Accepted Manuscript

Cognitive Vulnerability to Anxiety in the Stress Generation Process: Further

Investigation of the Interaction Effect between the Looming Cognitive Style and
Anxiety Sensitivity

John H. Riskind, Evan M. Kleiman, Hilary Weingarden, Alexander F. Danvers

PII: S0005-7916(13)00019-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2013.03.002
Reference: BTEP 942

To appear in: Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Received Date: 10 February 2012

Revised Date: 6 March 2013
Accepted Date: 15 March 2013

Please cite this article as: Riskind, J.H., Kleiman, E.M., Weingarden, H., Danvers, A.F., Cognitive
Vulnerability to Anxiety in the Stress Generation Process: Further Investigation of the Interaction
Effect between the Looming Cognitive Style and Anxiety Sensitivity, Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry (2013), doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2013.03.002.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: Cognitive Vulnerability to Anxiety in Stress Generation

PT
RI
Cognitive Vulnerability to Anxiety in the Stress Generation Process: Further Investigation

SC
of the Interaction Effect between the Looming Cognitive Style and Anxiety Sensitivity

U
John H. Riskind1
Evan M. Kleiman1
AN
Hilary Weingarden1
Alexander F. Danvers2
M

George Mason University1, Arizona State University2

D
TE

Author for Correspondence:

EP

John H. Riskind
Department of Psychology
George Mason University
C

Mail Stop 3F5

Fairfax, VA 22030
AC

Phone: (703) 993-4094

Fax: (703) 993-1359
Email: jriskind@gmu.edu

Key Words: Looming Maladaptive Style, Anxiety Sensitivity, Life Events, Stress
Generation, Cognitive Vulnerabilities to Anxiety, Anxiety
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: Cognitive Vulnerability to Anxiety in Stress Generation

PT
RI
Cognitive Vulnerability to Anxiety in the Stress Generation Process: Further Investigation

SC
of the Interaction Effect between the Looming Cognitive Style and Anxiety Sensitivity

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP

Key Words: Looming Maladaptive Style, Anxiety Sensitivity, Life Events, Stress Generation,
AC

Cognitive Vulnerabilities to Anxiety, Anxiety

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 2

Abstract

Background and objectives: The goal of the present study was to replicate and extend previous

research on the relationship between stress generation and two well-documented anxiety related

PT
cognitive vulnerabilities, Looming Cognitive Style (LCS) and Anxiety Sensitivity (AS). We first

sought to replicate findings that LCS and AS augment each others stress generation effect. Next,

RI
we expanded upon these findings by conducting fine grained analyses not possible in the prior

study, by using the third edition of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (Taylor et al., 2007) and

SC
examined the individual facets of AS, which includes: Mental Incapacitation (fear of mental

U
impairment), Physical (fear of catastrophic outcomes such as death), and Social (fear of being

noticed for trembling, blushing) facets.

AN
Methods: We followed 99 female undergraduates who were assessed twice over a six-week
M
interval.

Results: First, the results replicated a previous study and showed that LCS and AS magnified
D

each other's impact on stress generation. Second, analyses using the individual subscales of AS
TE

indicated significant interactions between LCS and the Mental Incapacitation and Physical facets

of AS but not the Social facet.

EP

Limitations: Limitations of the present study include reliance on self-report measures and the

use of a female only sample. Using such a sample is consistent with previous literature, but limits
C

generalizability to males.
AC

Conclusions: The present findings are consistent with the emerging view that stress generation

is an active, transactional process and that anxiety-related cognitive styles (much like depressive

styles) contribute to stress generation.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 3

Cognitive Vulnerability to Anxiety in the Stress Generation Process: Further Investigation

of the Interaction Effect between the Looming Cognitive Style and Anxiety Sensitivity

1. Introduction

PT
There is considerable evidence that individuals who are depressed, and to a lesser extent

anxious, experience more negative life events than those without such psychopathology

RI
(Hammen, 1991; for reviews, see Liu, 2013; Liu & Alloy, 2010). Moreover, such individuals

SC
may behave in ways that generate stressful events (so called negative dependent events), which

in turn perpetuate or exacerbate their symptoms (e.g. Connolly, Eberhart, Hammen, & Brennan,

U
2010; Hammen, 1991). This stress generation effect (Hammen, 1991) has become increasingly

AN
studied in relation to cognitive-affective personality characteristics that predict negative

dependent events, even when controlling for levels of depressive symptoms. For example,
M
negative cognitive styles related to depression, such as depressive inferential styles (Kercher &

Rapee, 2009; Safford, Alloy, Abramson, & Crossfield, 2007; Shih, Abela, & Starrs, 2009),
D

hopelessness (Joiner et al., 2005), and rumination (Flynn, Kecmanovic, & Alloy, 2010; McIntosh,
TE

Gillanders, & Rodgers, 2010), act as predictors of negative dependent events above and beyond

symptoms of depression (Safford, Alloy, Abramson, & Crossfield, 2007).

EP

Although the prior studies established stress generating effects of depression-related

C

cognitive styles (Kercher & Rapee, 2009; Safford et al., 2007; Shih et al., 2009), a study by
AC

Riskind, Black, and Shahar (2010) presented evidence that anxiety-related cognitive styles also

contribute to stress generation. They investigated the stress generating effects of two relatively

distinct and moderately correlated anxiety-related cognitive styles: the Looming Cognitive Style

and Anxiety Sensitivity. Looming Cognitive Style (LCS; Riskind et al., 2010; Riskind &

Williams, 2005; Riskind, Williams, Gessner, Chrosniak, & Cortina, 2000) refers to a bias in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 4

overestimating the progress of threatening outcomes, and it emphasizes mental simulation of

growing threats. That is, individuals with anxiety generate mental scenarios and expectations of

threats that are intensifying and approaching faster than they can cope or respond. Accordingly,

individuals with the LCS interpret innocuous or ambiguous situations as rapidly developing and

PT
rising in risk (Riskind & Williams, 2005; Riskind et al., 2000). LCS is found across the anxiety

RI
spectrum (Riskind, Rector, & Cassin, 2011), predicts gains in anxiety and worry symptoms over

time, and is less associated with depression than anxiety (Adler & Strunk, 2010; Riskind, Tzur,

SC
Williams, Mann, & Shahar, 2007; Riskind et al., 2000; Riskind & Williams, 2005). Anxiety

Sensitivity (AS; Reiss, Peterson, Gursky, & McNally, 1986; Taylor et al., 2007) is a related but

U
distinct cognitive style that leads individuals to exaggerate the adverse consequences of anxiety
AN
reactions. For example, individuals perceive anxiety and interpret physical anxiety sensations

such as rapid heart rate as signs of catastrophic outcomes, such as dying or going crazy.
M
Either of the anxiety-related cognitive styles might predict stress generation. On
D

theoretical grounds, Riskind et al. (2010) hypothesized that LCS, which induces increased
TE

anxiety symptoms, would augment or magnify the depletion effect of AS, which makes anxiety

symptoms especially feared. This interaction effect hypothesis was based partly on Baumeisters
EP

model of self-regulatory strength (Gailliot, Schmeichel, & Baumeister, 2006; Schmeichel, Vohs,

& Baumeister, 2003; Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005), which contends that self-control
C

resources can be depleted by stress to a point of exhaustion (like an exhausted muscle to use
AC

his analogy). When a persons self- control resources are depleted, decreases in the ability to

solve problems or cope with stress, inhibit unwanted thoughts, and manage impressions can

occur. Riskind et al. (2010) hypothesized that because of the synergistic effects of LCS and AS

(one creating symptoms and the other magnifying the extent that symptoms are threatening), a
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 5

person with both vulnerabilities would become the most likely to reach a point of dysfunctional

depletion. In other words, LCS and AS might each separately deplete coping resources, but the

interaction between these two cognitive styles would synergistically magnify the depletion of

self-regulatory strength above and beyond the additive sum of their main effects. In line with

PT
that hypothesis, Riskind et al. (2010) found that LCS and AS interact with one another to

RI
augment and magnify each others effects on stress generation over a four-month time period..

1.1 The Present Study

SC
The primary goal of the present study was to replicate and extend Riskind et al. (2010) by

examining whether LCS and AS interact to synergistically predict increased negative dependent

U
events, as well as to examine the question of whether different facets of AS are differentially
AN
involved in this stress generating interaction. To this end, the present study used the third edition

of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; Taylor et al., 2007). The newer edition includes reliable
M
and empirically validated measures of three facets associated with AS (Li & Zinbarg, 2007;
D

Stewart, Taylor, & Baker, 1997; Zinbarg, Barlow, & Brown, 1997) that differentially correlate
TE

with disorders and symptoms. These three facets are the Mental Incapacitation facet, the

Physical facet, and the Social Concerns facet.

EP

The Mental Incapacitation facet captures concerns about insanity or going crazy and is

cross-sectionally elevated in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and depression (Cox, Enns, &
C

Taylor, 2001; Rector, Szacun-Shimizu, & Leybman, 2007; Zinbarg, Barlow, & Brown, 1997)
AC

and prospectively predictive of panic symptoms (Li & Zinbarg, 2007; Schmidt, Lerew, &

Jackson, 1998) and hopelessness (Schmidt, Lerew, & Joiner, 1998). In a recent structural

equation modeling study, the Mental Incapacitation facet was found to load onto a broad
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 6

general distress factor comprised of common symptoms shared by all anxiety and depression

symptoms (Lewis, et al., 2010).

The Physical Concerns facet measures a fear that physical reactions can lead to

catastrophic outcomes such as heart attacks or strokes. The physical facet has been found to be

PT
elevated in panic disorder (Rector et al., 2007), and it is prospectively predictive of depression

RI
(Grant, Beck, & Davila, 2007; Hayward, Killen, Kraemer, & Taylor, 2000) and panic symptoms

(Grant et al., 2007; Hayward et al., 2000). Additionally, structural equation modeling showed

SC
that the Physical facet predicted a latent variable comprising fears associated with anxiety

disorders including panic and phobias; it also had variance specific to depression (Lewis et al.,

U
2010).
AN
Unlike the former two facets, the Social Concerns facet -- which measures fears of

having anxiety noticed by others -- is elevated in social anxiety disorder (SAD), but has not been
M
found to be predictive of future social anxiety or other anxiety symptoms (Grant et al., 2007).
D

Furthermore, structural equation modeling found that this facet was not positively predictive of
TE

general distress, anxiety or depression symptoms at any level, but it was even paradoxically

predictive of lower levels of fears (Lewis et al., 2010).

EP

In comparing the facets, the Mental Incapacitation and Physical Concerns facets are more

strongly associated with psychopathology than the Social Concerns facet. Furthermore, the
C

Mental Incapacitation and Physical Concerns facets may capture fears of particularly
AC

catastrophic and irrevocable outcomes in comparison to the Social Concerns facet (e.g., insanity

or death versus being noticed for blushing). Finally, individuals with elevated anxiety sensitivity

to Social Concerns may be able to avoid social situations that would trigger interpersonal

anxiety. On the other hand, individuals with elevated anxiety sensitivity to Mental
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 7

Incapacitation or Physical Concerns have much less control over triggers of these fear domains.

On the basis of these considerations, we hypothesized that the interaction effect between LCS

and AS for stress generation would emerge for the Mental Incapacitation and Physical facets but

would not be significant for the Social facet.

PT
A secondary goal of the present study was to evaluate stress generation effects of LCS

RI
and AS using a shorter-term six-week time interval rather than the four-month interval in the

original study of Riskind et al. (2010). This methodological change allowed us to examine the

SC
robustness and generalizability of the findings of Riskind et al. (2010) to a much shorter time

frame.

U
2. Material and Methods

2.1 Participants
AN
Ninety-nine female college students participated in the study for course credit. Their
M
ages ranged from 18 to 48 years (M = 21.25, SD = 5.06). Approximately 50% of the sample
D

described themselves as Caucasian, 20% Asian, 12% African American, 4% Native Hawaiian,
TE

and the rest described themselves as another ethnicity. The student body of the university is

diverse and contains full-time day students, older students returning part time after another career
EP

or serving in the military, and foreign students.

2.2 Procedure
C

Participants were recruited and compensated with course credit for a short-term
AC

prospective study on stress and interpersonal relationships with two online-administered time

points. Participants completed a demographics screener and a set of measures that included the

Looming Maladaptive Style Questionnaire (Riskind et al., 2000), the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3

(Taylor et al., 2007), the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 8

and the Life Events Scale (Francis-Raniere, Alloy, & Abramson, 2006). Six weeks later,

participants completed measures of life events that had occurred since the first time point.

2.3 Measures

Life Events Scale (LES; Francis-Raniere et al., 2006). The LES is a self-report measure

PT
of 61 negative and 35 positive life events that have occurred across a variety of domains such as

RI
school, family, romantic relationships, and finances. A rating system provided by Alloy and

Abramson (1999) was used to select negative dependent events. Of the 61 negative events, 46

SC
are dependent in nature (e.g., got into a fight with a roommate). The LES and rating system of

Alloy and Abramson have been used in previous stress generation studies (e.g. Safford et al.,

U
2007) and the measure is similar to the measures used in many stress generation studies focus on
AN
negative dependent events (e.g. Joiner, Wingate, Gencoz, & Gencoz, 2005; Potthoff, Holahan, &

Joiner, 1995, Safford et al., 2006, Shih, 2006; Wingate & Joiner, 2004). Participants were asked
M
whether or not an event had occurred in the past six months at Time 1 and in the time since Time
D

1 at Time 2. Overall occurrence scores were created by summing events at each time point.
TE

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS is a

42-item self-report instrument designed to measure the three related negative emotional states of
EP

depression, anxiety and tension/stress. Past research has shown it to be both a reliable and valid

measure (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). In the present study, composite DASS scores were used
C

to assess psychopathology symptoms and this had excellent internal consistency (alpha = .93).
AC

Looming Maladaptive Style Questionnaire (LMSQ; Riskind et al., 2000). The LMSQ

was used to measure looming cognitive style, or an individuals tendency to appraise threats as

rapidly rising in risk, progressively gathering momentum and worsening, or actively accelerating

or speeding up. Participants respond to six vignettes describing a range of potentially stressful
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 9

situations including physical illness, financial problems, social rejection, and being trapped or

hurt. Participants answer three questions about each vignette on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Individual item scores are aggregated such that higher scores indicate higher levels of looming

vulnerability. The LMSQ has been shown to be a reliable measure that has predictive,

PT
convergent, and discriminant validity (Riskind et al., 2000). In the present study, adequate

RI
internal consistency was found for the LMSQ (alpha = .73).

The Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3; Taylor et al., 2007). The ASI-3 is a revision of

SC
the original Anxiety Sensitivity Index. This 18-item self-report measure assesses three facets of

AS: Mental Incapacitation, Physical, and Social concerns. Participants are asked to indicate how

U
descriptive each statement is of them using a 1 (very little) to 5 (very much) point likert-type
AN
scale. Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety sensitivity. The three-factor ASI

demonstrates strong construct validity when using confirmatory factor analysis (CFI = .98;
M
Taylor et al., 2007). In the present study, excellent internal consistency was found for the full
D

scale (alpha = .92) and acceptable internal consistency was found for the individual facets:
TE

Mental Incapacitation (alpha = .90), Physical (alpha = .87), and Social (alpha = .82).

2.4 Analytic Strategy

EP

As indicated by Joiner (1994), it is important to determine whether covariates (e.g., T1

negative dependent events and DAS scores in the present study), interacted significantly with the
C

predictors before conducting further regression analyses. Joiner (1994) notes such interactions
AC

can be readily controlled in the statistical analysis to counter violations of the regression

assumptions of homogeneity of variance. He states that this step of examining for such

interactions is an important step that is often overlooked or simply not reported because the

effects are not significant. In following Joiners recommendations, we discovered that there was
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 10

a significant interaction effect between T1 AS and negative dependent events in predicting stress

generation. As recommended by Joiner (1994) as well as Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West (2002),

we controlled for this interaction (removed its impact by including it as a further covariate) in all

tests of the studys main hypotheses in a series of hierarchical regression models.

PT
The basic form of these hierarchical linear regression models included four steps: (1) the

RI
covariates in the first step (baseline symptoms and negative dependent events), (2) the main

effects of LMSQ and ASI in the second step, (3) the significant interaction effect that was found

SC
between the covariate (negative dependent events) and ASI in the third step, and (4) the

interaction between LMSQ and ASI in the fourth step. A separate analysis was conducted for

U
the full ASI score and for each of its subscales.
AN
3. Results

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

M
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables are presented in
D

Table 1. The three ASI subscales and full-scale ASI were all significantly correlated (rs ranging
TE

from .45 to .87; all ps < .001). T1 DASS was correlated with T1 and T2 negative dependent

events (r = .30, 33 respectively, p < .01), and T1 and T2 negative dependent events were strongly
EP

correlated (r = .70; p < .001).

3.2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Replication of Riskind, Black, & Shahar (2010)
C

We used hierarchical regression to determine whether we could replicate Riskind et al.

AC

(2010). Table 2 presents the results of these analyses in which Time 2 levels of negative

dependent events were regressed onto T1 LES and T1 DASS (Block 1), T1 LMSQ and ASI

(Block 2), the interactions between T1 ASI and LES (block 3) and the interaction between

LMSQ and ASI (block 4). LMSQ, ASI, and LES scores were centered prior to calculating the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 11

interaction term (Aiken & West, 1991).

Block 1 accounted for 66% of the variance of Time 2 negative dependent events (R2 = .66,

p < .001). Statistically significant predictors in this block were LES and DASS. Block 2 (with

main effects of LMSQ and ASI) did not significantly account for any additional variance in Time

PT
2 LES. The ASI X T1 LES interaction in the third block was unexpectedly significant and

RI
accounted for an additional 2% of the variance in Time 2 LES. This interaction revealed that at

low levels of negative dependent events at Time 1, ASI had a small effect predicting increased

SC
stress generation. At high levels of negative dependent events, however, ASI had no effect at all.

Since this interaction with the covariate was controlled in Block 3, this removed its effects on the

U
test of our main predicted interactions. Due to space limitations, and because this interaction was
AN
not specifically predicted, it is not described or plotted in further detail

Consistent with Riskind et al. (2010), the LMSQ x ASI interaction in block 4 was
M
significant and accounted for an additional 2% of the variance of Time 2 LES. We further
D

probed the interaction based on Aiken & Wests (1991) recommendations. Figure 1 presents the
TE

association between Time 2 negative dependent events and Time 1 LMSQ, corrected for Time 1

negative dependent events, as a function of high vs. low levels (1 SD above and below the mean)
EP

of ASI. As shown in Figure 1, under high levels of ASI (1 SD above the mean), LMSQ was

positively related to Time 2 negative dependent events (standardized simple slope = 1.42, p
C

< .05). Alternatively, under low levels of ASI (1 SD below the mean), LMSQ and Time 2
AC

negative dependent events were not significantly associated (standardized simple slope = - 0.49,

p = .35). This pattern is consistent with our hypothesis that LCS and AS augment each others

stress generating effect.

3.3 Components of ASI in Stress Generation Process

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 12

To extend Riskind et al.s (2010) findings, we conducted a series of similar hierarchical

multiple regression analyses using the ASI facet scores instead of the full scale ASI. Table 3

presents the results of these analyses, which mirrored the first set of analyses with individual ASI

facets instead of the full scale ASI.

PT
In the regression model with the ASI Mental Incapacitation facet, the main effects for the

RI
two cognitive predictors (LMSQ, ASI) in Block 2 did not significantly account for any additional

variance. The interaction between ASI and LES in Block 3 was significant. As predicted, the

SC
interaction between LMSQ and ASI Mental Incapacitation in Block 4 was significant and

accounted for an additional 2% of the variance of Time 2 negative dependent events.

U
This interaction effect is not plotted because of its similarity to the interaction between
AN
the full score for ASI and LMSQ. The analyses showed that under high levels of ASI Mental

Incapacitation (1 SD above the mean), LMSQ was positively associated with Time 2 negative
M
dependent events (standardized simple slope = 1.73, p < .05). However, under low levels of ASI
D

Mental Incapacitation (1 SD below the mean), the association between LMSQ and Time 2
TE

negative dependent events was non-significant (standardized simple slope = - 0.50, p = .62). The

pattern of the interaction is also consistent with the hypothesis that LCS and AS augment each
EP

others stress generating effect.

As can also be seen in Table 3, the regression model with the ASI Physical facet yielded
C

virtually identical results. In this case, the interaction between LMSQ and ASI Physical
AC

Concerns in Block 4 was significant and accounted for an additional 2% of the variance of Time

2 negative dependent events. Once again, this interaction effect is not plotted because of its

similarity to the interaction for ASI Mental Incapacitation. When this interaction is probed,

under high levels of ASI Physical (1 SD above the mean), LMSQ was positively associated with
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 13

Time 2 negative dependent events (standardized simple slope = 1.39, p < .05). Alternatively,

under low levels of ASI Physical (1 SD below the mean), the association between LMSQ and

Time 2 negative dependent events was non-significant (standardized simple slope = - 0.42, p

= .49). Again, these patterns are consistent with our hypotheses. Finally, consistent with our

PT
hypothesis, the regression model yielded no significant interaction between LMSQ and ASI

RI
Social in Block 4, indicating that there was no synergistic interaction in predicting stress

generation.

SC
4. Discussion

The present study extends Riskind et al.s (2010) finding that two anxiety-related

U
cognitive styles, Looming Cognitive Style (LCS) and Anxiety Sensitivity (AS), synergistically
AN
augment each others effects on stress generation. We followed 99 female undergraduates, who

were assessed twice over a relatively short six-week interval (as compared to four months in
M
Riskind et al., 2010), and found that these anxiety-related vulnerabilities interacted to predict
D

increases in stressful events. In line with our new hypotheses, the current results showed that the
TE

Mental Incapacitation and Physical Concerns, but not the Social Concerns, facets of AS,

contributed to stress generation. The present findings provide further evidence that anxiety-
EP

related cognitive styles are relevant to stress generation. Furthermore, this study is only the

second, to our knowledge, to examine the role of cognitive vulnerabilities to anxiety in the
C

stress-generation process.
AC

More generally, our findings attest to the need to move beyond a main-effects-only

approach to an interactive-synergistic approach to cognitive vulnerabilities. Cognitive

vulnerabilities do not simply occur in a vacuum but co-exist and moderate and augment each

others effect on outcomes such as stress generation (Riskind et al., 2010; Shahar, Gallagher,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 14

Blatt, Kuperminc, & Leadbeater, 2004). Such an interactive-synergistic perspective is also

consistent with Alloy, Liu, and Benders (2010) call for greater study of moderator variables to

better understand the overall phenomenon of stress generation.

We hypothesized a synergistic (rather than main or additive) effect of LCS and AS on

PT
stress generation because we posited that they would magnify each others impact in depleting

RI
regulatory resources (see Riskind et al., 2010). That is, LCS, which induces increased anxiety

symptoms, would augment or magnify the depletion effect of AS, which makes anxiety

SC
symptoms especially feared. We also hypothesized synergistic relationships for the individuals

facets of AS. Specifically, we expected the synergistic relationship between LCS and AS to only

U
exist for the Mental Incapacitation and Physical, but not Social facets. The AS facets of Mental
AN
Incapacitation (fear of mental impairment) and Physical (fear of catastrophic outcomes such as

death), have significant links to anxiety, depression, and general distress. However, the Social
M
facet (being noticed for blushing or trembling m fear of mental impairment) does not have these
D

links to symptoms (Lewis et al., 2010). Furthermore, the Mental Incapacitation and Physical
TE

facts may center on fears of relatively catastrophic and irrevocable consequences of anxiety (e.g..,

insanity and death) compared to their Social facet counterpart.

EP

For these reasons, we assumed that the Mental Incapacitation and Physical facets of AS

might deplete self-control resources more and this would be reflected in stress generation effects.
C

Further, while triggers of the Social facet of AS are largely external (social) and are therefore
AC

easily avoidable, triggers of the Mental Incapacitation and Physical Concerns facets of anxiety

sensitivity are internal, and are therefore more difficult to avoid. Thus, we further expected that

the latter two facets of anxiety sensitivity would be particularly implicated in the interaction with

LCS to predict stress generation. However, although the findings for the AS facets that emerged
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 15

as significant are consistent with this line of reasoning, continued research and replication is

warranted because the differences for the facets that were found may be influenced by chance

(e.g., Type I error for the Mental Incapacitation and Physical Concerns, and Type II for the

Social Concerns facet).

PT
A strength of the present study is that we detected and controlled for an unexpected but

RI
significant interaction between a key study predictor (AS) and a covariate (time 1 negative

dependent events). Joiner (1994) has discussed the importance of controlling not just for

SC
covariates but interactions between covariates and predictors before conducting further

regression analyses. As Joiner noted, such interactions can be readily controlled with the

U
statistical analysis. Failure to do so, however, violates the homogeneity assumptions of
AN
regression analysis. Future research on stress generation should consider the importance of

attention to such interaction effects. In the current study, the interaction between AS and the
M
covariate (T1 negative life events) indicated that AS only predicted subsequent negative
D

dependent events at low, but not high, levels of baseline negative dependent events. Although
TE

we did not predict this finding, it may reflect a saturation effect for ASI such that at low levels

of stressful life events, individuals' AS may impact stress generation but at high levels of
EP

stressful life events, there is already so much stress that AS contributes little. It is conceivable

that LCS does not show this same effect because it is future-oriented and focuses on anticipated
C

negative future events. Thus, AS may interact with LCS in stress generation, regardless of initial
AC

levels of stressful life events.

More broadly, the emergence of a stress generation approach over the past several

decades represents an important addition to contemporary cognitive models of vulnerability in

terms of stress-diathesis interactions. Namely, individuals with negative cognitive styles do not
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 16

just experience more depression or anxiety after stressful events, but they also generate negative

events that perpetuate or exacerbate their symptoms. This stress generation approach assumes

that cognitive styles influence the extent that individuals behave to generate negative events. In

this context, the findings of the present study may provide additional insights to potentially

PT
advance our understanding of how cognitive vulnerabilities to anxiety such as LCS and AS

RI
contribute to the onset and maintenance of anxiety pathology.

4.1 Limitations and Future Directions

SC
Several limitations of the present study should be noted. First, we followed the lead of

much stress generation research and used a female-only sample (Eberhart & Hammen, 2009;

U
Daley, et al., 1997; Davilla, Hammen, Burge, Paley, & Daley, 1995; Hammen, 1991). The
AN
reason for this is that many studies have found stress generation effects only or primarily in

women (e.g. Rudolph, Hammen, Burge, Lindberg, Hertzberg, & Daley, 2000; Safford et al.,
M
2007; Shih, 2006; Shih, Eberhart, Hammen, & Brennan, 2006). In addition, women experience
D

more stressful events and are more reactive to these events than men (Hankin & Abramson,
TE

2001). It is not known whether the present results can be generalized to males, however, so

future research must be extended to examine this question. Although self-report checklists
EP

similar to the one used in the present study are widely used in studies of stress generation, such

checklists may be vulnerable to a reporting bias. For example, they might assess perceived but
C

not actual life events that occurred. However, several studies have found that self-report
AC

checklists of stressful events are no more biased than objectively-rated interviews (Lewinsohn,

Rohde, & Gau, 2003; Wagner, Abela, & Brozina, 2006), future research could be strengthened

by use of structured or semi-structured interviews or experience sampling methods that may help

to objectively assess stressful events (Alloy et al., 2010). Finally, the life events measure
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 17

primarily assessed events that are dependent upon the actions (or inactions) of the person and

future research could be strengthened using a life events measure that also assesses independent

events that would be expected to be less influenced by the effects of negative cognitive styles.

The present study served as another initial step in examining stress generation in anxiety.

PT
As such, we focused on anxiety as a general construct. However, an important future direction is

RI
to examine whether this stress generation pattern is different across specific anxiety disorders.

For instance, we might hypothesize that in individuals with panic disorder who are particularly

SC
fearful of catastrophic physical outcomes, the Physical Concerns facet of the AS may be the most

important component of anxiety sensitivity implicated in the interaction with LCS to predict

U
stress generation.
AN
It will be interesting in future research on stress generation effects of cognitive

vulnerabilities to clarify the mediating mechanisms. For example, given the present conceptual
M
framework, it could be fruitful to assess self-regulatory (self-control) resources for coping which
D

can be assessed by means of a simple self-report measure (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone,
TE

2004) as wells as laboratory tasks (Vohs & Heatherhorn, 2000). In addition, avoidance coping

(e.g., wanting unpleasant situations to disappear) might often emerge from self-control depletion
EP

and may also play a mediating role (Holahan, Moos, Holahan, Brennan, & Schutte, 2005). On

this note, a recent study found that LCS predicted increased fears of loss of emotional control
C

over six weeks time (Riskind & Kleiman, 2012). It may also be useful to study disorder-specific
AC

mechanisms of stress generation that may characterize anxiety disorders such as panic disorder.

For example, the exacerbation of panic symptoms after a fight with a friend could lead someone

to avoid future contact with this friend out of fear of having another fight, possibly prematurely
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 18

ending a friendship (a negative event). Someone without such vulnerabilities may reconcile the

friendship, thus avoiding the generation of a future negative event.

It could also be fruitful in future studies to examine synergistic interactions of other

anxiety-related cognitive vulnerabilities, as well as with depression-related cognitive

PT
vulnerability factors, which could also contribute to self-control depletion and avoidance coping.

RI
In addition, the possible interaction of cognitive vulnerabilities between anxiety and depression

is suggested by recent evidence that comorbid anxiety and depression are stronger predictors of

SC
stress generation than depression alone (Connolly, et al., 2010). The present findings and those

of Riskind et al. (2010) are the first to indicate that cognitive vulnerabilities to anxiety have

U
stress generating effects.
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 19

Declaration of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. There were no sources of funding for this

study.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 20

References

Adler, A. D., & Strunk, D. R. (2010). Looming maladaptive style as a moderator of risk factors

for anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 59-68.

PT
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions:

Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

RI
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1999). The Temple-Wisconsin Cognitive Vulnerability to

SC
Depression Project: conceptual background, design, and methods. Journal of Cognitive

Psychotherapy, 13, 227-262.

U
Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Raniere, D., & Dyller, I. M. (1999). Research methods in adult

AN
psychopathology. In P. C. Kendall, J. N. Butcher & G. N. Holmbeck (Eds.), Handbook of

research methods in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 466-498): Hoboken, NJ, US: John
M
Wiley & Sons Inc.

Alloy, L. B., Liu, R. T., & Bender, R. E. (2010). Stress generation research in depression: A
D

commentary. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 3, 380-388.

TE

Alloy, L. B., & Riskind, J. H. (2006). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders: Mahwah,
EP

NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Andersson, G., & Hagnebo, C. (2003). Hearing impairment, coping strategies and anxiety
C

sensitivity. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 10, 35-40.

AC

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351-355.

Black, D., Riskind, J. H., & Kleiman, E. M. (2010). Lifetime history of anxiety and mood

disorders predicted by cognitive vulnerability to anxiety. International Journal of

Cognitive Therapy, 3, 215-227.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 21

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied Multiple

Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Third Edition.). Routledge

Academic.

Connolly, N. P., Eberhart, N. K., Hammen, C. L., & Brennan, P. A. (2010). Specificity of stress

PT
generation: A comparison of adolescents with depressive, anxiety, and comorbid

RI
diagnoses. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 3, 368-379.

Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Taylor, S. (2001). The effect of rumination as a mediator of elevated

SC
anxiety sensitivity in major depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 525-534.

Daley, S. E., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Davila, J., Paley, B., Lindberg, N., & Herzberg, D. S.

U
(1997). Predictors of the generation of episodic stress: A longitudinal study of late
AN
adolescent women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 251-259.

Davila, J., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Paley, B., & Daley, S. E. (1995). Poor interpersonal problem
M
solving as a mechanism of stress generation in depression among adolescent women.
D

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 592-600.

TE

Flynn, M., Kecmanovic, J., & Alloy, L. B. (2010). An examination of integrated cognitive-

interpersonal vulnerability to depression: The role of rumination, perceived social support,

EP

and interpersonal stress generation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 456-466.

Francis-Raniere, E. L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (2006). Depressive personality styles
C

and bipolar spectrum disorders: Prospective tests of the event congruency hypothesis.
AC

Bipolar Disorders, 8, 382-399.

Gailliot, M. T., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Self-regulatory processes defend

against the threat of death: Effects of self-control depletion and trait self-control on

thoughts and fears of dying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 49-62.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 22

Grant, D. M., Beck, J. G., & Davila, J. (2007). Does anxiety sensitivity predict symptoms of

panic, depression, and social anxiety? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 2247-2255.

Hammen, C. (1991). Generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 100, 555-561.

PT
Hammen, C. (1992). Life events and depression: The plot thickens. American Journal of

RI
Community Psychology, 20, 179-193.

Hammen, C. (2006). Stress Generation in Depression: Reflections on Origins, Research, and

SC
Future Directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1065-1082.

Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression: An

U
elaborated cognitive vulnerability-transactional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin,

127, 773 - 796.

AN
M
Hayward, C., Killen, J. D., Kraemer, H. C., & Taylor, C. B. (2000). Predictors of panic attacks in

adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39,
D

207-214.
TE

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., Brennan, P. L., Schutte, K. K. (2005). Stress

Generation, Avoidance Coping, and Depressive Symptoms: A 10-YearModel. Journal of

EP

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 658-666.

C

Joiner, T. E. (1994). Covariance of baseline symptom scores in prediction of future symptom

AC

scores: A methodological note. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 497-504.

Joiner, T. E., Jr., Wingate, L. R., & Otamendi, A. (2005). An interpersonal addendum to the

hopelessness theory of depression: Hopelessness as a stress and depression generator.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 649-664.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 23

Kercher, A., & Rapee, R. M. (2009). A test of a cognitive diathesis - Stress generation pathway

in early adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 845-855.

Kercher, A., Rapee, R. M., & Schniering, C. A. (2009). Neuroticism, life events and negative

thoughts in the development of depression in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Child

PT
Psychology, 37, 903-915.

RI
Lewinsohn, P. M., Rohde, P., & Gau, J. M. (2003). Comparability of self-report checklists and

interview data in the assessment of stressful life events in young adults. Psychological

SC
Reports, 93, 459-471.

Lewis, A. R., Zinbarg, R. E., Mineka, S., Craske, M. G., Epstein, A., & Griffith, J. W. (2010).

U
The relationship between anxiety sensitivity and latent symptoms of emotional problems:
AN
A structural equation modeling approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 761-769.

Li, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2007). Anxiety sensitivity and panic attacks: A 1-year longitudinal
M
study. Behavior Modification, 31, 145-161.
D

Liu, R. T. (2013). Stress generation: Future directions and clinical implications. Clinical
TE

Psychology Review. Online before print publication.

Liu, R. T., & Alloy, L. B. (2010). Stress generation in depression: A systematic review of the
EP

empirical literature and recommendations for future study. Clinical Psychology Review,

30, 582-593.
C

Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states:
AC

Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression

and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335-343.

McIntosh, E., Gillanders, D., & Rodgers, S. (2010). Rumination, goal linking, daily hassles and

life events in major depression. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 17, 33-43.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 24

Rector, N. A., Szacun-Shimizu, K., & Leybman, M. (2007). Anxiety sensitivity within the

anxiety disorders: Disorder-specific sensitivities and depression comorbidity. Behaviour

Research and Therapy, 45, 1967-1975.

Riskind, J. H., Black, D., & Shahar, G. (2010). Cognitive vulnerability to anxiety in the stress

PT
generation process: Interaction between the looming cognitive style and anxiety

RI
sensitivity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 124-128.

Riskind, J. H., & Kleiman, E. M. (2012). Looming cognitive style, emotion schemas, and fears

SC
of loss of emotional control: Two studies. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 5,

392405.

U
Riskind, J. H., Tzur, D., Williams, N. L., Mann, B., & Shahar, G. (2007). Short-term predictive
AN
effects of the looming cognitive style on anxiety disorder symptoms under restrictive

methodological conditions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 1765-1777.

M
Riskind, J. H., & Williams, N. L. (2005). A Unique Vulnerability Common to All Anxiety
D

Disorders: The Looming Maladaptive Style Cognitive vulnerability to emotional

TE

disorders. (pp. 175-206): Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Riskind, J. H., Williams, N. L., Gessner, T. L., Chrosniak, L. D., & Cortina, J. M. (2000). The
EP

looming maladaptive style: Anxiety, danger, and schematic processing. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 837-852.

C

Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Lindberg, N., Herzberg, D., & Daley, S. E. (2000).
AC

Toward an Interpersonal Life-Stress Model of Depression: The Developmental Context

of Stress Generation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 215-234.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 25

Safford, S. M., Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., & Crossfield, A. G. (2007). Negative cognitive

style as a predictor of negative life events in depression-prone individuals: A test of the

stress generation hypothesis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 99, 147-154.

Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego

PT
depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal

RI
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 33-46.

Schmidt, N. B., Lerew, D. R., & Jackson, R. J. (1998). "The role of anxiety sensitivity in the

SC
pathogenesis of panic: Prospective evaluation of spontaneous panic attacks during acute

stress": Correction to Schmidt et al. (1997). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 538.

U
Schmidt, N. B., Lerew, D. R., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (1998). Anxiety sensitivity and the
AN
pathogenesis of anxiety and depression: Evidence for symptom specificity. Behaviour

Research and Therapy, 36, 165-177.

M
Schmidt, N. B., Zvolensky, M. J., & Maner, J. K. (2006). Anxiety sensitivity: Prospective
D

prediction of panic attacks and Axis I pathology. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 40,
TE

691-699.

Shahar, G., Gallagher, E. F., Blatt, S. J., Kuperminc, G. P., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). An
EP

interactive-synergetic approach to the assessment of personality vulnerability to

depression: Illustration using the adolescent version of the Depressive Experiences

C

Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 605625.

AC

Shih, J. H., Abela, J. R. Z., & Starrs, C. (2009). Cognitive and interpersonal predictors of stress

generation in children of affectively ill parents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology:,

37, 195-208.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 26

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of

Personality, 72, 271-324.

Taylor, S., Zvolensky, M. J., Cox, B. J., Deacon, B., Heimberg, R. G., Ledley, D. R., . . .

Cardenas, S. J. (2007). Robust dimensions of anxiety sensitivity: Development and initial

PT
validation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3. Psychological Assessment, 19, 176-188.

RI
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-Regulation and Self-Presentation:

Regulatory Resource Depletion Impairs Impression Management and Effortful Self-

SC
Presentation Depletes Regulatory Resources. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 632-657.

U
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-Regulatory Failure: A Resource-Depletion
AN
Approach. Psychological Science, 11, 249 -254.

Wagner, C., Abela, J. R. Z., & Brozina, K. (2006). A comparison of stress measures in children
M
and adolescents: A self-report checklist versus an objectively rated interview. Journal of
D

Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 251-261.

TE

Williams, N. L. (2002). The cognitive interactional model of appraisal and coping: implications

for anxiety and depression. . Dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
EP

Zinbarg, R. E., Barlow, D. H., & Brown, T. A. (1997). Hierarchical structure and general factor

saturation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index: Evidence and implications. Psychological

C

Assessment, 9, 277-284.
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 27

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. T1 ASI

PT
-
2. T1 ASI Mental Impairment .86*** -
3. T1 ASI Physical .87*** .72*** -

RI
4. T1 ASI Social .77*** .45*** .45*** -
5. T1 LMSQ .06 -.07 .09 .11 -

SC
6. T1 DASS -.13 -.12 -.06 -.15 -.04 -
** ** **
7. T1 LES Negative Dep. Events .14 .15 .15 .06 .12 .30*** -
8. T2 LES Negative Dep. Events .20*** .23*** .18*** .08 .13 .33*** .70*** -

U
Mean 18.77 4.21 5.63 8.93 6.49 39.4 7.37 6.82
SD 12.43 4.60
AN 5.16 5.18 0.62 12.6 5.28
Note. ASI = Anxiety Sensitivity Index, LMSQ = Looming Maladaptive Style Questionnaire,
5.31

DASS = Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales, LES = Life Events Scale; *** p < .001, ** p <.01,
*
p < .05.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 28

Table 2. Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis

B SE t R2
Block 1 .66***
T1 LES Neg. Dep. Events 4.56 0.37 12.52***
T1 DASS 0.09 0.03 3.07**

PT
Block 2 .01
T1 LMSQ 0.23 0.42 0.55
T1 ASI 0.14 0.39 0.36
.02*

RI
Block 3
T1 ASI X LES -0.67 0.43 -1.58*
Block 4 .02*

SC
*
T1 LMSQ X ASI 0.90 0.38 2.37
Note. Neg. Dep = negative dependent events, ASI = Anxiety Sensitivity Index, LMSQ =
Looming Maladaptive Style Questionnaire, DASS = Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales, LES
= Life Events Scale; *** p < .001, ** p <.01, * p < .05.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 29

PT
RI
Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting T2 Dependent Events for Three ASI Subscales

SC
Mental Incapacitation Physical Concerns Social Concerns
2 2
B SE t R B SE t R B SE t R2

U
Block 1 .65*** .65*** .65***

AN
T1 LES Neg. Dep. Events 4.56 0.47 12.52*** 4.56 0.47 12.52*** 4.56 0.47 12.52***
T1 DASS 0.09 0.03 3.07* 0.09 0.03 3.07* 0.09 0.03 3.07*

M
Block 2 .006 .003 .002
T1 LMSQ 0.29 0.41 0.69 0.21 0.42 0.51 0.36 0.42 0.87
T1 ASI 0.31 0.41 0.76 0.23 0.39 0.60 -0.27 0.40 -0.81

D
*
Block 3 .01 .02 .001
T1 ASI X LES
TE
-0.51 0.39 -1.32
*
-0.83 0.42 -2.00 *
*
-0.37 0.46 -0.81
Block 4 .02 .02 .01
* *
T1 LMSQ X ASI 1.06 0.45 2.34 0.84 0.37 2.29 0.69 0.40 1.10
EP

Note. ASI = Anxiety Sensitivity Index, LMSQ = Looming Maladaptive Style Questionnaire, DASS = Depression Anxiety and Stress
Scales, LES = Life Events Scale.
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
COGNITIVE VULNERABILITY TO ANXIETY IN STRESS GENERATION 30

Figure 1. Associations between Time 1 LMSQ and Time 2 Stressful Events as a Function of
Time 1 ASI.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

- We examined looming style (LCS), anxiety sensitivity (AS), and

stress generation.

- LCS and AS interactively predict stress generation.

- We also examined the facets that make up the broad AS

PT
construct.

- Only mental incapacitation and physical facets of AS

RI
interact with LCS.

SC
- Social facet of AS does not interact with LCS to predict
stress generation.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Note: Safford et al., 2006 should be Safford et al., 2007

Eberhart, N. K., & Hammen, C. L. (2009). Interpersonal Predictors of Stress Generation.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 544556.

PT
Potthoff, J. G., Holahan, C. J., & Joiner, T. E., (1995). Reassurance seeking, stress generation, and

depressive symptoms: an integrative model. Journal of Personality and Social

RI
Psychology, 68, 664670.

Reiss, S., Peterson, R. A., Gursky, D. M., & McNally, R. J. (1986). Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety

SC
frequency and the prediction of fearfulness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24, 18.

U
Riskind, J. H., Rector, N. A., & Casssin, S. E. (2011). Examination of the convergent validity of

AN
looming vulnerability in the anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 989993.

Safford, S. M., Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., & Crossfield, A. G. (2007). Negative cognitive style as
M
a predictor of negative life events in depression-prone individuals: A test of the stress

generation hypothesis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 99, 147154.

D

Shih, J.H., Eberhart, N. K., Hammen, C. L., & Brennan, P. A. (2006). Differential exposure and
TE

reactivity to interpersonal stress predict sex differences in adolescent depression.

Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 103115.

EP

Shih, Josephine H. (2006). Sex differences in stress generation: an examination of

sociotropy/autonomy, stress, and depressive symptoms. Personality & Social Psychology

C

Bulletin, 32, 434446.

AC

Stewart, S. H., Taylor, S., & Baker, J. M. (1997). Gender differences in dimensions of anxiety

sensitivity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11, 179200.

Wingate, L. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2004). Depression-related stress generation: A longitudinal study

of black adolescents. Behavior Therapy, 35, 247261.