather, this interaction between such attitudes between partners may ultimately predict marital outcomes (Niehuis, Huston, & Rosenband, 2006).
Depression as a factor?
Frameworks of marital development emphasize stressful events couples encounter, as well as their enduring vulnerabilities each spouse brings to the marriage and the adaptive processes through which the couple can contend with difficult circumstances (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). A spouse who is experiencing symptoms of depression, then, might have an impact on the course of a marriage or long-term relationship. Research appears to support the notion of the deleterious effect of depression on close relationships, even in adolescence. For example, La Greca and Harrison (2005) found that endorsement of negative qualities of one’s close friends (e.g., ongoing conflict or criticism) was associated with symptoms of depression. In contrast, association with a high-status peer crowed appear to buffer against the effects of depression. When studying adults’ long-term, premarital relationships, Fletcher, Fitness, and Blampied (1990) found that depression was inversely associated with relationship happiness, as well as positive experiences attributed to the relationship. Indeed, the former relationship (between depression and marital happiness) has been researched for quite some time (cf. Gotlib & Hooley, 1988), with research in therapy realm indicating that both marital therapy and cognitive therapy may reduce symptoms of depression (Beach & O’Leary, 1992).
In conclusion
Unfortunately depression in the context of close relationships (e.g., marriage) has received less attention in recent years, evidenced by a corpus of research focusing on the relationship between self-reported marital discord and symptoms of depression. However, future research on this relationship may take a page from recent advances in close relationship research (cf. Le et al., 2010), which focuses on the dynamic interplay between several variables that each couple brings to the relationship. That is, it is not likely that one spouse’s “depression” will have an arrow leading to reduced marital happiness. Thus, breaking down the heterogeneity of depression (e.g., looking at different symptoms), as well as the external factors that may also confer risk for relationship dissolution (e.g., social networks), may allow researchers to uncover a more specific relationship between depression and close relationship functioning.
References
- Beach, S. R. H., & Daniel O'Leary, K. (1992). Treating depression in the context of marital discord: Outcome and predictors of response of marital therapy versus cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 23, 507-528.
- Gotlib, I. H., & Hooley, J. M. (1988). Depression and marital distress: Current status and future directions. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 543-580). New York: Wiley
- Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34.
- Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta‐analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377-390.
- Lucas, Richard E., Dyrenforth, Portia S., & Vohs Kathleen D. (2006). Does the Existence of Social Relationships Matter for Subjective Well-Being? In Finkel, Eli J. (Ed), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 254-273). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
- Niehuis, S., Huston, T. L., & Rosenband, R. (2006). From courtship into marriage: A new developmental model and methodological critique. The Journal of Family Communication, 6, 23-47.
- Troisi, A., Alcini, S., Coviello, M., Nanni, R. C., & Siracusano, A. (2010). Adult attachment style and social anhedonia in healthy volunteers. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 640-643.