User:Lauriehoul/sandbox

Co-rumination
Co-rumination refers to extensively discussing and revisiting problems, speculating about problems, and focusing on negative feelings with peers. Although it is similar to self-disclosure in that it involves revealing and discussing a problem, it is more focused on the problems themselves and thus can be maladaptive.[1] While self-disclosure is seen as a positive aspect found in close friendships, some types of self-disclosure can also be maladaptive. Co-rumination is a type of behavior that is positively correlated with both rumination and self-disclosure. It has also been linked to anxiety[2]because co-ruminating may exacerbate worries about whether problems will be resolved, and to depressive symptoms due to the consistent negative focus on troubling topics,[1] instead of engaging in problem-solving. However, co-rumination is also closely associated with high-quality friendships and closeness.[1]

Developmental psychology and gender differences
Females tend to report more co-rumination than males [5] perhaps because of the way they learn about communicating. Whereas females are often encouraged to talk about their emotions, the opposite is true for males17. Indeed, boys typically tease each other if one discloses about their feelings, which discourages them from talking about emotions. Specifically, girls are more likely than boys to co-ruminate with their close friends, and co-rumination tendencies in children increase with age. Female adolescents are more likely to co-ruminate than younger girls, because their social worlds become increasingly complex and stressful.[1] However, age differences are not expected among boys because their interactions remain activity focused and the tendency to extensively discuss problems is likely to remain inconsistent with male norms.[1]

Unfortunately, while providing this support, this tendency may also reinforce internalizing problemssuch as anxiety or depression, especially in adolescent girls,[3][4] which may account for higher depression levels among girls than boys. For boys, lower levels of co-rumination may help buffer them against emotional problems if they spend less time with friends dwelling on problems and concerns, though less sharing of personal thoughts and feelings can potentially interfere with creating high-quality friendships.[1]

Co-rumination has been found to partially explain (or mediate) gender differences in depression; females have reported engaging in more co-rumination with close friendships than males, and elevated co-rumination levels are associated with females' higher levels of depression.[5] Co-rumination is also linked to romantic activities, which have been shown to correlate with depressive symptoms over time, because they are often the problem discussed among adolescents.[6]

Research suggests that within adolescents, children who currently exhibit higher levels of co-rumination would predict the onset of depressive diagnoses than in children who exhibit lower levels of co-rumination. In addition, this link was maintained even when children with current diagnoses were excluded, as well as statistically controlling for current depressive symptoms. This further suggests that the relation between co-rumination and a history of depressive diagnoses is not due simply to current levels of depression.[7] Another study looking at 146 adolescents (69% female) ranging in age from 14 to 19 suggests that comparing gender differences in co-rumination across samples, it appears as if these differences intensify through early adolescence but begin to narrow shortly thereafter and remain steady through emerging adulthood[8]

Stress hormones, co-rumination and depression
Co-rumination, or talking excessively about each other's problems, is common during adolescent years, especially among girls, as mentioned before. On a biological basis, a study has shown that there is an increase in the levels of stress hormones when engaging in co-rumination.[9] This suggests that stress hormones may also be released in greater amounts during other life stressors.[9] If someone exhibits co-rumination in response to a life problem it may become more and more common for them to co-ruminate about all problems in their life.

Studies have also shown that co-rumination predict internalizing symptoms such as depression and anxiety.[10] Since co-rumination involves repeatedly going over problems again and again this clearly may lead to depression and anxiety. Catastrophizing, when one takes small possibilities and blows them out of proportion into something negative, is common in depression and anxiety and may very well be a result of constantly going over problems that may not be as bad as they seem.

Co-rumination, that tends to develop the emotional bonds between participants is also a method used by therapy cults to draw in members and increase attachment to the abusive group while at the same time damaging other relationships that may be being discussed (e.g. the members own family).

Effects in daily life
Co-rumination, or lack thereof, leads to different behaviors in daily life. For example, studies have examined the link between co-rumination and weekly drinking habits, specifically, negative thoughts. Worry co-rumination leads to less drinking weekly, while angry co-rumination leads to a significant increase in drinking. There have also been some gender differences found as well in the same study. In general, negative co-rumination increased the likelihood that women would binge drink weekly, versus men who would drink less weekly. When dealing with specific negative emotions, women drank less when taking part in worry co-rumination (as opposed to other negative emotions), while there appeared to be a lack of significant difference in men. (Ciesla et al., 2011)[full citation needed]

Co-rumination and rumination
Rumination involves carefully thinking about problems and focusing on negative affect, for a long period of time, instead of engaging in problem solving18. Similarly, co-rumination also comprises an excessive focus on disturbing emotions, but it involves discussing these problems with peers, rather than simply thinking about them on one’s own[10] [1]. Rumination is speculated to lead to engagement in co-rumination among dyads, which itself is associated with increases in mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety[7]. That said, co-rumination may also lead to rumination. For example, Rose[1] suggested that co-rumination within friendship dyads might encourage individuals to engage in negative thinking and in rumination when their peers are absent. Indeed, social learning theory indicates that individuals learn to behave in certain ways by observing the people around them19. Currently, the direction of the relation between co-rumination and rumination remains unknown. On the one hand, some studies found that co-rumination drives increases in rumination, but not the other way around20. On the other hand, Jose et al.21 found a reverse relation where rumination led to co-rumination. Other studies have suggested that although rumination and co-rumination share several characteristics, they are not redundant processes. For instance, there is evidence that co-rumination is a unique predictor of depression, over and above the effects of rumination[5]. Nevertheless, because of the overlap between these two psychological processes, it is imperative for research examining co-rumination processes to also account for the potential influence of rumination22.

Co-rumination and friendship quality
While rumination clearly constitutes a maladaptive individual coping strategy, the relational aspect of co-rumination may act as a double-edged sword. The fact that co-rumination is associated with high friendships quality suggests that this co-regulation strategy might be partly adaptive23. For example, a test of a transactional model proposed by Rose et al. [13] showed co-rumination predicted greater levels of anxiety, depression, and friendship quality over time. Similarly, positive friendship quality, depression, and anxiety predicted increases in co-rumination, but only for those who had high quality friendships. That is, co-rumination increased friendship quality, but then high friendship quality exacerbated risk for internalizing problems by increasing co-rumination. This finding supports past research indicating that peers encourage each other to engage in maladaptive behaviors through positive reinforcement24. Thus, improvement in interpersonal relationships resulting from co-rumination might constitute a powerful way to encourage further co-ruminative behaviors23.

However, other research has shown that higher rates of co-rumination predicted higher rates of negative friendship quality25. In adolescent girls, co-rumination was related to a decreased number of friends over time[6] and to less social acceptance[8]. Moreover, individuals who co-ruminate tended to report having more peer-level interpersonal problems, which are themselves associated with psychopathological symptoms[10]. Similarly, Rose et al. [13] found that co-rumination is associated with generating interpersonal stress in youth, which, in turn, leads to internalizing symptoms and reinforces the tendency to co-ruminate about these problems later on. Thus, it appears that co-rumination may contribute to internalizing problems via two pathways that involve friendship quality, a positive quality route that reinforces rumination and subsequent internalizing problems, and a negative quality route that reinforces interpersonal stress and subsequent internalizing problems.

Friendship quality
An alternative way to conceptualize differential effects of co-rumination and friendship quality on internalizing symptoms is to examine the moderating influence of relationship quality on the association between co-rumination and depressive symptoms. Indeed, Guassi Moreira and colleagues26 found that co-rumination was not associated with mental health detriments in a high-quality relationship, but it was in a low-quality relationship. These findings suggest that, depending on who individuals co-ruminate with, this coping strategy might not necessarily lead to mental health problems. One potential explanation is that high-quality friendships might act as protective factors against the development of psychopathology27. Yet, Afifi and colleagues28 found that co-rumination may be ineffective even in the context of a good friend. In their experiment, when participants co-ruminated with a friend who responded in an unsupportive manner, friendship satisfaction decreased and anxiety increased. When the friend responded in a supportive manner, friendship satisfaction increased, but anxiety was not significantly reduced. Hence, it remains unclear whether the context of a high-quality friendship could buffer the link between co-rumination and depressive symptoms.

Gender
Other research findings show that gender may also act as a moderator of the co-rumination and depressive symptoms association. For instance, in a large sample of 813 participants, co-rumination predicted depressive symptoms in girls, over a 6-month follow-up period, but not in boys[13]. Similarly, Bastin et al.29 found that co-brooding, a passive component of co-rumination characterized by the tendency to dwell on negative feelings within a dyadic relationship, predicted high levels of concurrent and future depressive symptoms in girls. In contrast, boys who engaged in co-brooding were more likely to report fewer depressive symptoms. However, other studies found no significant interaction effect between co-rumination and gender. For instance, a cross-sectional study with teenagers[1] and a prospective study with a college sample[5] showed that the relation between co-rumination and depressive symptoms does not vary as a function of gender. Co-rumination remains maladaptive for boys, the same way that it does for girls20. A possible explanation is that rather than co-rumination having a different impact depending on gender, girls experience higher levels of depressive symptoms because they are more likely to co-ruminate than boys[1].

Furthermore, research on co-rumination in the workplace has shown that discussions about workplace problems have led to mixed results, especially regarding gender differences. In high abusive supervision settings, the negative effects of co-rumination were intensified for women, but lowered for men. In contrast, in low abusive supervision settings, co-rumination did not lead to negative outcomes for women, but it did for men. These results suggest that perhaps the reason why men are at risk of job dissatisfaction and depression in low stress supervision is because of gender differences at an early age.[12] At a young age, girls report higher co-rumination levels than boys,[13] and as they age, girls' scores tend to rise, while boys' scores drop.[1] These findings also suggest that in adulthood, men have less experience with co-rumination than women, however some men may learn skills through interacting with women or the interaction style with other men in adulthood has changed from activity-based to conversation-based; suggesting that not only do men and women co-ruminate differently, but that the level of stress may be a factor as well.

Stress
Stress might also moderate the relation between co-rumination and depressive symptoms. Indeed, Hruska et al.22 suggested that co-rumination is mostly maladaptive and harmful when one is focused on their own personal problems, as opposed to their friend’s, as it is more stressful. In line with this idea, Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow30 showed that the influence of rumination on negative affectivity is only significant in a context where high stress is present, which provided evidence for a diathesis-stress model of rumination. Similarly, McLaughlin and Nolen-Hoeksema25 showed that the generation of interpersonal stress represents a pathway linking rumination to these interpersonal problems. The authors believe that stress could also moderate the association between co-rumination and psychopathological symptoms. Indeed, Hruska et al.22 found that co-rumination only predicted negative emotions when stress was present. In the absence of a stressor, individuals who co-ruminate might only benefit from heighten friendship quality and closeness. This link is not yet clear, however, as another study showed that daily co-rumination with a close friend predicts within-day increases in levels of negative mood in college students, even when controlling for stress31. In another study, co-rumination was seen to increase the negative effects of burnout on perceived stress among co-workers, thereby indicating that, while co-rumination may be seen as a socially-supportive interaction, it could have negative psychological outcomes for co-workers.[14]

Other types of relationships
Within the context of mother-adolescent relationships, a study that examined 5th, 8th, and 11th graders has found greater levels of co-rumination among mother and daughter than mother and son relationships. In addition, mother-adolescent co-rumination was related to positive relationship quality, but also to enmeshment which was unique to co-rumination. These enmeshment as well as internalizing relations were strongest when co-ruminating was focused on the mother's problems.[15] Further, Waller and Rose32 found that girls who co-ruminated with their mother did not end up suffering from depressive symptoms, typically associated with this maladaptive regulation strategy, compared with girls who co-ruminated with a same-sex friend. This result suggests that to co-ruminate with a partner who is presumably more highly skilled at emotion regulation can be protective. Other relationships have also been studied. For instance, one study found that graduate students engage in co-rumination.[16] Furthermore, for those graduate students, co-rumination acted as a partial mediator, which suppressed the positive effects of social support on emotional exhaustion.

Mediation
It is also possible that a mediation effect could better explain the relation between co-rumination and depressive symptoms20. Indeed, one study20 found that co-rumination tendencies predicted increases in rumination levels, which in turn lead to higher levels of depressive symptoms. Another possibility is that rumination contributes to peer communication, which leads to engagement in co-rumination among dyads. In turn, co-rumination not only predicts increases in mental health problems[7], but also increases in interpersonal stress[10]. Thus, this coping strategy might be responsible for the elevations in internalizing symptoms, caused by interpersonal stress, in individuals who ruminate25. In other words, it is possible that co-rumination explains at least some of the observed relationship between rumination and psychopathological symptoms.

Therapy
Co-rumination treatment typically consists of cognitive emotion regulation therapy for rumination with the patient. This therapy focuses both on the patient themselves and on their habits of continually co-ruminating with others. Therapies may need to be altered depending on the gender of each patient. As suggested by Zlomke and Hahn (2010),[11] men showed vast improvement in anxiety and worrying symptoms by focusing their attention on how to handle a negative event through "refocus on planning". For women, accepting a negative event/emotion and re-framing it in a positive light was associated with decreased levels of worry. In other words, some of the cognitive emotion regulation strategies that work for men do not necessarily work for women and vice versa. Patients are encouraged to disclose about their problems with friends and family members, but need to practice problem-solving strategies instead of focusing on the exact problem.

Primary Researchers
Researchers in psychology and communication have studied the conceptualization of co-rumination along with the effects of the construct. A few primary researchers have focused attention on the construct including Amanda Rose Professor of Psychology at the University of Missouri, who was one of the first scholars to write about the construct.[1] Others who are doing work on co-rumination include Justin P. Boren, Associate Professor of Communication at Santa Clara University, Jennifer Byrd-Craven, Associate Professor of Psychology at Oklahoma State University, and Dana L. Haggard, Professor of Management at Missouri State University

Co-rumination measurement
The use of multiple methods can help disentangle the mixed pattern of associations between co-rumination and depressive symptoms[10]. To being with, the Co-Rumination Questionnaire was created by Rose[1] to measure the amount of co-rumination within a friendship dyad. Participant have to rate their level of agreement with each of the 27 items, on a 5-point Likert scale, which ranges from 1 = not at all true to 5 = really true. Higher scores, ranging from 8 to 40, indicate higher levels of co-rumination. Items include, for example, “we talk about problems that my friend or I are having almost every time we see each other” and “when we see each other, if one of us has a problem, we will talk about the problem even if we had planned to do something else together”. The reliability coefficient of .96 calculated in Rose’s study is strong and consistently seen in other studies. Another way to measure co-rumination is to include reports from peers and parents on participant’s co-rumination tendencies, as well as diagnostic interviews to assess depressive symptoms. Further, observational studies are also used to offer a more objective measurement of co-rumination. For example, Rose et al.33 asked friendship dyads to “list a problem you have” and to discuss it in an observation room. The interaction was filmed and later coded for co-rumination behaviors. Lastly, other studies used a daily-diary methodology. For instance, White and Shih31 adapted the co-rumination questionnaire by Rose[1] into a daily measure of co-rumination behaviors, changing questions to a specific behavior that happened “today”.