PERSONALITY AS A MODERATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DEPRESSIVE
SYMPTOMS IN A COMMUNITY SAMPLE OF WOMEN
By
Matthew M. Yalch

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS
Psychology
2012

i

ABSTRACT
PERSONALITY AS A MODERATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DEPRESSIVE
SYMPTOMS IN A COMMUNITY SAMPLE OF WOMEN
By
Matthew M. Yalch

Although depression is a common outcome following the traumatic stress of domestic violence
(DV), not all women who are abused develop depressive symptoms. One factor that may
moderate the development of depressive symptoms after traumatic events is personality traits,
although this has not been assessed with DV specifically. This study examines the moderating
influence of four five-factor personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion,
and neuroticism) on depressive symptoms following exposure to DV. Data on personality traits,
depressive symptoms, and DV were gathered from a community sample of women (N = 165) as
part of a 10-year longitudinal study on DV. It was hypothesized that these traits would exert
main and moderating effects on depressive symptoms within the context of DV. A series of
hierarchical linear regressions indicated that although agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
neuroticism had significant main effects on depressive symptoms, and both extraversion and
neuroticism moderated the effect of DV on depressive symptoms, the main effects of all traits
but neuroticism became insignificant and the moderating effects of both extraversion and
neuroticism remained significant when other personality traits were co-varied. The function of
neuroticism and extraversion as vulnerability and protective factors has implications for the
treatment of depressive symptoms following DV exposure. Future directions for research are
also discussed.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of tables ................................................................................................................................iv
List of figures ..............................................................................................................................v
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Method ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Results ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 48
References ................................................................................................................................... 66

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Descriptive statistics ..................................................................................................... 49
Table 2 Correlational data for DV exposure, depressive symptoms, personality traits,
and social support .......................................................................................................... 50
Table 3 Effects of DV exposure and agreeableness on number of symptoms............................ 51
Table 4 Effects of DV exposure and conscientiousness on number of depressive symptoms .. 52
Table 5 Effects of DV exposure and extraversion on number of depressive symptoms ........... 53
Table 6 Effects of DV exposure and neuroticism on number of depressive symptoms ............ 54
Table 7 Social support mediating agreeableness and depressive symptoms controlling
for DV ............................................................................................................................ 55
Table 8 Social support mediating agreeableness and depressive symptoms without
controlling for DV ......................................................................................................... 56
Table 9 Effects of DV exposure and agreeableness on number of depressive symptoms
with other traits co-varied .............................................................................................. 57
Table 10 Effects of DV exposure and conscientiousness on number of depressive symptoms
with other traits co-varied ............................................................................................ 58
Table 11 Effects of DV exposure and extraversion on number of depressive symptoms with
other traits co-varied .................................................................................................... 59
Table 12 Effects of DV exposure and neuroticism on number of depressive symptoms with
other traits co-varied .................................................................................................... 60

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Mediation relationship with paths identified ............................................................... 61
Figure 2 Moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between DV exposure and
number of depressive symptoms .................................................................................. 62
Figure 3 Moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship between DV exposure and
number of depressive symptoms .................................................................................. 63
Figure 4 Moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between DV exposure and
number of depressive symptoms after agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
neuroticism are co-varied ............................................................................................. 64
Figure 5 Moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship between DV exposure and
number of depressive symptoms after agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
extraversion are co-varied ............................................................................................ 65

v

Introduction
Domestic violence (DV), defined here as violence against a woman by a man within the
context of an intimate relationship, is a pervasive problem for women in the U.S., with lifetime
prevalence rates at about 25 percent (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). This physical and emotional
abuse within intimate relationships is associated with disproportionately worse mental healthrelated outcomes for abused women (Campbell, 2002; Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997;
Ehrensaft, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2006; Gelles, & Straus, 1989; Taft, Vogt, Mechanic, & Resick,
2007). Specifically, many studies have shown that women exposed to DV experience poorer
mental health outcomes ranging from increases in depressive and anxiety symptoms, including
post-traumatic stress disorder (Astin, Lawrence, & Foy, 1993; Bean & Möller, 2002; Cascardi,
O’Leary, & Schlee, 1999; Gleason, 1993; Golding, 1999; Hou, Wang, & Chung, 2005;
Houskamp & Foy, 1991; Jones, Hughes, & Unterstaller, 2001; Mertin & Mohr, 2001; Weingourt,
Maruyama, Sawada, & Yoshino, 2001). In part due to these effects on mental health as well as
the resultant physical injuries, DV results in 800 percent higher costs of healthcare for abused
women relative to women who were not abused (Wisner, Gilmer, Saltzman, & Zinc, 1999).
Not all women within violent interpersonal relationships develop mental health disorders,
however, suggesting that there are factors about these relationships or the participants in them
that account for variation in outcomes. One specific factor that may moderate the relationship
between traumatic experiences, more generally, and mental health outcomes is personality traits
(McFarlane & Yehuda, 1996; Miller, 2003). This may particularly be the case within the
interpersonal context of DV, in which personality traits and theorized to play a role in
interpreting and responding to interpersonal events, including interpersonal stress and trauma
(McCrae & Costa, 1996). Identifying the specific role that personality traits play in the risk for

1

poor mental health outcomes resulting from DV exposure could influence the development of
therapeutic methods to treat women who have been abused. This study uses an interpersonal
framework to examine the role that personality traits play in influencing women’s mental health
within the context of DV, specifically how certain personality traits both independently and in
combination with other traits can serve to magnify, mitigate, or otherwise influence the effects of
DV on women’s depressive symptoms.
DV and Depression: An Interpersonal Model
Although depression is often associated with exposure to traumatic events (McCutcheon
et al., 2009; Suliman et al., 2009), women in abusive relationships may be at an even greater risk
than those experiencing other kinds of trauma for the development and diagnosis of depressive
symptoms. This may be the case due to the inherently interpersonal nature of depression as a
disorder, such that it is generally understood as being caused by disruptions of and expressed
through interpersonal relations (Joiner, Coyne, & Blalock, 1999; Segrin, 2011). As such, it is
useful to understand depression within an interpersonal context (e.g., among battered women,
depression must be understood as existing within and likely being a function of the abusive
dyadic relationship). One thing that distinguishes depression from other forms of interpersonal
dysfunction (e.g., anxiety) is the disturbance in mood, specifically either the presence of
depressed mood or a reduction in positive mood (American Psychiatric Association, 2004).
Although those who develop symptoms of depression often do so after experiencing
interpersonal conflict (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992; Eberhart & Hammen, 2010; Hammen, Shih, &
Brennan, 2004; Rizzo, Daley, & Gunderson, 2006), these symptoms often afflict those with an
affective vulnerability (i.e., those with personality traits predisposing them to depression). From

2

an interpersonal perspective, then, depression can be thought of as interpersonal dysfunction, the
expression of which has a strong affective component.
DV is not only transgressive on an interpersonal level, but it also involves betrayal within
the interpersonal context, which Freyd (1996) proposes results in more severe psychological
effects (including depression) than non-interpersonal forms of trauma. That trauma involving
interpersonal betrayal has a differentially stronger effect on the development of depressive
symptoms relative to non-interpersonal trauma has been indicated in several studies (Allard,
2009; Freyd, Klest, & Allard, 2005; Tang & Freyd, 2011). In addition to involving a betrayal of
interpersonal trust, DV is also often chronic and repetitive (Baum, O’Keefe, & Davidson, 1990;
Woods & Campbell, 1993), characteristics that Herman (1992) suggests are also associated with
more severe psychopathological symptoms (e.g., mood dysregulation, cognitive disruption, and
physiological hyperarousal) than more time-limited forms of trauma, whether it is interpersonal
(e.g., stranger rape) or non-interpersonal (e.g., car accidents) in nature. The chronicity of stress
has also been associated with increased levels of depression both independently (Matheson et al.,
2006; Niedhammer, Goldberg, Leclerc, Bugel, & David, 1998) and in addition to acute stress
(Hammen, Kim, Eberhart, & Brennan, 2009).
In addition to depression being prevalent among women who have experienced DV, DV
and other forms of interpersonal conflict (e.g., marital discord) are common themes among
women diagnosed with depression (Campbell & Soeken, 1999; Saunders, 1999; Vitanza et al.,
1995). Depressed women on average reporting twice as many instances of DV as women with
other psychiatric diagnoses or medical problems and three times more than women without any
diagnosis (Hammen, 1991). Conversely, the development of depressive symptoms has been
identified as one of the most prevalent mental health problems reported by women who have

3

experienced DV (Bean & Möller, 2002; Follingstad, Brennan, Hause, Polek, & Rutledge, 1991).
For example, rates of depression (as indicated by either diagnosed major depressive disorder or
otherwise clinical levels of depressive symptoms, e.g., Beck Depression Inventory scores > 20)
among abused women range from 33 to 52 percent (Campbell, Sullivan, & Davidson, 1995;
Cascardi & O'Leary, 1992; Cascardi, O'Leary, Lawrence, & Schlee, 1995; Orava, McLeod, &
Sharpe, 1996; Sato & Heiby 1992; West, Fernandez, Hillard, Schoof, & Parks, 1990). Within
DV shelters specifically, Helfrich and colleagues (2008) found that abused women had a twelvemonth prevalence rate of major depressive disorder over twenty times that of the U.S. national
prevalence rate of depression among women (51.4 percent vs. 2.4 percent, respectively). From
the perspective of lifetime prevalence, the rates of major depression in battered women range
from 63 to 81 percent (Cascardi et al., 1995; Gleason, 1993), which are roughly triple the
average lifetime prevalence rate among women nationally (21.3 percent) according to
epidemiological research (Kessler, McGonagle, Swartz, Blazer, & Nelson, 1993). Additionally,
among women receiving mental health treatment, rates of lifetime DV exposure were 61 percent
among outpatients and 68 percent among inpatients (Dienemann, et al., 2000).
In addition to this general association between DV and symptoms of depression, studies
have indicated that DV exposure predicts these symptoms (e.g., Zlotnick et al., 2006). Moreover,
there is evidence that this relationship is not reciprocal (i.e., there is no evidence that depression
causes DV). For example Christian-Herman and colleagues (2001) found that DV and other
forms of marital discord predicted depressive symptoms when history of depression was
controlled for whereas depression did not predict DV and other forms of marital discord when
this discord was taken into account. Additionally, greater frequency and severity of violence
experienced (including psychological and sexual abuse along with the physical violence) is

4

associated with more depressive symptoms (Bogat, Levendosky, Theran, von Eye, & Davidson,
2003; Cascardi et al., 1995; Follingstad et al., 1991; Kernic et al., 2003; McCauley et al., 1995;
Quigley & Leonard, 1996). Related to this, the more severe the violence, the more severe were
the depressive symptoms the women experienced (Gelles & Harrop, 1989). In addition, a longer
period of exposure to DV is also associated with more depressive symptoms (Bogat, Levendosky,
DeJonghe, Davidson, & von Eye, 2004). This body of research suggests that DV has a doseresponse effect on depressive symptoms.
Although this research contributes to an understanding of what may result upon exposure
to DV, it does not explain why some battered women develop depression and others do not.
Personality theory, in contrast, provides a framework for such predictions in the form of specific
personality traits and constellations of these traits that may interact with DV to influence the
degree to which a person is at risk to develop symptoms of depression.
Personality, Depression, and DV
Sullivan (1953) conceived of personality as being an individual’s habitual behaviors
within interpersonal relationships across time. In this view, personality is not only expressed,
but also understood within the context of interpersonal relations (Stevenson-Hinde, 1998;
Sullivan, 1953; Wachtel, 1993). This understanding of personality is particularly relevant within
the contexts of both DV and depression given the inherently interpersonal nature of both.
The idea that personality has an influence on the reaction to traumatic experiences was a
contribution of early psychoanalytic thought (Ferenczi, 1932/1949). In their more contemporary
framework on the various relationships between personality and psychopathology, Widiger and
Smith (2008) clarify this idea, suggesting that personality is integral to the development and
expression of psychopathology such that personality can serve as a risk and/or protective factor

5

for psychopathology as well as the means through which individuals interact with the
environment in which psychopathology develops. In this way, personality may serve to directly
influence the development of depression as well as moderate external factors influencing its
development.
Although there are a variety of theoretical models of personality, the Five-Factor Model
(FFM) is an especially appropriate way of assessing the role of personality because the traits
described in this model describe, augment, or otherwise map onto interpersonal
conceptualizations of personality (Ansell & Pincus, 2004; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Moreover,
there is evidence that the FFM traits are stable across time, biologically rooted, cross-culturally
applicable, and can structurally situated within higher-order (2-3-4-factor) or lower-order (6-7factor or 30-facet) models of traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Digman, 1997). Further, whereas
interpersonal theory describes the process by which personality has its influence, FFM provides
the structure that this personality takes (Costa & McCrae, 2011). For example, Wiggins (1991)
proposed that FFM traits extraversion and agreeableness were synonymous with two
interpersonal personality variables of agency and communion, respectively, which he considered
to be the fundamental modalities of interpersonal behavior through which personality can be
quantified (Costa & Widiger, 1994; Wiggins, 1982). Subsequent studies found that all the FFM
traits could be factor analyzed to fit within this dual super-factor framework (DeYoung, Peterson,
& Higgins, 2002; Digman, 1997). However, as Wiggins and Trapnell (1991) suggest, and
Markon and colleagues (2005) demonstrate, greater specificity in the descriptions of both
normative and pathological personality is gained by using a personality model incorporating four
or five personality traits versus a dual superordinate trait model.

6

The FFM proposes that five personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness,
extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience) are the most comprehensive and
parsimonious means of measuring and describing human emotions and behavior (McCrae &
Costa, 1990). FFM theorists propose that these traits are basic tendencies that interact with the
environment to produce characteristic adaptations (McCrae & Costa, 1996). These characteristic
adaptations help to explain the broad range of normal behaviors exhibited by people in similar
situations. With respect to interpersonal functioning specifically, behaviors produced by this
trait-environment interaction themselves become part of the environment, allowing for the
interplay between the behavior of one person and that of another, thereby producing interactive
feedback loops of behavior (Costa & McCrae, 2011). The behaviors within these loops are often
mutually reinforcing (e.g., a person low in trait agreeableness will often behave in a hostile
manner across different situations, which serve to reinforce his hostile way of behaving), leading
to repetitive cycles of interpersonal behaviors (Wachtel, 1982).
Within these cycles of interpersonal transactions, FFM traits also influence the
development of psychopathology. Although it is a model of normative personality, the FFM can
also be used to explain risk factors for psychopathology, which is understood within the context
of the FFM’s general theoretical framework as being a response to the normal trait-environment
interaction process that is pathological and maladaptive (McCrae, 1994). In this way, Widiger
and Trull (1992) suggest that traits can serve as predispositions for and pathoplastic ways of
expressing Axis I disorders. For example, as Kotov and colleagues (2010) indicate in their metaanalysis, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism have a much more substantial main
effect on depressive symptoms than do agreeableness and openness. This suggests that while the
former three traits may serve as diatheses for depressive symptoms, if the latter two traits have

7

an influence within the context of depressive symptoms, it is not direct. For example, these two
traits may affect the way in which these symptoms are expressed (e.g., pathoplasticity). As Cain
and colleagues (2011) demonstrate in their study of interpersonal personality traits and major
depressive disorder, these pathoplastic means of expressing depressive symptoms provide
incremental influence on their course. One possible implication of this is that for traits for which
the main effect is less pronounced (e.g., agreeableness), this effect can be expressed less directly,
mediated through more other behaviors (e.g., maintenance of social relations).
Widiger and Trull (1992) further propose the possibility that a given disorder and a
personality trait can be manifestations along the same spectrum of psychological phenomenon
(e.g., generalized anxiety disorder and the anxiety facet of neuroticism). Further research has
demonstrated that a broad range of Axis I disorders can not only be described but also
differentiated by FFM personality traits (Katon et al., 1995; Nowakowska, Strong, Santosa,
Wang, & Ketter, 2005; Trull & Sher, 1994). For example, low levels of conscientiousness
distinguished ADHD from other outpatients (Ranseen, Campbell, & Baer, 1998). Moreover,
Bagby and colleagues (1997) demonstrated that extraversion levels differentiated outpatients
with bipolar disorder from those with major depression while both were in remission.
Although it outlines a general pattern of trait-environment interaction, the FFM does not
provide a precise mechanism by which personality has its effect on psychopathology, although
this is something that is addressed within interpersonal theory more broadly. In his early
formulation of interpersonal theory, for example, Sullivan (1953) observed that the individual
exists within an environment that is inherently social. Because of this, not only does personality
partially consist of an internalization of the broader social and cultural context, but also that the
specific behaviors influenced by personality style serve the function of fulfilling interpersonal

8

needs and goals. The effectiveness of these behaviors in achieving these needs and goals is
important as, in the interpersonal view, psychopathology is thought of as being the result of these
needs and goals being frustrated (Horowitz, 2004; Sullivan, 1953). Wachtel (1982) further
elaborates that an individual’s personality situates him or her within a cyclic pattern of
interpersonal relations, within which the individual has interpersonal transactions consistent with
his or her personality as well as reacts to these transactions in idiosyncratic ways. The
frustration or fulfillment of interpersonal needs and goals (and the corresponding
psychopathology or lack thereof) is thus also a cyclical phenomenon.
Within these cycles, FFM personality traits can be observed in the way they influence the
means by which individuals choose and enact their interpersonal responses to conflicts and other
forms of interpersonal stress, which Holahan and colleagues (1999) propose can either buffer or
enable the depressogenic effects of social stress. For example, in the case of stress-related
psychopathology, Hewitt and Flett (1996) suggest that the role personality traits play can be seen
in how people cope with the stress, which, in turn, affects the degree to which they experience
maladaptive outcomes. Extending this idea, Costa and colleagues (1996) propose that appraisals
and other coping reactions are behavioral manifestations of personality traits, which may
moderate the development of depressive symptoms. In turn, Lazarus and Folkman (1984)
suggest that these appraisals and coping mechanisms result in the presence or absence of poststress or post-traumatic psychopathology. A number of studies support this finding,
demonstrating that personality predicts appraisals of stress, which, in turn, are related to mental
health outcomes (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; Hemenover, 2001; Hemenover
& Dienstbier, 1996).

9

The inherently intimate nature of DV entails that perceptions of the violence and of the
person perpetrating it occur within an interpersonal context. As with other instances of
interpersonal transactions which are interpreted by the individual person, the DV event itself is
subjectively perceived and appraised by the person experiencing it (Leising & Borkenau, 2011),
making the perceived stress of DV an important factor in the development of depressive
symptoms in its aftermath. Indeed, the influence of stress appraisals on the development of
depressive symptoms has also been observed within the context of DV. Several studies have
found that self-reported negative appraisals of DV were associated with a higher prevalence of
depressive symptoms among women (Martinez-Torteya, Bogat, von Eye, Davidson, &
Levendosky, 2009; Mourad, Levendosky, Bogat, & von Eye, 2008) and, in one study, predicted
depression over and above psychological abuse (Nurius et al., 2003).
With respect to personality specifically, Pearlin and Schooler’s (1978) early study on
personality and its interaction with life events found that personality predicted emotional
responses to a variety of different stressors both directly and through coping mechanisms. They
further suggest that personality has indirect effects on the development of stress-related
pathology through appraisals of marital stressors (e.g., violence) and other coping mechanisms.
This research is consistent with the transactional theory of stress, which suggests that stress (or,
in the case of DV, trauma) is the result of the interaction of the person and the environment, the
effects of which are mediated by appraisal and coping processes (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Although personality has its effect on the level of the individual person, personality
psychologists have focused their research on traits and their effects on psychological outcomes
(depressive and otherwise) at the level of the variable. It is also at this level that mechanisms of
influence and theoretical descriptions of FFM traits are most robust. Because agreeableness,

10

conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism are the four traits that have consistently
demonstrated their relationship both with depression and with the stress-related appraisals that
precede them (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte,
2005), these four traits will be the foci of this study. Each of these traits will be discussed
individually with respect to their relationship with both DV and depression.
Agreeableness.
Agreeableness is characterized by interpersonal warmth and the motivation to maintain
positive and harmonious relationships with others (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Graziano &
Tobin, 2009). Studies have shown that agreeableness is associated with differences in the
perceptions of social situations and interpersonal attribution as well as related to beneficial
strategies of conflict resolution and coping with stress (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001).
Higher levels of agreeableness are also associated with better interpersonal adjustment (JensenCampbell & Graziano, 2001). This association between agreeableness and positive measures of
interpersonal adjustment and functioning are evident in the relationship between the trait and
depression. Many studies have found that high levels of agreeableness are negatively correlated
with depressive symptoms (Chien, Ko, & Wu, 2007; Finch & Graziano, 2001; Lozano &
Johnson, 2001; Piedmont & Ciarrocchi, 1999). However, the main effect of agreeableness on
depression, while significant, is weak, which suggests that its importance within the context of
depression is not as a diathesis. Instead, it is possible that the effect of agreeableness is achieved
indirectly, possibly through the way people with high or low levels of agreeableness maintain
relations with others.
Agreeableness has a strong association with social support, which influences how people
deal with interpersonal stress and conflict. As Wiggins (1991) notes, more so than the other

11

FFM traits, agreeableness is a fundamentally interpersonal trait and, as such, plays an influential
role in how people function within relationships and relational conflict. Related to this, Swickert
(2009) proposes that this interpersonal aspect of agreeableness affects the degree to which
individuals experience social support, a finding that has been demonstrated in several studies.
For example, O’Brien and DeLongis (1996) found that individuals higher in agreeableness were
more likely to seek out social support in response to stressful experiences. Accordingly, there is
also a relationship between higher levels of agreeableness and greater amounts of social support
given and received (Bowling, Beehr, & Swader, 2005; Hudek-Knežević, Krapić, & Kardum,
2006; Zellars & Perrewe, 2001) as well as size of social support network and perceived
satisfaction from this network (Tong et al., 2004).
The relationship between agreeableness and social support is important within the context
of depression. Pierce and colleagues (1996) suggest that not only does social support augment
existing coping methods (e.g., influencing positive appraisals of oneself), but also serves as a
medium through which coping can occur (i.e., social networks providing a means by which
conflicts can be worked through). Moreover, there is some evidence that the negative
relationship between agreeableness and depression has to do with the relationship between
agreeableness and social support. For example, Hoth and colleagues (2007) found that neither
agreeableness nor social support predicted depression on their own, but rather only achieved an
effect through their interaction.
As Janoff-Bulman (1992) notes in her framework on trauma and post-traumatic response,
other people play an influential role in how well individuals function psychologically following
the experience of a traumatic event. This is also true for women who have experienced DV, as
social support is an especially important resource for women who have experienced DV.

12

Although social support can take a number of different forms (practical, emotional, material,
etc.), several studies suggest that within the context of DV, the quality of this support is a
potential buffer against depression and other poor mental health outcomes (Beeble, Bybee,
Sullivan, & Adams, 2009; Carlson, McNutt, Choi, & Rose, 2002; Coker, Watkins, Smith, &
Brandt, 2003; Constantino, Kim, & Crane, 2005; Lee, Pomeroy, & Bohman, 2007; Mitchell &
Hodson, 1983). More specifically, using the sample of women on whom the current research
was based, Levendosky and colleagues’ (2004) found that size of the social network and
disclosure of violence to members of social support network directly predicted depressive
symptoms among battered women. Further, in an analysis on this same group of women, Trotter,
Bogat, and Levendosky (2004) found that emotional support moderated the relationship between
DV and depressive symptoms, a form of social support that Zellars and Perrewe (2001) found
was linked to agreeableness.
Although agreeableness has not yet been studied directly among women who have
experienced DV, its functioning can be observed through its association with social support.
However, the relationship between social support and depression is more complicated among
battered women than among other groups of people. Specifically, the male partners of battered
women often directly attempt to attrite the social support networks of their female partners
(Dobash & Dobash, 1998, Walker, 1979), the effect of which can be observed in battered women
reporting lower levels of social support and satisfaction from this support than non-battered
women (Barnett, Martinez, & Keyson, 1996; Tan, Basta, Sullivan, & Davidson, 1995; Thompson
et al. 2000), although this effect is not demonstrated across all studies of DV (e.g., Levendosky
et al., 2004). Given this, agreeableness will probably serve less to facilitate the creation and
expansion of new social networks than to prevent the attempted attrition of those that already

13

exist. One possibility is that it is through this social support (or, more specifically, the
maintenance of it), that agreeableness influences depression. Agreeableness is expected to have
a main effect on depressive symptoms within the context of DV such that women high in
agreeableness will have fewer depressive symptoms when exposed to DV than women with
lower levels of this trait. However, there will also likely be a mediating effect such that the full
effect of agreeableness will be explained through the influence of social support. This mediating
effect of social support between agreeableness and depressive symptoms may also be observed
among women without DV exposure (thus potentially leaving the relationship between the
variables unchanged), although the process is subtly different. Among women without exposure
to DV, agreeableness may serve to enrich and expand social support networks. In contrast,
among women who have experience DV, agreeableness may preserve social networks in an
environment in which these networks are degraded,
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is a personality trait embodying characteristics of
self-discipline, behavioral restraint, and striving for achievement within the interpersonal context
(Costa & McCrae, 1985). Even more so than agreeableness, conscientiousness is also a strong
negative correlate of depression (Kotov et al., 2010). This effect may be due in part to the way
in which interpersonal stress is interpreted. For example, conscientiousness has a positive
association with competency beliefs (Trautwein et al., 2009), thus promoting more positive and
less self-critical interpretations of life events (e.g., fewer self-derisive comparisons between
oneself and others). How conscientiousness functions in relation to stress is also apparent in the
mechanisms by which people cope with interpersonal stress. FFM theorists suggest that low
levels of conscientiousness and its associated qualities (e.g., need for achievement, selfdiscipline, and deliberation) make one more prone to lower achievement in life as well as poorer

14

coping strategies (McCrae & Costa, 1985; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), which in turn contribute to
psychopathology, specifically depression (Bromley, Johnson, & Cohen, 2006). Rather, more
conscientious individuals are more likely to deal with interpersonal stress one step at a time and
feel as though they became stronger as a result of this stress than less conscientious individuals
(Costa, Somerfield, & McCrae, 1996).
Many studies have found that low conscientiousness has a main effect on depression
among both outpatient and non-clinical samples (Anderson & McLean, 1997; Chien et al. 2007;
Enns et al., 2001; Kendler & Myers, 2010; Khan et al., 2005; Kotov et al., 2010; Lozano &
Johnson, 2001; Nowakowska et al., 2005; Piedmont & Ciarrocchi, 1999; Trull & Sher, 1994).
Among patients diagnosed with major depression, conscientiousness remained low even after the
depression was treated, suggesting that not only was conscientiousness a diathetic factor
influencing the development of depression, but that depression itself did not influence levels of
conscientiousness (Costa et al., 2005). Looking at this association from the perspective of
appraisal of stress, among the traits in the FFM, conscientiousness is most strongly associated
with appraisals of stress that are less self-critical and more amenable to adaptive and efficacious
methods of coping (Piedmont & Ciarrocchi, 1999; Vickers, Kolar, & Hervig, 1989).
Additionally, high levels of trait conscientiousness are associated with correspondingly high
levels of self-esteem, self-faith, self-control, hopefulness, and locus of control (Marshall et al.,
1994; Penley & Tomaka, 2002), the last of which has been identified as a protective factor in the
development of depression (Johnson & Sarason, 1978). These characteristics also foster the
formation of more adaptive cognitive schemas, in contrast to the more self-critical aspects of trait
neuroticism. Within the context of DV, high levels of conscientiousness should serve a

15

protective function against the development of depression by leading to less self-critical
appraisals of the violence and more adaptive coping mechanisms.
Although conscientiousness is directly associated with adaptive responses to stress and
trauma, it has not been directly studied within the context of trauma. This is especially the case
within the context of DV, making research in this area preliminary. It is expected that
conscientiousness will have a moderating effect on depression within the context of DV such that
women high in conscientiousness will have fewer depressive symptoms when exposed to DV
than women with lower levels of conscientiousness. This idea is consistent with theory
underlying the FFM that personality traits interact with environmental conditions (e.g., DV) and,
through interaction with these conditions, produce an observable effect in the form of a symptom
or other behavior (McCrae, 1994). In the case of DV, one of these effects is depressive
symptoms. Extraversion is another one of these factors that is expected to interact in this way.
Extraversion. Although extraversion also contains aspects of agency and positive
emotionality, a number of personality theorists contend that the defining characteristic of
extraversion is positive emotionality, the degree to which one seeks and experiences positive
affects and sensations and the tendency to view events within the interpersonal environment in a
positive way (Diener & Lucas, 1999; Watson & Clark, 1997). This core characteristic of the trait
has been demonstrated in a number of empirical studies (Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao,
2000; Lucas & Fujita, 2000; Lucas, Le, & Dyrenforth, 2008). Although general social behavior
is also associated with extraversion as measured within the FFM framework, this is largely in the
form of seeking social stimulation and the impact a person has on social networks rather than the
maintenance of positive social networks (Wiggins, 1996). Moreover, some research suggests

16

that extraversion’s association with sociability may be a result of increased positive affect rather
than a direct manifestation of the trait (Lucas et al., 2000, 2008).
Low levels of extraversion are associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms
generally (Bagby et al., 1997; Chien et al., 2007; Enns et al., 2001; Farmer et al., 2002;
Hirschfeld & Klerman, 1979; Jylhä & Isometsä, 2006; Kendler & Myers, 2010; Kerr et al., 1970;
Lozano & Johnson, 2001), even when comorbid anxiety disorders are taken into account (Trull
& Sher, 1994). Further, one early study found that when mood is taken into account,
extraversion has a stronger association with depression than does neuroticism (Liebowitz,
Stallone, Dunner, & Fieve, 1979). However, Klein and colleagues (2009) suggest that this may
be due to an overlap in questionnaire items used to assess both neuroticism and affective
symptoms of depression, suggesting a criterion contagion effect. Along similar lines, Tellegen
(1985) proposes that depression is better understood as a manifestation of low extraversion than
of high neuroticism. This notion has been validated across a number of studies showing that
whereas neuroticism has a general influence on depression, the effect of extraversion is more
specific impact in that it enables the effect of neuroticism (Doucherty, Klein, Durbin, Hayden, &
Olino, 2010; Naragon-Gainey, Watson, & Markon, 2009).
In explaining how extraversion achieves its main effect on depression, meta-analytic data
also suggests that in the context of general stress, extraversion is associated with cognitive
restructuring (i.e., finding a more positive or realistic way to think about the stressful situation;
Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007) and negatively associated with pessimism, specifically
(Amirkhan, Risinger, & Swickert, 1995). Related to this, one study found that, like people high
in conscientiousness, extraverts rated stressful tasks as being less stressful and they were better
able to cope with tasks than less extraverted participants in the study (Penley & Tomaka, 2002).

17

Other research indicates that extraversion is associated with high levels of other measures of
optimism, self-esteem, and positive appraisal, and low levels of measured hopelessness
(Marshall et al., 1994; Vickers, Kolar, & Hervig, 1989). Additionally, Gallagher (1990) found
that individuals high in extraversion are more likely to appraise potential stressors as challenges
rather than as threats.
Like conscientiousness, extraversion leads to less self-critical and otherwise less
distressing appraisals of DV and other stressors, and is therefore expected to serve as a protective
factor against the development of depression. However, unlike conscientiousness, extraversion
may not do so as a result of greater competency beliefs, but instead because of a general
tendency for more positive reactions to interpersonal stress. In his framework, Matthews (1992)
specifies that extraversion modifies the relationship between physiological arousal and cognitive
(schema) activation, thereby having an indirect effect on the processing of stress. Gray’s (1981)
theory extends this idea, offering a contrast between extraversion and neuroticism such that
whereas high levels of neuroticism convey a cognitive sensitivity to punishment, high levels of
extraversion are associated with a greater sensitivity to reward signals than punishment signals.
Effectively, individuals with higher levels of extraversion are cognitively predisposed (i.e., have
a cognitive schema with a greater susceptibility for) to recognize the possibility of rewards in
perceived interpersonal stimuli whereas individuals with higher levels of neuroticism are more
likely to interpret the same event in terms of how it could result in poorer outcomes. This is
expected to function similarly within the context of trauma (specifically, DV) such that more
extraverted individuals will perceive and be more likely to react to the less negative aspects of
the traumatic event, thereby resulting in fewer depressive symptoms than a less extraverted
person would have.

18

Although the theory and research about how extraversion functions within the context of
trauma and other negative life events has been well developed, there has been little work to test
how extraversion functions as a moderator between exposure to potentially traumatic
experiences and the development of depression. Moreover, this research has also not been
applied to women involved in violent intimate relationships. Within the context of DV, it is
expected that women high in extraversion will appraise the DV as being less stressful, as
reflecting less poorly on themselves as people, and as less globally negative, resulting in lower
levels of depressive symptoms than women low in extraversion. In effect, it is anticipated that
extraversion will serve a moderating function, buffering the effects of DV exposure such that
among women exposed to high amounts of DV, women with higher levels of extraversion will
experience fewer depressive symptoms than women with lower levels of extraversion. Among
women with low levels of exposure to DV, higher extraversion will still be associated with fewer
depressive symptoms, although this effect will be less pronounced due to the absence of trauma
with which the trait can interact, ultimately resulting in smaller range of depressive symptoms.
Neuroticism. Neuroticism is a personality trait associated with, among other things,
maladaptive and otherwise adverse reactions to interpersonal stress and other life events
(Widiger, 2009). High levels of neuroticism not only put one at generally greater risk for
depression, but also for negative life events that contribute to this depression (Bolger &
Zuckerman, 1995; Kerchner, Rapee, & Schniering, 2009; Lakdawalla & Hankin, 2008; Magnus,
Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993). High neuroticism is associated with higher levels of
vulnerability to stress and self-criticism, leading more neurotic individuals to be more likely to
blame themselves in reaction to interpersonal stress (Costa, Somerfield, & McCrae, 1996;
McCrae & Costa, 1985). Similarly, in her framework on the relationship between neuroticism

19

and depression, Martin (1985) proposes that negative self-schemas common among highly
neurotic individuals lend themselves to the development of depression. Within discordant
intimate relationships (violent or non-violent), Beach and Fincham (1994) propose that
individuals who are high in neuroticism would likely feel more victimized and have more
resentful reactions to their partners, setting the stage for the development of depressive
symptoms, particularly if they are low in extraversion as well.
Among the FFM traits, neuroticism is the strongest correlate of common mental disorders,
with a large average effect size (d = 1.65) for depression specifically (Kotov et al., 2010), and is
broadly considered to be a risk factor for it as well as a variety of other mental illnesses (see
Lahey, 2009 for review). In general, trait neuroticism shows a strong association with
depression and depressive symptoms (Boyce & Parker, 1985; Chien, Ko, & Wu, 2007; Enns,
Cox, & Borger, 2001; Fanous, Gardner, Prescott, Cancro, & Kendler, 2002; Finch & Graziano,
2001; Hirschfeld & Klerman, 1979; Houtman, 1990; Jorm et al., 2000; Jylhä & Isometsä, 2006;
Kerr, Schapira, Roth, & Garside, 1970; Lozano & Johnson, 2001; Nowakowska et al., 2005;
Piedmont & Ciarrocchi, 1999; Russo et al., 1997; Trull & Sher, 1994; Uliaszek et al., 2010,
2011). Behavioral genetic research further suggests shared heritability between neuroticism and
depressive experiences (Hettema, Neale, Myers, Prescott, & Kendler, 2006; Kendler & Myers,
2010; Kendler, Gatz, Gardner, & Pedersen, 2006; Kendler, Neale, Kessler, Heath, & Eaves, 1993;
Khan, Jacobson, Gardner, Prescott, & Kendler, 2005; Roberts & Kendler, 1999). However, the
association between neuroticism and symptoms of depression remains when current mental state
is taken into account; this indicates that neuroticism predicts depressive symptoms independently
of temporarily depressed mood (Horwood & Fergusson, 1986; Whittington & Huppert, 1998).
In other words, although neuroticism has a strong association with depressed mood, neuroticism

20

as a trait is more than just depressed mood. Taken together, findings from behavioral genetics
and psychotherapy research on the relation between neuroticism and depression are consistent
with theoretical and empirical work in trait psychology indicating that neuroticism is a diathetic
factor (i.e., predisposition) for depression (Costa, Bagby, Herbst, & McCrae, 2005; Clark,
Watson, & Mineka, 1994; Enns & Cox, 1997; Klein, Durbin, & Shankman, 2009; Ormel,
Oldenhinkel, & Vollebergh, 2004).
There is also research suggesting that neuroticism has not only a main effect on
depression, but also serves as a moderator between interpersonal stress and the development of
depressive symptoms. For example, one study found that high neuroticism served as a
moderator between interpersonal conflict and the development of depression such that it
predicted not only the coping methods utilized in reacting to this conflict, but, in another set of
analyses, the effectiveness of coping methods in reducing depression (Bolger & Zuckerman,
1995). In this study, participants were given a measure of neuroticism and asked to fill out a
diary of general interpersonal conflicts and their level of distress and coping responses to these
events for 14 days. The study found that participants with higher neuroticism were more likely
to experience negative events, have a greater reaction to them, and be more likely to cope with
them using confrontation strategies, the latter of which leads to higher levels of depressive
symptoms.
Neuroticism also shows a moderation effect between relationship conflict and depressive
symptoms within the context of women in intimate relationships (Davila, Karney, Hall, &
Bradbury, 2003; Karney, 2001; Uebelacker & Whisman, 2006). For example, in their
longitudinal study of newlywed women Davila and colleagues (2003) found that neuroticism
moderated the effect of marital conflict on the development of depression such that increases in

21

marital conflict resulted in more depressive symptoms among women with high levels of
neuroticism than among women with low levels of neuroticism.
The role neuroticism plays in moderating between stress and depressive symptom can
also be observed in the relationship between depression and appraisals of stress. In explaining
this, Widiger (2009) notes that individuals high in neuroticism are more susceptible to
experiencing stressful life events more negatively relative to individuals low in neuroticism.
Indeed, numerous studies have suggested that individuals high in neuroticism interpret stress as
more threatening, more severe, and otherwise more distressing (Gallagher, 1990; Gunthert,
Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). For example, studies examining college students’ performance on a
stressful situation found that more neurotic participants appraised the situation as being more
stressful and themselves as being less likely to be able to cope with these tasks than their less
neurotic counterparts (Hemenover & Dienstbier, 1996; Penley & Tomaka, 2002).
Although the research suggesting a relationship between neuroticism and depression is
substantial, there are gaps in the literature. While some studies examine the effect of neuroticism
across multiple time periods (looking at time period separately), finding that it is positively
associated with depression over time (e.g., Chien et al. 2007; Hirschfeld et al. 1983; Lozano &
Johnson, 2001), these studies usually measure this effect over the course of two closely occurring
time periods rather than being longitudinal in a broader, more long-term sense. Moreover, the
participants in these studies were either college students or individuals who were already
enrolled in the mental health system, thus limiting the generalizability of these studies to the
general population or, more specifically, to women with DV. Although Jorm and colleagues
(2001) investigated the relationship between neuroticism and depression with a community
sample across two time periods, the results of this study examined only how neuroticism

22

predicted depression directly, not how neuroticism functioned as a diathesis for depression.
While studies by Kendler and colleagues (1993, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2010) were
longitudinal, had participants drawn from a community sample, and found that neuroticism
served as a genetically rooted diathesis for depression, they did not specify the nature of the
environmental contribution that would cause an individual with high neuroticism to develop
depression.
The findings from these studies, while illustrating the role of neuroticism as a potential
diathesis for depression, do not contribute information about how neuroticism functions within
the context of trauma. More specifically, no studies have examined how neuroticism functions
within the context of DV. It is anticipated that while both DV and neuroticism will predict a
high level of depression in women, neuroticism will serve a moderating function in this
relationship such that it will amplify the effects of DV. Specifically, higher levels of neuroticism
will be associated with more depressive symptoms within the context of DV. In contrast, women
with lower levels of neuroticism will exhibit fewer depressive symptoms within the context of
DV. Women exposed to DV who have higher levels of neuroticism will have more depressive
symptoms than battered women with lower neuroticism. Among women with low levels of DV
exposure, higher neuroticism will still be associated with a greater number of depressive
symptoms than those with lower neuroticism, although this effect will be less pronounced,
resulting in smaller range of depressive symptoms, due to the relative absence of DV.
Current Study
The current study will investigate the role that personality traits (agreeableness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism) play in the development of depression within
the context of DV. Although previous studies have repeatedly demonstrated the link between

23

DV exposure and depressive symptoms, there has been little research applying contemporary
personality research to the study of women exposed to DV. Existing studies almost exclusively
focus either on the personality characteristics of the perpetrators of violence (e.g., Beasley &
Stoltenberg, 1992) or on the personality traits (often pathological) of women who are exposed to
it (e.g., Pérez-Testor, Castillo, Davins, Salamero, & San-Martino, 2007). By applying
contemporary personality theory to the study of trauma, research has shown that normative
personality traits influence individuals’ response to trauma and their development of subsequent
psychopathology, depressive and otherwise. However, this research has not been extended to the
study of DV. This will be the first study to describe psychopathology among abused women
within the context of personality traits.
Hypotheses. It is expected that the personality traits examined in this study will influence
the degree to which depressive symptoms develop within the context of DV, using cumulative
scores of both DV and depressive symptoms to examine the effect of prolonged DV exposure on
depressive symptoms across a long period of time. DV experiences were summed for the first
four years (T1-T4). In order to measure depressive symptoms as long-term sequelae of DV, the
number of depressive symptoms was summed for the subsequent four years (T4-T8). As such,
the measurement of personality traits at T4 was appropriate for testing moderation effects. First,
it is anticipated that all four traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and
neuroticism) will have main effects on the number of depressive symptoms, such that they
increment the effect of DV exposure. However, in the case of agreeableness, this main effect
will be fully mediated by social support. Additionally, it is expected that conscientiousness,
extraversion, and neuroticism will serve as moderators between DV and depressive symptoms
and that agreeableness will have this same moderating role. Moreover, these effects (main,

24

mediating, and moderating) will remain after the effects of the other traits are taken into account.
Specifically, it is hypothesized that:
1. Each personality trait will have a main effect on the development of depressive
symptoms over and above the main effect of DV. Specifically, higher levels of agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and extraversion will be associated with fewer depressive symptoms whereas
higher neuroticism will be associated with more depressive symptoms
2. The main effect of agreeableness on depressive symptoms will be mediated by social
support such that higher quality of social support will result in fewer depressive symptoms,
which will account for the association between agreeableness and depressive symptoms.
3. Conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism, but not agreeableness, will moderate
the effect of DV exposure on depressive symptoms.
a. Agreeableness will not moderate the effect of cumulative exposure to DV on
depressive symptoms, such that although agreeableness will be associated with fewer depressive
symptoms, there will be no differential effect of agreeableness given different levels of DV
exposure.
b. Conscientiousness will moderate the effect of cumulative exposure to DV on
depressive symptoms, such that higher levels of conscientiousness among women with high
levels of DV will be associated with fewer depressive symptoms than among women with lower
conscientiousness and high levels of DV exposure.
c. Extraversion will moderate the effect of cumulative exposure to DV on
depressive symptoms, such that higher levels of extraversion among women with high levels of
DV will be associated with fewer depressive symptoms than among women with lower
extraversion and high levels of DV exposure. .

25

d. Neuroticism will moderate the effect of cumulative exposure to DV on
depressive symptoms, such that higher levels of neuroticism among women with high levels of
DV will be associated with a greater number of depressive symptoms than among women with
lower neuroticism and high levels of DV exposure.
4. The above-mentioned main and moderating effects will remain statistically significant
even when controlling for the effect of the other three traits.
Method
Participants
This study is a part of a larger longitudinal study examining the effects of DV on women.
The study began with 206 participants recruited in a Midwestern state from rural, suburban, and
rural areas with equal numbers of women who had and who had not experienced DV. Over the
course of nine years of the study, 41 participants withdrew from or were otherwise not included
in the study, resulting in a sample size of 165 participants at the end of the ninth wave of the
study. Demographics of the sample as well as the means and standard deviations for each
variable of interest are reported in Table 1.
The sample has a wide range of both depressive symptoms and DV exposure.
Additionally, means and standard deviations of the sample’s levels of FFM personality trait were
not significantly different from that of the women in the population on whom the test was
normed (see Costa & McCrae, 1985). The only exception to this was that women in this sample
scored on average 3 points lower on conscientiousness (t = 5.4625; p < .05). Additionally, a
disproportionate number of single and separated relative to married women left the study by its
eighth wave (χ2 = 14.189; p < .05). Those who left the study also had significantly lower

26

monthly family incomes (F(1) = 4.451; p < .05). Over half of the women who left the study
before the final wave were of ethnic minority status.
Measures
DV. The 46-item Severity of Violence Against Women Scales (SVAWS; Marshall, 1992)
is a questionnaire assessing violent behaviors and threats a woman has experienced from her
partner within the past year. There are nine categories of abuse and threats. Examples of items
include “punched you,” “bit you,” and “demanded sex whether you wanted to or not.”
Respondents rate their experiences of abuse on a 4-point scale ranging from “never” to “many
times.” Marshall (1992) reports obtaining coefficient alphas ranging from .86
(domination/isolation subscale) to .96 (verbal/emotional subscale) among the subscales. The
internal consistency in this study is similarly high (α = .96). The SVAWS used in this project
were administered in the first, second, third, and fourth years of the greater longitudinal study
(T1, T2, T3, and T4) for up to three partners per administration. For each individual, total DV
exposure was calculated by summing exposure to violent events from each of these past
relationships across the years to produce a final cumulative score.
Depression. Participants’ symptoms of depression were measured using the Beck
Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), a 21-item
questionnaire composed of statements endorsing symptoms and attitudes that describe specific
behavioral manifestations of depression (e.g., guilty feeling, body image, indecisiveness) that are
ranked in order of increasing severity. Participants were asked to identify which statement best
reflects how they have been feeling during the past week. Beck et al. (1988) reported high
internal consistency with a coefficient alpha level of .86. Within this study, internal consistency
is also high (α = .97). For the purposes of this study, the BDI scores from the fourth (T4)

27

through the eighth (T8) years of the study are used in the analyses. The scores from these time
periods were added to produce a cumulative score of depressive symptoms, thus capturing the
enduring effects of depression caused by chronic DV exposure.
Personality. Personality was measured using the NEO Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI;
Costa & McCrae, 1992b), a well-established, 60-item personality inventory yielding five
personality factors: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness
to Experience. For the purposes of this study, only Neuroticism, Extraversion, and
Conscientiousness were used in the analyses. Participants rated how much each item applied to
them on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).
Examples of items are “I don’t like to waste my time daydreaming,” and “Most people I know
like me.” Internal consistencies for the NEO-FFI range from .63 to .84. The NEO-FFI was
administered in the fourth year (T4) of the study.
Social Support. Participants’ levels of social support were measured using the Norbeck
Social Support Scale (Norbeck, Lindsey, & Carrieri, 1981, 1983), which assesses the number and
degree of different types of support provided (i.e., practical and emotional) by individuals in the
participants’ social network. The measure asks participants to list each significant person in their
lives and how much each person provides a specific type of social support across 16 domains
(e.g., practical vs. emotional), including support given in regard to DV specifically. Amount of
social support experienced is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “a great deal.”
Because social support has been shown to influence the development of depressive symptoms
within the context of DV (Levendosky et al., 2004), the measures of social support used will be
those collected in the same time periods in which depressive symptoms were measured (T4
through T8). However, in order to account for the period within this time frame in which social

28

support was not measured (T7), the measure of social support used in this study was calculated
by summing the practical and emotional support for the time periods in which it was available
(T4, T5, T6, and T8) and taking the average across these time periods.
Family income. Participants’ income was measured during each wave of the study by
asking the total income of women’s family per month. Due to its completeness, monthly family
income from the first wave of data collection was used for this study.
Negative life events. The number of life events experienced was measured using the Life
Experiences Survey (LES; Saranson, Johnson, & Siegel, 1978). The LES is a 49-point checklist
of life events experienced in the last year, the severity of which was rated on a 7-point Likerttype scale of ranging from “Extremely negative” to “No impact” to “Extremely positive.”
Examples of items include “Detention in jail or comparable institution” and “Death of close
family member.” The number of negative life events was computed by summing all those items
endorsed as negative during T4, the time period shared by the components of all analysis.
DV exposure and depressive symptoms for those participants who had information from
one or more waves of data collection missing were imputed using previous measurements of
those variables. Overall, the 2.7% of the data was imputed. The MCAR statistic (MCAR[58] =
201.172, p < .05) suggests that this data was missing non-randomly.
Procedures
Recruitment. Women were recruited through flyers posted in communities throughout the
Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, and Shiawassee counties of Michigan and distributed to organizations
serving women within the state. Two types of flyers were used: one invited women to
participate who had experienced DV during pregnancy and the other invited women to
participate in a study about mother-infant relationships. Interested women contacted the study

29

office by phone, at which time a research assistant conducted a brief screening to determine
eligibility. Initial inclusion criteria included 18 to 40 years of age, involvement in a romantic
relationship for at least 6 weeks sometime during pregnancy, and fluent in English.
Interview Procedures. Women who volunteered for the study were initially screened in a
five-minute interview via telephone to determine eligibility, including DV exposure (designating
anyone who endorsed items 6-14 on the Conflict Tactics Scale as having been exposed to DV;
Straus 1979). Potential participants were told the study was about women’s relationships with
the important people in their life, including partners, children, and other family members, and
that if they participated in the study they would be asked about their thoughts and feelings about
relationships and recent life events, including DV. If the women met criteria and agreed to
participate, an appointment was made.
Women were interviewed individually by master’s and doctoral students in clinical
psychology in private rooms on the campus of a large Midwestern university or in the
participants’ homes by trained research assistants. Interviews were conducted every year over
the nine-year course of the study starting in pregnancy. Participants gave consent for their
participation in the study, completed all questionnaires, and were financially reimbursed for their
participation. The BDI and, in the fourth wave, the NEO were the first instruments to be
administered, with the SVAWS being the last, ensuring that interviewers were blind to the
woman’s abuse status throughout completion of all other measures.
Results
Correlations between the variables are reported in Table 2. Agreeableness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, and social support correlated positively with each other and
negatively with neuroticism, DV exposure, and depressive symptoms, which correlated

30

positively with each other. Conscientiousness did not significantly correlate with DV exposure.
All other observed correlations were statistically significant (p < .05). These results lent some
support for hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 1 was also tested using a series of hierarchical linear regressions. As
expected, DV exposure predicted number of depressive symptoms when controlling for both
income and other negative life events. Three of the four personality traits exhibited a statistically
significant main effect on depression above and beyond the main effect of DV.
Conscientiousness and extraversion were both associated with fewer depressive symptoms over
and above DV (see Tables 4 and 5), whereas neuroticism was associated with more depressive
symptoms over and above DV (see Table 6). However, agreeableness was not significantly
associated with depressive symptoms within the context of DV (see Table 3), thus lending only
partial support to hypothesis 1 .
To test hypothesis 2, a series of linear regression analyses were conducted according to
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidance for conducting mediation analyses (see Figure 1). DV
exposure was input into the first step of each analysis. In the first analysis, average social
support was regressed on agreeableness; in the second, the total number of depressive symptoms
was regressed on agreeableness; and in the third, the total number of depressive symptoms was
regressed on average social support. Of these, only the relationships between agreeableness and
DV and between agreeableness and social support were significant (see Table 7), suggesting that
a mediating relationship did not exist.
In order to indicate whether a mediating relationship between the three variables might
exist in the absence of DV, the analysis was completed excluding the influence of DV. As in the
previous mediation model, average social support was regressed on agreeableness in the first

31

regression; total number of depressive symptoms was regressed on agreeableness in the second;
and total number of depressive symptoms was regressed on average social support in the third.
In each case, the regression was significantly significant (see Table 8). In order to test the
significance of the indirect effect of the agreeableness on depressive symptoms via social support,
Sobel’s (1982) test of significance was conducted (see Table 8). The results of this test suggest
that social support is a statistically significant partial mediator of the relationship between
agreeableness and the number of depressive symptoms, but within the context of DV exposure,
this mediation is disrupted.
As with hypothesis 1, hypothesis 3 was tested using a series of hierarchical linear
regressions. Contrary to hypotheses, there was no significant moderating effect of
conscientiousness (see Table 4). However, consistent with hypothesis 3c, extraversion
moderated the effect of DV exposure, serving as a buffer for DV and resulting in fewer
depressive symptoms in women exposed to DV (see Table 5 and Figure 2). Neuroticism also
moderated the effect of DV exposure, resulting in more depressive symptoms in women exposed
(hypothesis 3d; see Table 6 and Figure 3).
When the main effect of each personality trait was analyzed while controlling for the
three other traits (Hypothesis 4), only neuroticism predicted depressive symptoms above and
beyond both DV exposure and other personality traits (see Table 12). The main effects of
agreeableness (Table 9) and conscientiousness (Table 10) were all insignificant when other traits
were controlled. One exception to this was extraversion, which had a significant main effect
when agreeableness and conscientiousness were controlled for (see Table 12), although this
effect did not remain when neuroticism was co-varied (see Tables 9-10, 12). As such, these
analyses lent only partial support to hypothesis 4. However, the moderating relationship

32

between DV exposure and both extraversion and neuroticism remained significant (see Tables
11-12 and Figures 4-5), lending some further support for hypothesis 4. That neuroticism
significantly moderates when other traits are co-varied but not when these traits are not co-varied
is discussed below.
In order to provide the best test for the hypotheses, the main and moderating effects of
personality traits, which were measured at a single point (T4), the design of this study
incorporated measurements of DV from T1-T4 and of depressive symptoms from T4-T8 in its
analyses. However, within the context of the greater longitudinal study, DV and depressive
symptoms were measured at each of these time periods. Additionally, research has shown that
depressive symptoms decrease when exposure to DV ceases (Mertin & Mohr, 2001). Given this,
in order to replicate the overall results of the original design of this study across time periods that
DV and depressive symptoms were measured at the same time, hypothesis 4 was re-tested using
different combinations of the time periods used in this study.
A series of post hoc tests were conducted to examine whether or not these main and
moderating effects for hypothesis 4 remained significant when both DV and depressive
symptoms were examined within three additional time periods of the study. Across time periods
T1-T4, T4-T8, and T1-T8, the main effect of neuroticism and moderating effects of both
neuroticism and extraversion were replicated when controlling for other traits. However, there
were some changes in the second block of the regression model testing the main and moderating
effects of neuroticism. In this block, in which conscientiousness and agreeableness, but not
neuroticism, are controlled for, the main effect of extraversion was only replicated in time period
T4-T8, but not in T1-T4 or T1-T8. Additionally, the main effect of conscientiousness was
significant in this block in T1-T8. The main effect of agreeableness also became significant in

33

T1-T8, but only after all traits and the interaction terms of conscientiousness, extraversion, or
neuroticism, (but not agreeableness) were included in the equation.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of FFM personality traits on
depressive symptoms within the context of DV. All four traits in the study were hypothesized to
have a main effect, one of the three (agreeableness) was proposed to exert its effect through a
mediator (social support), and three (conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism) were
hypothesized to have moderation effects. Each trait was input into a series of hierarchical linear
regressions. Although some of the proposed main and moderating effects of each trait appeared
to be confirmed initially, many of these effects diminished within the context of other traits.
Additionally, the proposed mediating effect of social support on the relationship between
agreeableness, DV, and depressive symptoms was only significant when DV was not taken into
account for the full sample. Each of these effects will be discussed in turn.
Influence of personality traits on depressive symptoms. The results of this study were
consistent with previous research on DV linking DV exposure to the development of depressive
symptoms (e.g., Golding, 1999). These results were also consistent with personality research
(e.g., Kotov et al., 2010) showing a significant main effect of personality traits on symptoms of
depression. One strength of this study was that these two lines of research were combined,
suggesting that the main effects of personality traits on depressive symptoms continued to be
observed above and beyond the influence of DV exposure. This is consonant with previous work
on personality traits within the context of trauma, although FFM traits have never been examined
within a sample of battered women, much less examined as a potential contributor to
psychopathology upon exposure to DV.

34

Although the main effects of the four FFM traits examined in this study were
demonstrated when tested independently of each other, the effects of all but one (neuroticism)
became insignificant when analyzed within the context of the respective other three. One
potential interpretation of these results is that while neuroticism is not synonymous with
depression (as is evident by a high but imperfect correlation between the two variables), its
relationship with depressive symptoms is so strong that the effects of other traits, which are
correlated with neuroticism, are rendered insignificant, possibly because their association with
depression was largely represented by their correlation with neuroticism. This understanding of
the relationship between neuroticism and depression is consistent with genetic studies examining
these two variables (e.g., Kendler & Myers, 2010).
In contrast, both of the moderating effects that were statistically significant in models in
which other traits were not controlled for (extraversion and neuroticism) remained significant
when other traits were co-varied. The continued moderating influence of neuroticism despite the
added influence of the other three traits is notable, but consistent with previous research
suggesting a close association between neuroticism and depression. More interesting is that
despite the reduction of the main effect of extraversion when the other three traits are co-varied,
the moderating effect still remains such that even within the context of other FFM traits,
extraversion continues to buffer and neuroticism continues to exacerbate the effect of DV on the
number of depressive symptoms. Two such explanations for this seem both more plausible and
more consistent with contemporary theory and research on personality traits.
Interpreting these results within the structural framework of the FFM, the finding that
neuroticism and extraversion are the two traits that hold the greatest influence on depressive
symptoms is consistent with previous research. Gershuny and Sher (1995), for example, found

35

that the neuroticism’s association with depression is actually facilitated by low levels of
extraversion, a trend observed across the age range (Joiner & Lonigan, 2000). This does not
necessarily make agreeableness and conscientiousness irrelevant within the context of DV and
depression, but it does call for a revision of the thought driving the current study. Rather than
being buffers against the development of depressive symptoms within the context of DV,
agreeableness and conscientiousness may instead affect the ways in which these depressive
symptoms are expressed, a hypothesis that can be tested examining levels of trait and number
and type of depressive symptoms across groups. In other words, whereas extraversion and
neuroticism, consistent with this study’s hypotheses, are diathetic factors for symptoms of
depression within the context of DV, agreeableness and conscientiousness may have more of a
pathoplastic influence, although future research will be necessary to test this hypothesis.
One can also interpret these results within a broader context, specifically, that of
interpersonal theory. Within this overarching framework, agency and communion are the two
superordinate traits understood to account for the most if not all interpersonal behavior. Current
research situates FFM traits into this context, modeling extraversion and openness as meta-traits
related to agency and agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (reverse-scored) as
components of communion (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2002; Digman, 1997). Within this
context, agency and communion can be thought of as the two primary diathetic factors for
depression, which, as a number of theorists have remarked (e.g., Blatt 1974; Joiner et al., 1999),
is an inherently interpersonal condition. Further, in their study incorporating circumplex
measures of personality using agentic and communal descriptions of self, Cain and colleagues
(2011) have shown that these super-traits also function pathoplastically such that agency and

36

communion affect not only if but also how depressive symptoms are expressed (i.e., that certain
personality traits were associated with different severity and duration of depressive symptoms).
Perhaps the most interesting finding from the series of post hoc tests was that the effects
of personality traits were largely consistent across different time periods. This was further
reinforcement of the idea that extraversion and neuroticism are the two primary diatheses from
the perspective of personality traits. However, that main effects of conscientiousness and
agreeableness emerged in some time periods as became significant and that the main effect of
extraversion became non-significant were also interesting. One reason why conscientiousness
may be more (and extraversion less) influential in terms of main effects over a longer span of
experience of DV and depressive symptoms may have to do with how each trait has its effect.
For example, conscientiousness may have more influence on depressive symptoms within the
context of DV through the long term management of the stress whereas extraversion may have a
shorter term effect dealing more with affect than with stress management. A similar
phenomenon might be observed with agreeableness: perhaps the main effect of agreeableness is
more evident over the long term, specifically once the influences of other traits are taken into
account.
Theory and research also remain underdeveloped, however, in describing how personality
traits, superordinate or FFM, function within the context of DV. In some cases, however,
existing theory dealing with the effects of DV on general social functioning (e.g., Walker, 1979)
can be expanded to incorporate the influence of personality traits. This can be observed in
possible explanations for the effect of DV on the relationship between agreeableness and social
support.

37

Agreeableness and social support. The proposed function of social support as a mediator
between agreeableness and depressive symptoms was demonstrated. However, this effect was
rendered null when DV exposure was introduced statistically. This builds on previous studies on
the relationship between DV and social support in a number of ways. First, that the relationship
between social support and depressive symptoms becomes statistically insignificant when
controlling for the effect of cumulative DV suggests that while DV may indeed attrite the social
support networks of women who experience it, this attrition has an insignificant influence on the
number of depressive symptoms relative to the influence of DV. In other words, these results
suggest that it is the effect of cumulative DV itself rather than the effect of DV mediated through
the erosion of social support that predicts greater numbers of depressive symptoms. This does
not contradict previous research (e.g., Mitchell & Hodson, 1983) suggesting that women who
experience DV do not benefit from support from social networks, but rather that the experience
of DV exposure alters the normal relationship between social support and depression.
Also important is that agreeableness predicts social support independent of DV exposure
but ceases to do so significantly when DV is taken into account. One interpretation of this is that
although high levels of agreeableness generally allow for the maintenance of social support
networks, the presence of DV negates this. In effect, exposure to DV overwhelms the ability of a
highly agreeable person to maintain quality social support networks.
The effect of DV on the mediating function of social support between agreeableness and
depressive symptoms can perhaps best be understood in terms of a disruption of interpersonal
relations. Whereas for women without exposure to DV, higher levels of agreeableness will lead
to a higher quality of social support, which in turn leads to decreased numbers of depressive
symptoms, DV exposure disrupts this pattern by negating both the ability of agreeableness to

38

influence social support and by preventing social support from decreasing levels of depressive
symptoms. One explanation for this effect is that in addition to perpetrating violence, males in
violent relationships directly degrade the social support networks of their partners (Dobash &
Dobash, 1998; Walker, 1979), making this degradation in social networks unrelated to the
personality characteristics of the women they batter.
Implications. Although knowledge about how traits influence the degree to which
depressive symptoms are expressed among battered women is important for the general purpose
of progress in the fields of personality psychology and the study of trauma, there are also specific
implications for the study of DV. For example, the finding that both extraversion and
neuroticism moderate DV exposure to inhibit or exacerbate the expression of depressive
symptoms lends further evidence to the theory of trait-environment interactions being the cause
of depression. These findings also discredit the idea that depression is either the simple result of
DV or the simple result of traits (i.e., depression is just neuroticism).
The suggestion that neuroticism and extraversion are, respectively, the two primary
vulnerability and protective factors for depressive symptoms also provides further support for
previous studies (Gershuny & Sher, 1995; Joiner & Lonigan, 2000; Vollrath & Torgersen, 2000).
Similarly, that agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted depressive symptoms above and
beyond DV exposure before controlling for traits is also a verification of previous studies.
Moreover, that their influence diminished after controlling for the other traits is still important in
that these results suggest the possibility that agreeableness and conscientiousness may have more
of a pathoplastic influence within the context of depression. This line of thought has important
implications for treatment. Screening battered women for depressive vulnerabilities and
protective factors for depression (e.g., using tests measuring neuroticism and extraversion) would

39

be less immediately useful than measuring depressive symptoms directly (e.g., via measuring the
affective, cognitive, and/or physiological symptoms of depression). However, if agreeableness
and conscientiousness influence the way in which these depressive symptoms were expressed,
knowing this could inform treatment. For example, if women lower in conscientious were more
likely to exhibit more cognitive than emotional symptoms of depression, then a more cognitive
approach to treatment for depression (i.e., challenging distorted thoughts) could be selected as a
potentially more appropriate treatment.
That social support mediated the relationship between agreeableness and depressive
symptoms before exposure to DV was controlled for but ceased to do so afterward also has
important implications. First, the disruption in the relationship between agreeableness and social
support associated with DV exposure is consistent with previous research that DV exposure (and,
possibly, the men who perpetrate DV, although this was not examined in this study) limits the
potential for social support that might otherwise exist in someone who would have a robust
social network outside the context of DV exposure. Following from this, a practical implication
of this finding is that rather than targeting a therapeutic intervention explicitly emphasizing
social support towards women particularly high or low in a given personality trait (e.g.,
agreeableness), this could be a component of intervention for all battered women suffering from
depression.
Limitations. Although this study broke new ground in many respects, it has some
limitations, stemming largely from the measures used and the time at which they were
administered. With respect to the measurement of personality traits, personality was assessed
between the measurement of cumulative DV and before depressive symptoms. Measuring
personality before adult relationships (and, thus, exposure to direct forms of DV) as well as after

40

abuse would perhaps be a more ideal means of measuring personality with respect to trauma.
Measurement at these different time periods would also take into account any subtle changes in
personality that may have occurred due to maturity as well as any possible shift in trait levels due
to traumatic experience.
A second limitation with the measurement of personality has to do with the type of
measurement used. Although 60-item measure of FFM traits is sufficient for measuring the traits
themselves, it may not allow for a reliable measure of facets of these traits. For example, the
self-consciousness and stress vulnerability facets of neuroticism and the competence facet of
conscientiousness would seem to be particularly relevant for the interpretation of and reaction to
the experience of DV. However, these are not able to be fully assessed using the more
streamlined FFM measure employed in this study.
Considering personality assessment more broadly, although FFM measures of personality
are the most empirically validated, the inherently interpersonal nature of both DV and depression
are perhaps best examined using more expressly interpersonal measures of personality. This
could be accomplished using personality measures incorporating the interpersonal circumplex
such as the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scale (IAS-R; Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988)
or the more widely available interpersonal circumplex scale using items from the International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP-IPC; Markey & Markey, 2009). Either alternatively or in addition to
these measures, the use of performance based measures of object relations such as the Social
Cognition and Object Relations Scales (SCORS; Westen, 1995) or object relations measures on
the Rorschach Inkblot Test (Urist, 1977) could provide additional information on the
interpersonal functioning of abused women. Because of the implicit nature of object relations

41

and the scales used to measure them, this would provide a useful supplement to more explicit
self-report measures of personality and interpersonal characteristics.
Considering the measurement of interpersonal behavior more broadly, including men as
well as women in the pool of participants would also yield additional useful information. Such a
study would enable not only a comparison of the interpersonal attributes and object relations
qualities of women versus men within the context of violent relationships, but also allow for a
more dyadic analysis not only of the real-time interactions, but also of personality traits and other
interpersonal characteristics. Because of the inherent dangers of increasing a woman’s time with
her batterer, in-person interviews with violent men could be substituted by the inclusion of a
woman’s third-person rating of her partner’s personality characteristics.
With respect to the measurement of depression, there are limitations to the BDI in terms
of the range of depressive symptoms measured. For example, although the BDI is considered by
many to be the gold standard for the assessment of depression, it primarily measures the
cognitive symptoms of depression. In contrast, other measures of depression contain sub-scales
for the measurement of cognitive, emotional, and physiological symptoms of depression. The
measurement of depressive symptoms in this study was also a sum of time periods, which, while
it offers insight into the effects of prolonged DV exposure across time periods, allows for the
study of cumulative depressive symptoms across these time periods, but not an examination of
depressive symptoms within time periods. The same critique holds for the use of cumulative
periods of DV exposure: while using a summed score enables the study of the cumulative effects
of DV, it does not allow for the study of the relationship between DV exposure at specific time
periods within the greater time period of exposure. Future research could examine whether DV
(or specific types of DV) have greater or lesser influence on specific types of depression and

42

whether personality characteristics maintain their ability to moderate the impact of DV on each,
both across and within time periods.
A final limitation has to do with the study’s sample. Even among those women who
endorsed the highest amounts of DV exposure within the sample of this study, the severity of DV
could be lower than what may occur within the greater population, at least as indicated by
examples in case studies (e.g., Walker, 1979). This remains the case despite over-sampling an
at-risk community population for DV exposure. One reason for this could be that women who
experience the most severe and chronic forms of DV may be unwilling and/or unable to
volunteer to participate in research, especially research involving DV. In any case, although
personality traits may have different effects on more severe or more chronic forms of DV, this
was not measured in this study, although it could be a focus of future studies. These and other
considerations offer learning points for future areas of research on the intersection between DV,
depression, and personality.
Future research. From the broad perspective of interpersonal theory, future research
would benefit from the use of more explicitly interpersonal measures of personality, including
first- or third-person reporting of the DV perpetrator’s personality characteristics. Although this
could be done with circumplex measures of personality (e.g., IAS-R, IPIP-IPC), it could also be
done using the agency and communion scales that Digman (1997) alludes can be derived from
FFM measures of personality. These composite scales were not computed and used in this study
because the sample size was not sufficient for the factor analytic construction of the scales
suggested by other research (Markon et al., 2005). This would build on the results of this study
by clarifying whether it is extraversion and neuroticism that are the primary protective and
vulnerability factors for depressive symptoms or whether it is the two superordinate traits of

43

agency and communion, of which each of these traits is a respective member that have greater
influence.
Examining the influence of traits at the level of lower-order facets would yield yet a
different kind of additional information. For example, it could be that the stress vulnerability
and self-consciousness facets of neuroticism account for the strong association between
neuroticism and depression whereas the impulsivity and hostility facets have minimal influence
and, moreover, make the analysis of personality’s influence on depressive symptoms within the
context of DV less clear. Future research could examine whether or not the influence of
personality at the level of the facet is useful for understanding the effects of DV.
Although the results of this study indicate main and moderating effects of certain
personality traits on depressive symptoms within the context of DV, more research is needed to
examine how these effects occur. For examine, high levels of neuroticism are associated with
more stressful and self-critical appraisals to stressful events whereas extraversion is associated
with less stressful appraisals to stress and more effective methods of coping with the stress
(Costa, Somerfield, & McCrae, 1996; Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999; Penley & Tomaka,
2002). However, these trends have not been tested within the context of DV, trauma more
generally, or with respect to the depressive symptoms.
Although the way in which personality functions and is measured within the context of
DV is an important consideration for future research, the measurement and classification of both
DV and depressive symptoms may also be important. With respect to the former, the current
study examined accumulated DV, not specific acts within the spectrum of DV. As Johnson
(1995) points out, however, there may be different types of DV, one that erupts spontaneously as
a result of disagreements (i.e., common or situational couple violence) and a second type that is

44

an effortful attempt by the man in the relationship to control his partner (i.e., intimate terrorism
or coercive controlling violence). Future research could investigate whether different personality
traits moderate these different forms of DV as well as whether these types differentially predict
different symptoms of depression.
Similarly, and in keeping with the interpersonal understanding of DV, there have been a
variety of studies investigating the interpersonal nature of depression in greater specificity. For
example, Blatt and colleagues (1976), using the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire, found
that specific types of depressive symptoms (e.g., physiological vs. cognitive) differentiated
anaclytic and introjective forms of depression. Additionally, from the perspective of the etiology
of these symptoms, Bieling and colleagues (2000) found differences in the specific etiologies of
these two different forms of depression. Future research into which form of depression in terms
of both etiology and symptom type is more prevalent among women exposed to DV could not
only engender further insight into the nature of DV, but also guide the treatment of women
experiencing depressive symptoms as a result of experiencing DV.
This study and the potential future studies suggested thus far all make use of a variablecentered approach to research methodology, viewing personality traits, depressive symptoms,
and DV exposure as variables that function similarly across all study participants. Although
these studies offer valuable lessons about how these individual variables function, there are other,
equally useful ways of studying and understanding them. For example, awareness of how each
personality trait functions independently is important to predict how it will function within the
context of stress and trauma. However, any given personality trait necessarily operates in
tandem with other traits within the broader context of the individual (Robins, John, & Caspi,
1998). This is consistent with the person-centered view that the individual is best understood in

45

terms of the integration of his or her attributes (e.g., personality traits) rather than the sum of
them (Bergman, Magnusson, & El-Khouri, 2003; Magnusson, 1998). Whereas variable-centered
approaches focus on relations between variables by examining mean differences across groups, a
person-centered approach is based on the idea that distinct sub-groups within a sample exist and
that these sub-groups will exhibit different configurations of a person’s characteristics, which in
turn lead to different outcomes (von Eye & Bogat, 2006). As a result, an analysis at the level of
the person would be helpful for understanding how these traits are typically organized and
function. This is especially the case for the study of personality within the context of DV (Bogat,
Levendosky, & von Eye, 2005).
A number of researchers taking a person-centered approach to studying psychopathology
note that the analysis of individual features at the level of sub-groups of people is an appropriate
means of capturing relevant differences between different individuals (Bergman 1998; Bergman
& Magnusson, 1997; Bergman, Magnusson, & El-Khouri, 2003; Laursen & Hoff, 2006; Robins,
John, & Caspi, 1998). This is particularly the case for longitudinal or psychopathology research
(Achenbach & Edelrock, 1983; Bergman, 2000; Skinner & Blashfield, 1982) as well as for
personality (Asendorpf, 2000; Asendorf & van Aken, 1999; Robins, John, & Caspi, 1998).
Future research could aim at studying how groups of women with specific patterns of personality
traits differ in their susceptibility and expression of depressive symptoms as well as whether
these different patterns of personality show different types of etiologies or expressions of
depressive symptoms. This approach to research would enable the investigation into whether
some FFM traits are diathetic and others are pathoplastic with respect to symptoms of depression
among battered women.

46

Finally, there are likely a number of other factors that influence whether or not women
exposed to DV will exhibit symptoms of depression. In the past, variables outside the individual
have been examined (e.g., type of DV experienced, availability of social support). However, as
the results of this study suggest, personality is also influential in determining whether or not
women develop depressive symptoms following exposure to DV. Research examining not only
personality traits but other factors internal to the battered woman will likely be a fruitful area of
inquiry in the future.

47

Appendices

48

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
________________________________________________________________________
Original Sample
Left study
_____________________
____________________
Predictor
Mean
S.D. No. % Mean S.D. No. %
________________________________________________________________________
Marital status
Single
103
50
28
67
Married
83
40
10
24
Separated
9
4
3
7
Divorced
10
5
0
0
Widowed
1
1
0
0
Ethnicity
African American
42
24
9
43
Asian American/Pacific Islander
2
1
1
5
European-American
115
65
10
48
Latina
9
5
1
5
Native American
2
1
0
0
Multi-racial
8
5
0
0
Other
29
14
20
50
Mean age at initial interview
25.4
5.1
25.2
5.9
Monthly income
1903.6 1488.9
1434.7 1301.4
Personality traits
Agreeableness
33.2
5.9
Conscientiousness
33.8
6.7
Extraversion
29.8
5.4
Neuroticism
18.5
7.8
DV (cumulative)
21.2
32.3
Depression (BDI; cumulative)
44.2
39.7
Social support (average)
129.7
61.9
________________________________________________________________________

49

Table 2. Correlational data for DV exposure, depressive symptoms, personality traits, and social
support.
________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. DV exposure
—
2. Depressive symptoms .471*
—
*
3. Agreeableness
-.323
-.311*
—
4. Conscientiousness
-.144
-.405*
.491*
—
*
*
*
5. Extraversion
-.240
-.419
.377
.465*
—
6. Neuroticism
.378*
.700*
-.481*
-.561*
-.437*
—
*
*
*
*
*
7. Social support
-.190
-.223
.246
.219
.274
-.289*
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

50

Table 3. Effects of DV exposure and agreeableness on number of depressive symptoms.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Agreeableness
-.70
.34
.35
.01
Step 3: Agreeableness x DV
-.02
.01
.35
.01
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

51

Table 4. Effects of DV exposure and conscientiousness on number of depressive symptoms.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Conscientiousness
-1.39*
.43
.39
.05
Step 3: Conscientiousness x DV
.00
.01
.39
.00
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

52

Table 5. Effects of DV exposure and extraversion on number of depressive symptoms.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Extraversion
-1.75*
.58
.38
.05
Step 3: Extraversion x DV
-.06*
.02
.44
.05
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

53

Table 6. Effects of DV exposure and neuroticism on number of depressive symptoms.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Neuroticism
2.86*
.37
.56
.22
Step 3: Neuroticism x DV
.02*
.01
.58
.02
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

54

Table 7. Social support mediating agreeableness and depressive symptoms controlling for DV.
________________________________________________________________________
Step Path Predictor
Outcome
b
S.E.
R2
________________________________________________________________________
1
c
Agreeableness
Depressive symptoms -1.18*
.48
.25
2
a
Agreeableness
Social support
2.12*
.85
.08
3
b
Social support
Depressive symptoms -.09
.05
.28
c΄
Agreeableness
Depressive symptoms -1.12* .50
.28
Sobel test of indirect effect of mediator: ab = -1.51
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

55

Table 8. Social support mediating agreeableness and depressive symptoms without controlling
for DV.
________________________________________________________________________
Step Path Predictor
Outcome
b
S.E.
R2
________________________________________________________________________
1
c
Agreeableness
Depressive symptoms -2.06*
.49
.10
2
a
Agreeableness
Social support
2.53*
.81
.06
3
b
Social support
Depressive symptoms -.15
.05
.05
c΄
Agreeableness
Depressive symptoms -1.93* .53
.13
Sobel test of indirect effect of mediator: ab = -2.10*
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

56

Table 9. Effects of DV exposure and agreeableness on number of depressive symptoms with
other traits co-varied.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Conscientiousness
.12
.44
Extraversion
-.40
.56
Neuroticism
2.80*
.43
.56
.23
Step 3: Agreeableness
.60
.49
.57
.01
Step 4: Agreeableness x DV
-.01
.01
.57
.00
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

57

Table 10. Effects of DV exposure and conscientiousness on number of depressive symptoms with
other traits co-varied.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Agreeableness
.60
.47
Extraversion
-.45
.53
Neuroticism
2.90*
.41
.57
.23
Step 3: Conscientiousness
-.03
.46
.57
.00
Step 4: Conscientiousness x DV
-.01
.01
.57
.00
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

58

Table 11. Effects of DV exposure and extraversion on number of depressive symptoms with other
traits co-varied.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Agreeableness
.58
.49
Conscientiousness
-.13
.44
Neuroticism
2.96
.43
.57
.23
Step 3: Extraversion
-.44
.56
.57
.00
Step 4: Extraversion x DV
-.05*
.02
.60
.04
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

59

Table 12. Effects of DV exposure and neuroticism on number of depressive symptoms with other
traits co-varied.
________________________________________________________________________
2
2
Predictor
b
S.E.
R
∆R
________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: DV
.48*
.09
Negative life events
4.40*
1.22
Income
-.01*
.00
.34
Step 2: Agreeableness
.06
.56
Conscientiousness
-1.04
.50
Extraversion
-1.15*
.64
.41
.07
Step 3: Neuroticism
2.89*
.43
.57
.16
Step 4: Neuroticism x DV
.02*
.01
.59
.02
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05

60

Figure 1. Mediation relationship with paths identified.

Predictor
Variable

c

Outcome
Variable

Mediator
Variable
a

Predictor
Variable

b

c΄

Outcome
Variable

61

Figure 2. Moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between DV exposure and
number of depressive symptoms.
70

Symptoms of depression

60
50
40

Low Extraversion
High Extraversion

30
20
10
0

Low

High
DV

62

Figure 3. Moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship between DV exposure and number
of depressive symptoms.

Symptoms of depression

60
50
40
Low Neuroticism

30

High Neuroticism

20
10
0

Low

High
DV

63

Figure 4. Moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between DV exposure and
number of depressive symptoms after agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism are covaried.

Symptoms of depression

60
50
40
Low Extraversion

30

High Extraversion

20
10
0

Low

High
DV

64

Figure 5. Moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship between DV exposure and number
of depressive symptoms after agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion are co-varied.
70

Symptoms of depression

60
50
40

Low Neuroticism
High Neuroticism

30
20
10
0

Low

High
DV

65

References

66

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelrock, C. S. (1983). Taxonomic issues in child psychopathology. In T.
H. Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychopathology (pp. 65-93). New
York: Plenum Press.
Allard, C. (2009). Prevalence and sequelae of betrayal trauma in a Japanese student sample.
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 65–77.
American Psychiatric Association. (2004). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric
Association.
Amirkhan, J. H., Risinger, R. T., & Swickert, R. J. (1995). Extraversion: A “hidden” personality
factor in coping? Journal of Personality, 63(2), 189-212.
Anderson, K. W., & McLean, P. D. (1997). Conscientiousness in depression: Tendencies,
predictive utility, and longitudinal stability. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(2), 223238.
Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal perceptions of the Five-Factor Model of
personality: An examination using the structural summary method for circumplex data.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 167-201.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2000). A person-centered approach to personality and social relationships:
Findings from the Berlin relationship study. In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L. Nilsson,
& L. Nystedt (Eds.), Developmental Science and the Holistic Approach (pp. 281-298).
Maywah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

67

Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled
personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and the trait-type
issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 815-832.
Astin, M. C., Lawrence, K. J., & Foy, D. W. (1993). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder among
battered women: Risk and resiliency factors. Violence and Victims, 8(1), 17-28.
Bagby, R. M., Bindseil, K. D., Schuller, D. R., Rector, N. A., Young, L. T., Cooke, R. G.,
Seeman, M. V., McCay, E. A., & Joffe, R. T. (1997). Relationship between the fivefactor model of personality and unipolar, bipolar and schizophrenic patients. Psychiatry
Research, 70, 83-94.
Barnett, O. W., Martinez, T. E., & Keyson, M. (1996). The relationship between violence, social
support, and self-blame in battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(2),
221-233.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Baum, A., O’Keefe, M. K., & Davidson, L. M. (1990). Acute stressors and chronic response:
The case of traumatic stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(20), 1643-1654.
Beach, S. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1994). Toward an integrated model of negative affectivity in
marriage. In S. M. Johnson & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), The Heart of the Matter:
Perspectives on Emotion in Marital Therapy (pp. 227-255). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Bean, J., & Möller, A. T. (2002). Posttraumatic stress and depressive symptoms in a sample of
battered women from South Africa. Psychological Reports, 90, 750-752.

68

Beasley, R., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1992). Personality characteristics of male spouse abusers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 310-317.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Harrison R. P., & Emery, G. (1983). Development of the Sociotropy–
Autonomy Scale: A Measure of Personality Factors in Psychopathology. Unpublished
manuscript. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck
Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8,
77–100.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for
measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 53-63.
Beeble, M. L., Bybee, D., Sullivan, C. M., & Adams, A. E. (2009). Main, mediating, and
moderating effects of social support on the well-being of survivors of intimate partner
violence across 2 years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 718-729.
Bergman, L. R. (1998). A pattern-oriented approach to studying individual development. (1998).
In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman, & J. Kagan (Eds.), Methods and Models for Studying the
Individual (pp. 83-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bergman, L. R. (2000). The application of a person-oriented approach: Types and clusters. In L.
R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L. Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.), Developmental Science and
the Holistic Approach (pp. 137-154). Maywah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Bergman, B., Larsson, G., Brismar, B., & Klang M. (1987). Psychiatric morbidity and
personality characteristics of battered women. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 76, 678683.

69

Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on
developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291-319.
Bergman, L. R., Magnusson, D., & El-Khouri, B. M. (2003). Studying Individual Development in
an Interindividual Context: A Person-Oriented Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bieling, P. J., Beck, A, T., Brown, G. K. (2000). The Sociotropy–Autonomy Scale: Structure and
implications. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(6), 763-780.
Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 29(10), 7-157.
Blatt, S. J., D'Afflitti, J. P., and Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal
young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(4), 383-389.
Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition: Two prototypes
for depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12(5), 527-562.
Bogat, G. A., Levendosky, A. A., DeJonghe, E., Davidson, W. S., & von Eye, A. (2004).
Pathways of suffering: The temporal effects of domestic violence on women's mental
health. Maltrattamento e abuso all'infanzia, 6(2), 97-112.
Bogat, G. A., Levendosky, A. A., Theran, S., von Eye, A., & Davidson, W. S. (2003). Predicting
the psychosocial effects of interpersonal partner violence (IPV): How much does a
woman's history of IPV matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 121-142.
Bogat, G. A., Levendosky, A. A., & von Eye, A. (2005). The future of research on intimate
partner violence (IPV): Person-oriented and variable-oriented perspectives. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 49-70.

70

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 890-902.
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., & Swader, W. M. (2005). Giving and receiving social support at
work: The roles of personality and reciprocity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3),
476-489.
Boyce, P., & Parker, G. (1985). Neuroticism as a predictor of outcome in depression. The
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173(11), 685-688.
Bromley, E., Johnson, J. G., & Cohen, P. (2006). Personality strengths in adolescence and
decreased risk of developing mental health problems in early adulthood. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 47(4), 315-324.
Cain, N. M., Ansell, E. B., Wright, A. G. C., Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Pinto, A.,
Markowitz, J. C., Sanislow, C. A., Zanarini, M. C., Shea, M. T., Morey, L. C.,
McGlashan, T. H., Skodol, A. E., & Grilo, C. M. (2011, November 21). Interpersonal
pathoplasticity in the course of major depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a002643.
Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359,
1331-1336.
Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and physical health effects of intimate
partner violence on women and children. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20(2),
353-374.
Campbell, J. C., & Soeken, K. L. (1999). Women's responses to battering over time: An analysis
of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 21-40.

71

Campbell, R., Sullivan, C. M., & Davidson, W. S. (1995). Women who use domestic violence
shelters: Changes in depression over time. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 237-255.
Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L. Choi, D. Y., & Rose, I. M. (2002). Intimate partner abuse and mental
health: The role of social support and other protective factors. Violence Against Women,
8(6), 720-745.
Cascardi, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1992). Depressive symptoms, self-esteem, and self-blame in
battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 7(4), 249-259.
Cascardi, M., O'Leary, K. D., Lawrence, E. E., & Schlee, K. A. (1995). Characteristics of
women physically abused by their spouses and who seek treatment regarding marital
conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 616-623.
Cascardi, M., O'Leary, K. D., & Schlee, K. A. (1999). Co-occurrence and correlates of
posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression in physically abused women. Journal
of Family Violence, 14(3), 227-249.
Chien L. L., Ko H. C., & Wu, J. Y. W. (2007). The five-factor model of personality and
depressive symptoms: One-year follow-up. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
1013–1023.
Christian-Herman, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & Avery-Leaf, S. (2001). The impact of severe
negative events in marriage on depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
20(1), 24-40.
Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and
anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 103-116.

72

Coker, A. L., Watkins, K. W., Smith, P. H., & Brandt, H. M. (2003). Social support reduces the
impact of partner violence on health: Application of structural equation models.
Preventive Medicine, 37, 259–267.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080-1107.
Constantino, R., Kim, Y., & Crane, P. A. (2005). Effects of social support interventions in
resident of a domestic violence shelter: A pilot study. Issues in Mental Health Nursing,
26, 575–590.
Costa, P. T., Bagby, R. M., Herbst, J. H., & McCrae, R. R. (2005). Personality self-reports are
concurrently reliable and valid during acute depressive episodes. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 89, 45–55.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). NEO PIR Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2011). The Five-Factor Model, Five-Factor Theory, and
interpersonal psychology. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of
Interpersonal Psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment, and Therapeutic Interventions
(pp. 91-104). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

73

Costa, P. T., Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (1996). Personality and coping: A
reconceptualization. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of Coping (pp. 4461). New York: John Wiley.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., Hall, T. W., & Bradbury, T. N. (2003). Depressive symptoms and
marital satisfaction: Within-subject associations and the moderating effects of gender and
neuroticism. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 557–570.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five
predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences,
33(4), 533-552.
Dienemann, J., Boyle, E., Baker, D., Resnick, W., Wiederhorn, N., & Campbell, J. C. (2000).
Intimate partner abuse among women diagnosed with depression. Issues in Mental Health
Nursing, 21, 499 –513.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(6), 1246–1256.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1998). Violent men and violent contexts. In R. E. Dobash & R.
P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking Violence Against Women (pp. 141–168). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Doucherty, L. R., Klein, D. N., Durbin, C. E., Hayden, E. P., & Olino, T. M. (2010).
Temperamental positive and negative emotionality and children's depressive symptoms:
A longitudinal prospective study from age three to age ten. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 29(4), 462-488.

74

Eberhart, N. K., & Hammen, C. L. (2010). Interpersonal style, stress, and depression: An
examination of transactional and diathesis-stress models. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 29(1), 23-38.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Is domestic violence followed by an
increased risk of psychiatric disorders among women but not among men? A longitudinal
cohort study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 885–892.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (1997). Personality dimensions and depression: Review and
commentary. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42(3), 274-284.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Borger, S. C. (2001). Correlates of analogue and clinical depression:
a further test of the phenomenological continuity hypothesis. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 66, 175–183.
Fanous, A., Gardner, C. O., Prescott, C. A., Cancro, R., & Kendler, K. S. (2002). Neuroticism,
major depression and gender: A population-based twin study. Psychological Medicine, 32,
719-728.
Farmer, A., Redman, K., Harris, T., Mahmood, A., Sadler, S., Pickering, A., & McGuffin, P.
(2002). Neuroticism, extraversion, life events and depression: The Cardiff Depression
Study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 118-122.
Ferenczi, S. (1949). Confusion of tongues between the adult and the child: The language of
tenderness and of passion. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 30, 225-230.
(Originally published 1932).
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament, personality,
and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69(1), 27-55.

75

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health
status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3),
571-579.
Follingstad, D. R., Brennan, A. F., Hause, E. S., Polek, D. S., & Rutledge, L. L. (1991). Factors
moderating physical and psychological symptoms of battered women. Journal of Family
Violence, 6(1), 81-95.
Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Freyd, J. J, Klest, B. K., & Allard, C. B. (2005). Betrayal trauma: Relationship to physical health,
psychological distress, and a written disclosure intervention. Journal of Trauma and
Dissociation, 6(3), 83-104.
Gallagher, D. J. (1990). Extraversion, neuroticism, and appraisal of stressful academic events.
Personality and Individual Differences, 11(10), 1053-1057.
Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Violence, battering, and psychological distress among
women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(4), 400-420.
Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1990). The medical and psychological costs of family violence. In
M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors
and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. (pp. 425-430). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Gershuny, B. S., & Sher, K. J. (1995). The relation between personality and anxiety: Findings
From a 3-year prospective study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(2), 252-262.
Gleason, W. J. (1993). Mental disorders in battered women: An empirical study. Violence and
Victims, 8(1), 53-68.

76

Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A metaanalysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14(2), 99-132.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A
Model for Personality (pp. 246-276). New York: Springer.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795824). New York: Academic Press.
Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In M. R. Leary and R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),
Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 46-61). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Gunderson, J. G., Triebwasser, J., Phillips, K. A., & Sullivan, C. N. (1999). Personality and
vulnerability to affective disorders. In C. R. Cloninger (Ed.) Personality and
Psychopathology (pp. 3-32). Washington, DC:American Psychiatric Association.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. G., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and
coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087-1100.
Hammen, C. (1991). Generation of stress in the course of unipolar depression. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 100(4), 555-561.
Hammen, C., Kim, E. Y., Eberhart, N. K., & Brennan, P. A. (2009). Chronic and acute stress and
prediction of major depression in women. Depression and Anxiety, 26, 718-723.
Hammen, C., Shih, J. H., & Brennan, P. A. (2004). Intergenerational transmission of depression:
Test of an interpersonal stress model in a community sample. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 511-522.

77

Helfrich, C. A., Fujiura, G. T., & Rutkowski-Kmitta, V. (2008). Mental health disorders and
functioning of women in domestic violence shelters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
23(4), 437-453.
Hemenover, S. H. (2001). Self-reported processing bias and naturally occurring mood: Mediators
between personality and stress appraisals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27(4), 387-394.
Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (1996). Prediction of stress appraisals from mastery,
extraversion, neuroticism, and general appraisal tendencies. Motivation and Emotion,
20(4), 299-317.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Hettema, J. M., Neale, M. C., Myers, J. M., Prescott, C. A., & Kendler, K. S. (2006). A
population-based twin study of the relationship between neuroticism and internalizing
disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 857–864.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1996). Personality traits and the coping process. In M. Zeidner & N.
S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of Coping (pp. 410-433). New York: John Wiley.
Hirschfeld, M. A., & Klerman, G. L. (1979). Personality attributes and affective disorders.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 136(1), 67-70.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., & Bonin, L. A. (1999). Social context and depression: An
integrative stress and coping framework. In T. Joiner & J. C. Coyne (Eds.), The
Interactional Nature of Depression (pp. 39-63). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

78

Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Syndromes and axis I disorders: Depressive and panic Disorders. In L.
M. Horowitz (Ed.) Interpersonal Foundations of Psychopathology (pp. 149-168).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Horwood, L. J., & Fergusson, D. M. (1986). Neuroticism, depression and life events: A
structural equation model. Social Psychiatry, 21(2), 63-71.
Hoth, K. F., Christensen, A. J., Ehlers, S. L., Raichle, K. A., & Lawton, W. J. (2007). A
longitudinal examination of social support, agreeableness and depressive symptoms in
chronic kidney disease. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30(1), 69-76.
Hou, W. L., Wang, H. H., & Chung, H. H. (2005). Domestic violence against women in Taiwan:
their life-threatening situations, post-traumatic responses, and psycho-physiological
symptoms. An interview study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42, 629–636.
Houskamp, B. M., & Foy, D. W. (1991). The assessment of posttraumatic stress disorder in
battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(3), 367-375.
Houtman, I. L. D. (1990). Personal coping resources and sex differences. Personality and
Individual Differences, 11(1), 53-63.
Hudek-Knežević, J., Krapić, N., & Kardum, I. (2006). Burnout in dispositional context: The role
of personality traits, social support and coping style. Review of Psychology, 13(2), 65-73.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma. New
York: The Free Press.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of
interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323-362.
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. (1978). Life stress, depression, and anxiety: Internal-external
control as a moderator variable. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 22, 205-208.

79

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283-295.
Joiner, T., Coyne, J. C., & Blalock, J. (1999). On the interpersonal nature of depression:
Overview and synthesis. In T. Joiner & J. C. Coyne (Eds.), The Interactional Nature of
Depression (pp. 3-19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Joiner, T. E., & Lonigan, C. J. (2000). Tripartite model of depression and anxiety in youth
psychiatric inpatients: Relations with diagnostic status and future symptoms. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 29(3), 372-382.
Jones, L., Hughes, M., & Unterstaller, U. (2001). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in
victims of domestic violence: A review of the research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2,
99-119.
Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H. Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P. A., Korten, A. E., & Rodgers, B.
(2000). Predicting anxiety and depression from personality: Is there a synergistic effect of
neuroticism and extraversion? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(1), 145-149.
Jylhä, P., & Isometsä, E. (2006). The relationship of neuroticism and extraversion to symptoms
of anxiety and depression in the general population. Depression and Anxiety, 23, 281-298.
Karney, B. R. (2001). Depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction in the early years of
marriage: The implications of a growth curve analysis. In S. R. H. Beach (Ed.), Marital
and family processes in depression (pp. 45–68). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Katon, W., Hollifield, M., Chapman, T., Mannuzza, S., Ballenger, J., & Fyer, A. (1995).
Infrequent panic attacks: Psychiatric comorbidity, personality characteristics and
functional disability. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 29(2), 121-131.

80

Kendler, K. S., Gatz, M., Gardner, C. O., & Pedersen, N. L. (2006). Personality and major
depression: A Swedish longitudinal, population-based twin study. Archives of General
Psychiatry, (63), 1113-1120.
Kendler, K. S., Neale, M. C., Kessler, R. C., Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (1993). A longitudinal
twin study of personality and major depression in women. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 50, 853-862.
Kendler, K. S., & Myers, J. (2010). The genetic and environmental relationship between major
depression and the five-factor model of personality. Psychological Medicine, 40, 801–
806.
Kerchner, A. J., Rapee, R. M., & Schniering, C. A. (2009). Neuroticism, life events and negative
thoughts in the development of depression in adolescent. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 37, 903-915.
Kernic, M. A., Holt, V. L., Stoner, J. A., Wolf, M. E., & Rivara, F. P. (2003). Resolution of
depression among victims of intimate partner violence: Is cessation of violence enough?
Violence and Victims, Volume 18(2), 115-129.
Kerr, T. A., Schapira, K., Roth, M., & Garside, R. F. (1970). The relationship between the
Maudsley Personality Inventory and the course of affective disorders. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 116, 11-19.
Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., Swartz, M., Blazer, D. G., & Nelson, C. B. (1993). Sex and
depression in the National Comorbidity Survey I: Lifetime prevalence, chronicity and
recurrence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 29, 85-96.

81

Khan, A. A., Jacobson, K. C., Gardner, C. O., Prescott, C. A., & Kendler, K. S. (2005).
Personality and comorbidity of common psychiatric disorders. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 186, 190-196.
Klein, D. N., Durbin, C. E., & Shankman, S. A. (2009). Personality and mood disorders. In I. H.
Gotlib & C. L. Hammen (Eds.), Handbook of Depression, 2nd Edition (pp. 93-112). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to
anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
136(5), 768–821.
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4),
241–256.
Lakdawalla, Z., & Hankin, B. L.. (2008). Personality as a prospective vulnerability to dysphoric
symptoms among college students: Proposed mechanisms. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 30(2), 121-131.
Laursen, B., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to
longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology,
52(3), 377-389.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer
Publishing Company.
Lee, J., Pomeroy, E. C., & Bohman, T. M. (2007). Intimate partner violence and psychological
health in a sample of Asian and Caucasian women: The roles of Social Support and
Coping. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 709–720.

82

Leising, D., & Borkenau, P. (2011). Person perception, dispositional inferences, and social
judgment. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology:
Theory, Research, Assessment, and Therapeutic Interventions (pp. 157-170). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Theran, S. A., Trotter, J. S., von Eye, A., & Davidson, W. S.
(2004). The social networks of women experiencing domestic violence. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1/2), 95-109.
Liebowitz, M. R., Stallone, F., Dunner, D. L., & Fieve, R. F. (1979). Personality features of
patients with primary affect disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 60, 214-224.
Lozano, B. E., & Johnson, S. L. (2001). Can personality traits predict increases in manic and
depressive symptoms? Journal of Affective Disorders, 63, 103–111.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the
fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(3), 452-468.
Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation between extraversion and
pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1039-1056.
Lucas, R. E., Le, K., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2008). Explaining the extraversion/positive affect
relation: Sociability cannot account for extraverts' greater happiness. Journal of
Personality, 76(3), 385-414.
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as
predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65(5), 1046-1053.

83

Magnusson, D. (1998). The logic and implications of a person-oriented approach. In R. B. Cairns,
L. R. Bergman, & J. Kagan (Eds.), Methods and Models for Studying the Individual (pp.
33-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Schutte, N. S. (2005). The relationship between the FiveFactor Model of personality and symptoms of clinical disorders: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(2), 101-114.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The
IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16(4), 352-361.
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and
abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88(1), 139-157.
Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Vickers, R. R., Kusulas, J. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1994). The
Five-Factor Model of personality as a framework for personality-health research. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 278-286.
Marshall, L. L. (1992). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. Journal
of Family Violence, 7, 103-121.
Martin, M. (1985). Neuroticism as predisposition toward depression: A cognitive mechanism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 6(3), 353-365.
Martinez-Torteya, C., Bogat, G. A., von Eye, A., Davidson, W. S., & Levendosky, A. A. (2009).
Women's appraisals of intimate partner violence stressfulness and their relationship to
depressive and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24, 707722.

84

Matheson, F. I., Moineddin, R., Dunn, J. R., Creatore, M. I., Gozdyra, P., & Glazier, R. H.
(2006). Urban neighborhoods, chronic stress, gender and depression. Social Science &
Medicine, 63, 2604–2616.
Matthews, G. (1992). Extraversion. In A. P. Smith & D. M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Human
Performance (Vol. 3): State and Trait (pp. 95-126). New York: Academic Press.
McCauley, J., Kern, D. E., Kolodner, K., Dill, L., Schroeder, A. F., DeChant, H. A., Ryden, J.,
Bass, E. B., & Derogatis, L. R. (1995). The "battering syndrome": Prevalence and clinical
characteristics of domestic violence in primary care internal medicine practices. Annals of
Internal Medicine, 123(10), 737-746.
McCrae, R. R. (1994). Psychopathology from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model. In S.
Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating Normal and Abnormal Personality (pp. 26-39).
New York: Spring Publishing Company.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s “adequate taxonomy”: Intelligence
and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor
Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 51-87). New York: Guilford Press.
McCutcheon, V. V., Heath, A. C., Nelson, E. C., Bucholz, K. K., Madden, P. A. F., & Martin, N.
B. (2009). Accumulation of trauma over time and risk for depression in a twin sample.
Psychological Medicine, 39(3), 431-441.

85

McFarlane, A. C., & Yehuda, R. A. (1996). Resilience, vulnerability, and the course of
posttraumatic reactions. In B. A. van der Kolk, A. C. McFarlane, & L. Weisaeth (Eds.),
Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body, and Society
(pp. 155-181). New York: Guilford Press.
Mertin, P. & Mohr, P. B. (2001). A follow-up study of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and
depression in Australian victims of domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 16(6), 645654.
Miller, M. W. (2003). Personality and the etiology and expression of PTSD: A three-factor
model perspective. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(4), 373-393.
Mitchell, R. E., & Hodson, C. A. (1983). Coping with domestic violence: Social support and
psychological health among battered women. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 11(6), 629-654.
Mourad, M., Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., & von Eye, A. (2008). Family psychopathology
and perceived stress of both domestic violence and negative life events as predictors of
women’s mental health symptoms. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 661-670.
Naragon-Gainey, K., Watson, D., & Markon, K. E. (2009). Differential relations of depression
and social anxiety symptoms to the facets of extraversion/positive emotionality. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 118 (2), 299–310.
Niedhammer, I., Goldberg, M., Leclerc, A., Bugel, I., & David, S. (1998). Psychosocial factors
at work and subsequent depressive symptoms in the Gazel cohort. Scandinavian Journal
of Work, Environmental, & Health, 24(3), 197-205.
Norbeck, J. S., Lindsey, A. M., & Carrieri, V. L. (1983). The development of an instrument to
measure social support.. Nursing Research, 30(5), 264-269.

86

Norbeck, J. S., Lindsey, A. M., & Carrieri, V. L. (1983). Further development of the Norbeck
social support questionnaire: Normative data and validity testing. Nursing Research,
32(1), 4-9.
Nowakowska, C., Strong, C. M., Santosa, C. M., Wang, P. W., & Ketter, T. A. (2005).
Temperamental commonalities and differences in euthymic mood disorder patients,
creative controls, and healthy controls. Journal of Affective Disorders, 85, 207–215.
Nurius, P. S., Macy, R. J., Bhuyan, R., Holt, V. L., Kernic, M. A., & Rivara, F. P. (2003).
Contextualizing depression and physical functioning in battered women: Adding
vulnerability and resources to the analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 14111431.
O'Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problem-, emotion- and
relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five personality factors. Journal of
Personality, 64(4), 775-813.
Orava, T. A., McLeod, P. J., & Sharpe, D. (1996). Perceptions of control, depressive symptoms,
and self-esteem of Women in transition from abusive relationships. Journal of Family
Violence, 11(2), 167-186.
Ormel, J. O., Oldenhinkel, A. J., & Vollebergh, W. (2004). Vulnerability before, during, and
after a Major Depressive Episode. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 990-996.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 19(1), 2-21.
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses and
coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1215-1128.

87

Pérez-Testor, C., Castillo, J. A., Davins, M., Salamero, M., & San-Martino, M. (2007).
Personality profiles in a group of battered women: Clinical and care implications. Journal
of Family Violence, 22(2), 73-80.
Piedmont, R. L. & Ciarrocchi, J. W. (1999). The utility of the Revised NEO Personality
Inventory in an outpatient, drug rehabilitation context. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
13(3), 213-226.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Coping and social support. In M. Zeidner
& N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of Coping (pp. 434-451). New York: John Wiley.
Quigley, B. M., & Leonard, K. E., (1996). Desistance of husband aggression in the early years of
marriage. Violence and Victims, 11(4), 355-370.
Ranseen, J. D., Campbell, D. A., & Baer, R. A. (1998). NEO PI-R profiles of adults with
Attention Deficit Disorder. Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 19-24.
Rizzo, C. J, Daley, S. E., & Gunderson, B. H. (2006). Interpersonal sensitivity, romantic stress,
and the prediction of depression: A study of inner-city, minority adolescent girls. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 469-478.
Roberts, S. B., & Kendler, K. S. (1999). Neuroticism and self-esteem as indices of the
vulnerability to major depression in women. Psychological Medicine, 29, 1101-1109.
Robins, R. W., John, O. P., & Caspi, A. (1998). The typological approach to studying personality.
In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman, & J. Kagan (Eds.), Methods and Models for Studying the
Individual (pp. 135-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Russo, J., Katon, W., Lin, E., von Korff, M., Bush, T., Simon, G., & Walker, E. (1997).
Neuroticism and extraversion as predictors of health outcomes in depressed primary care
patients. Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, 38(4), 339-348.

88

Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes:
Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 46, 932–946.
Sato, R. A., & Heiby, E. M. (1992). Correlates of depressive symptoms among battered women.
Journal of Family Violence, 7(3), 229-245.
Saunders, D. G. (1999). Woman battering. In R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Assessment
of Family Violence: A Clinical and Legal Sourcebook, 2nd Edition (pp. 243-270). Net
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Segrin, C. (2011). Depressive disorders and interpersonal processes. In L. M. Horowitz & S.
Strack (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment,
and Therapeutic Interventions (pp. 425-448). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Skinner, H. A., & Blashfield, R. K. (1982). Increasing the impact of cluster analysis research:
The case of psychiatric classification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
50(5), 727-735.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations
models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Stephenson-Hinde, J. (1998). The individual in context. In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman, & J.
Kagan (Eds.), Methods and Models for Studying the Individual (pp. 123-133). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)
Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75-88.

89

Suliman, S., Mkabile, S. G., Fincham, D. S., Ahmed, R., Stein, D. J., & Seedat, S. (2009).
Cumulative effect of multiple trauma on symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,
anxiety, and depression in adolescents. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50(2), 121-127.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Swickert, R. (2009). Personality and social support processes. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.),
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 524-540). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Taft, C.T., Vogt, D. S., Mechanic, M. B., & Resick, P. A. (2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder
and physical health symptoms among women seeking help for relationship aggression.
Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 354–362.
Tan, C., Basta, J., Sullivan, C. M., & Davidson, W. S. (1995). The role of social support in the
lives of women exiting domestic violence shelters: An experimental study. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 437-451.
Tang, S. S. S., & Freyd, J. J. (2011). Betrayal trauma and gender differences in posttraumatic
stress. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 1-10. doi:
10.1037/a0025765.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety,
with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the
Anxiety Disorders (pp. 681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Thompson, M. P., Kaslow, N. J., Kingree, J. B., Rashid, A., Puett, R., Jacobs, D., & Matthews, A.
(2000). Partner violence, social support, and distress among inner-city African American
women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 127-143.

90

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and femaleto-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women
Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142-161.
Tong, E. M. W., Bishop, G. D., Diong, S. M., Enkelmann, H. C., Why, Y. P., Angb, J., &
Khaderb, M. (2004). Social support and personality among male police officers in
Singapore. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 109-123.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2009). Different forces,
same consequence: Conscientiousness and competence beliefs are independent predictors
of academic effort and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6),
1115–1128.
Trotter, J. L., Bogat, G. A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2004). Risk and protective factors for
pregnant women experiencing psychological abuse. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 4(2),
53-70.
Trull, T. J., & Sher, K. J. (1994). Relationship between the five-factor model of personality and
Axis I disorders in a nonclinical sample. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(2),
350-360.
Uebelacker, L. A., & Whisman, M. A. (2006). Moderators of the association between
relationship discord and major depression in a national population-based sample. Journal
of Family Psychology, 20(1), 40–46.
Uliaszek, A. A., Zinbarg, R. E., Mineka, S., Craske, M. G., Griffith, J. W., Sutton, J. M., Epstein,
A., Hammen, C. (2011). A longitudinal examination of stress generation in depressive
and anxiety disorders. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 1-12. doi:
10.1037/a0025835.

91

Uliaszek, A. A., Zinbarg, R. E., Mineka, S., Craske, M. G., Sutton, J. M., Griffith, J. W., Rose,
R., Waters, A., & Hammen, C. (2010). The role of neuroticism in the stress-anxiety and
stress-depression relationships. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23(4), 363-381.
Urist, J. (1977). The Rorschach Test and the assessment of object relations. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 41(1), 3-9.
Vitanza, S., Vogel, L. C. M., Marshall, L. L. (1995). Distress and symptoms of Posttraumaatic
Stress Disorder in abused women. Violence and Victims, 10(1), 23-34.
Vickers, R. R., Kolar, D. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1989). Personality Correlates of Coping with
Military Basic Training (Rep. No. 89-3). San Diego: Naval Health Research Center.
Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29, 367-378.
von Eye, A., & Bogat, G. A. (2006). Person-Oriented and Variable-Oriented Research: Concepts,
Results, and Development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(3), 390-420.
Wachtel, P. L. (1982). Vicious circles: The self and the rhetoric of emerging and unfolding.
Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 18(2), 259-273.
Wachtel, P. L. (1993). Therapeutic Communication: Principles and Effective Practice. New
York: Guilford Press.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J.
Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 767-793). New
York: Academic Press.
Watson, D. & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the
context of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 64(4), 737-774.

92

Weingourt, R., Maruyama, T., Sawada, I., & Yoshino, J. (2001). Domestic violence and
women’s mental health in Japan. International Nursing Review, 48, 102–108.
West, C. G., Fernandez, A., Hillard, J. R., Schoof, M., & Parks, J. (1990). Psychiatric disorders
of abused women at a shelter. Psychiatric Quarterly, 61(4), 295-301.
Westen, D. (1995). Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale: Q-sort for Projective Stories
(SCORS-Q). Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Department of Psychiatry, The
Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
Widiger, T. A. (2009). Neuroticism. In M. R. Leary and R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of
Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 129-146). New York: The Guilford Press.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1992). Personality and psychopathology: An application of the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality. 60(2), 363-393.
Widiger, T. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Personality and psychopathology. In O. P. John, R. W.
Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3rd
edition (pp. 743-769). New York: The Guildford Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P.
C. Kendall & N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology
(pp. 183-122). New York: Wiley.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding
and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.),
Thinking Clearly About Psychology, Volume 2: Personality and Psychopathology (pp.
89-113) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

93

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the Five-Factor
Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical
Perspectives (pp. 88-162). New York: Guilford Press.
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P. D, Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of
the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS—R). Multivariate Behavioral Research,
23(4), 517-530.
Wisner, C. L., Gilmer, T. P., Saltzman, L. E., & Zinc, T. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence
against women: Do victims cost health plans more? Journal of Family Practice, 48(6),
439-443.
Whittington, J. E., & Huppert, F. A. (1998). Neuroticism, psychiatric symptoms and life events.
Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 97-107.
Woods, S. J., & Campbell, J. C. (1993). Posttraumatic stress in battered women: Does the
diagnosis fit? Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 14, 173-186.
Zellars, K. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the content of emotional social
support: Coping in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 459-467.
Zlotnick, C., Johnson, D. M., & Kohn, R. (2006). Intimate partner violence and long-term
psychosocial functioning in a national sample of American women. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 21(2), 262-275.

94