Skip to main content
Log in

Comorbid Depression and Anxiety Symptoms in Chinese Adolescents: Testing the Explanatory Power of a Diathesis-Anxiety Model

  • Published:
Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anxiety and depressive symptoms frequently co-occur in adolescence and confer greater distress compared to experiencing either symptom alone. A causal model (anxiety symptoms predicting depressive symptoms), a correlated liabilities model (vulnerabilities interacting with stressors to predict both symptoms), and a diathesis-anxiety model (vulnerabilities interacting with anxiety symptoms to predict depressive symptoms) have all been proposed as explanations for the relation between depression and anxiety. To date, however, research has mostly examined these models among North American/Western European adolescents. In response, the present study sought to identify the best explanatory model concerning the relationship between anxiety and depressive symptoms among Chinese adolescents. 494 10th grade students were assessed for their perceived levels of family cohesion and conflict, stressors, and depressive and anxiety symptoms. Every 3 months for 18 months, youth reported their symptoms and stressors. Symptoms and stressors were person-mean and grand-mean centered to compare nomothetic and idiographic conceptualizations of vulnerability. Overall, evidence suggested a reciprocal, versus causal, relation between anxiety and depressive symptoms. Further, while cohesion and conflict independently predicted anxiety and depressive symptoms, their interactions with stressors were not supported. Ultimately, strong support was found for a diathesis-anxiety model using an idiographic conceptualization of anxiety, such that low perceived family cohesion interacted with within-subject fluctuations of anxiety to predict prospective depressive symptoms. This study provides cross-cultural support for a diathesis-anxiety model and shows the importance of distinguishing between positive and negative family functioning when examining vulnerability in Chinese adolescents. Research and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to investigate whether the four different forms of anxiety could be adequately distinguished within the current sample. We found little support for a four-factor model (χ2/df = 2.664; p < .001; CFI = .760; RMSEA = .058; SRMR = .097). Thus, consistent with past research (e.g., Cohen et al. 2014), the total score of the MASC was used to test the hypotheses of this study.

  2. Although the simultaneous model did find initial support for cohesion interacting with both idiographic, β = -0.001; SE = 0.000; t(1585) = -2.628; p < 0.01; reffect size = 0.07, and nomothetic, β = 0.001; SE = 0.000; t(1303) = 3.966; p < 0.01; reffect size = 0.11, anxiety symptoms (T-1) and time, these finding were not replicated when tested individually, ps > 0.05. Thus, these results were conceptualized as suppressor effects and non-significant.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We write this manuscript with gratitude to JRZ Abela, who continues to inspire those of us who knew him, as well as a new generation of developmental psychopathologists who never had the opportunity.

Funding

The research reported in this article was supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada awarded to John R. Z. Abela.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jae Wan Choi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research commitee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Equations and summary of findings for the intercept models

Causal Model

Equations

Findings

Conclusions

Anxiety predicting Depression

Depij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + β5iCubicTimeti + β6iAnx(T)ti + β7iDep(T-1)ti + 

β8iAnx_I(T-1)ti + β9iAnx_N(T-1)ti + 

eij

Person-centered anxiety symptoms were found to significantly predict prospective depressive symptoms

Reciprocal Relationship

Depression predicting Anxiety

Anxij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + 

β5iDep(T)ti + β6iAnx(T-1)ti + 

β7iDep_I(T-1)ti + β8iDep_N(T-1)ti + 

eij

Person-centered depressive symptoms were found to significantly predict prospective anxiety symptoms

Correlated Liabilities Model

   

Diathesis-Stress Component

   

Stressor × Conflict

Depij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + β5iCubicTimeti + β6iAnx(T) + β7iDep(T-1) + β8Cohesion(Conflict) + 

β9iStressor_Iti + β10iStressor_Nti + 

β11i Cohesion(Conflict) × Stressor_I ti + 

β12i Cohesion(Conflict) × Stressor_N ti + 

eij

Anxij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + 

β5iDep(T) + β6iAnx(T-1) + β7Cohesion(Conflict) + 

β8iStressor_Iti + β9iStressor_Nti + 

β10i Cohesion(Conflict) × Stressor_I ti + 

β11i Cohesion(Conflict) × Stressor_N ti + 

eij

Stressor × Conflict did not significantly predict prospective anxiety nor depressive symptoms

No support for the diathesis-stress component of the correlated-liabilities models

Stressor × Cohesion

Stressor × Cohesion did not significantly predict prospective anxiety nor depressive symptoms

Main Effects

   

Family Conflict

Depij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + β5iCubicTimeti + β6iAnx(T)ti + β7iDep(T-1)ti + β8Cohesion(Conflict) + 

eij

Anxij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + 

β5iDep(T)ti + β6iAnx(T-1)ti + β7Cohesion(Conflict) + 

eij

Family conflict significantly predicted both anxiety and depressive symptoms

Both family conflict and cohesion were predictive of depressive and anxiety symptoms

Family Cohesion

Family cohesion significantly predicted both anxiety and depressive symptoms

Diathesis-Anxiety Model

   

Anxiety × Conflict

Depij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + β5iCubicTimeti + β6iAnx(T)ti + β7iDep(T-1)ti + 

β8iAnx_I(T-1)ti + β9iAnx_N(T-1)ti + 

β10Cohesion(Conflict) + 

β11i Cohesion(Conflict) × Anx_I(T-1)ti + 

β12i Cohesion(Conflict) × Anx_N(T-1)ti + 

eij

Anxiety × Conflict did not significantly predict prospective levels of depressive symptoms

Family cohesion, but not family conflict, interacted significantly with an idiographic conceptualization of anxiety symptoms to predict depressive symptoms

Anxiety × Cohesion

Anxiety_I × Cohesion did significantly predict prospective levels of depressive symptoms

Diathesis-Depression Model

   

Depression × Conflict

Anxij = u0i + β0i + β1Age + β2Gender + 

β3iTimeti + β4iQuadTimeti + 

β5iDep(T)ti + β6iAnx(T-1)ti + 

β7iDep_I(T-1)ti + β8iDep_N(T-1)ti + 

β9Cohesion(Conflict) + 

β10i Cohesion(Conflict) × Dep_I(T-1)ti + 

β11i Cohesion(Conflict) × Dep_N(T-1)ti + 

eij

Anxiety × Conflict did not significantly predict prospective levels of depressive symptoms

No support was found for a diathesis-depression model

Depression × Cohesion

Anxiety × Conflict did not significantly predict prospective levels of depressive symptoms

  1. Note: For each equation, variables in bold represent the variables of interest for each model. Equations reflect the full multilevel modeling equations for the intercept models; Dep = Time-varying scores on the CESD Scale (Radloff 1977); Anx = Time-varying scores on the MASC (March et al. 1997); Stressor = Time-varying scores on the ALEQ (Hankin and Abramson 2002); Cohesion(Conflict) = Time-invariant scores on the Family Conflict subscale or the Family Cohesion subscale of the FES (Moos 1990); (T) = Measured at time T; (T-1) = Measured at time T-1; _I = Idiographic variables; _N = Nomothetic variables; u0i = Between-individual differences in symptoms at baseline; β0i = Fixed intercept; β112 = Estimated coefficients for each variable; eij = Within-individual random error; Slope models are identical to intercept models presented above with the additional parameter(s) of bolded variables interacting with a fixed effect for time.

Appendix B

Parameter estimates for correlated-liabilities models

 

B

SE

T(df)

Reffect size

Effects on depression trajectory

Stressor_I \(\times\) Cohesion \(\times\) Timea

-0.012

0.058

-0.214(1725)

0.01

Stressor_N \(\times\) Cohesion \(\times\) Timea

0.088

0.040

2.218(1648)

0.06

Stressor_I \(\times\) Conflict \(\times\) Time

-0.124

0.318

-0.391(1534)

0.01

Stressor_N \(\times\) Conflict \(\times\) Time

0.367

0.216

1.702(1510)

0.04

Effects on depression levels

Stressor_I \(\times\) Cohesiona

-0.081

0.093

-0.869(2396)

0.02

Stressor_N \(\times\) Cohesiona

-0.217

0.088

-2.466(2849)*

0.05

Stressor_I \(\times\) Conflict

-0.499

0.742

-0.673(1480)

0.02

Stressor_N \(\times\) Conflict

-0.491

0.678

-0.724(835)

0.03

Effects on anxiety trajectory

Stressor_I \(\times\) Cohesion \(\times\) Time

-3.100

2.795

-1.109(1610)

0.03

Stressor_N \(\times\) Cohesion \(\times\) Time

0.246

1.966

0.125(1687)

0.00

Stressor_I \(\times\) Conflict \(\times\) Time

-5.534

12.602

-0.439(1647)

0.01

Stressor_N \(\times\) Conflict \(\times\) Time

8.273

8.565

0.966(1669)

0.02

Effects on anxiety levels

Stressor_I \(\times\) Cohesion

0.463

6.651

0.071(1352)

0.00

Stressor_N \(\times\) Cohesion

-8.731

6.072

-1.438(795)

0.05

Stressor_I \(\times\) Conflict

-25.819

28.676

-0.900(1458)

0.02

Stressor_N \(\times\) Conflict

-7.662

26.269

-0.292(831)

0.01

  1. Note: Only parameter estimates for the interaction testing the diathesis-stress model are presented. All models included Age and Gender as covariates. Models testing depression included Time, Quadratic Time, and Cubic Time, while models testing anxiety included Time and Quadratic Time as covariates. Stressor_I = The idiographic scores on the on the Adolescent Life Events Questionnaire (ALEQ; Hankin and Abramson 2002); Stressor_N = The nomothetic scores on the ALEQ; Cohesion = The family cohesion subscale on the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos 1990); Conflict = The family cohesion subscale on the FES; Depression trajectory = The slope of scores on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies – Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff 1977); Depression levels = Intercept for the CESD in multilevel models; Anxiety trajectory = The slope of scores on the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC; March et al. 1997); Anxiety levels = Intercept for the MASC in multilevel models.
  2. *p < 0.05.
  3. aValues reflect results from individual models, as simultaneous models showed suppressor effects.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, J., Hong, W., Abela, J.R.Z. et al. Comorbid Depression and Anxiety Symptoms in Chinese Adolescents: Testing the Explanatory Power of a Diathesis-Anxiety Model. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol 49, 503–517 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00730-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00730-8

Keywords

Navigation