Content uploaded by Olga Cardeñoso Ramírez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Olga Cardeñoso Ramírez on Jun 16, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 179–192 ( C
2005)
DOI: 10.1007/s10802-005-1826-y
Gender Differences in Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression
and Behavior Problems in Adolescents
Esther Calvete1,3and Olga Carde˜
noso2
Received March 18, 2004; revision received August 26, 2004; accepted October 28, 2004
This study assessed gender differences in cognitive variables as an explanation for gender differences
in depression and behavior problems; 856 adolescents (491 females and 365 males), aged 14–17,
completed the Irrational Beliefs Scale for Adolescents, the Social Problem Solving Inventory—
Revised Short Form, the adolescent version of the Burnett Self-Talk Inventory, and the Youth Self
Report. Female adolescents’ lower levels of positive thinking and higher scores on negative problem
orientation, need for approval and success, and self-focused negative cognitions partially mediated
gender differences in depressive symptoms. Males’ higher scores on justification of violence beliefs
and the impulsivity/carelessness style of problem solving partially accounted for differences in
delinquent behavior. The influence of need for approval and success on depressive symptoms was
higher among adolescents at ages 14–15 than among older adolescents. Justification of violence did
not influence delinquent behavior among girls at age 14–15.
KEY WORDS: gender; automatic thoughts; problem-solving; irrational beliefs; depression; behavior problems.
Epidemiological research has consistently demon-
strated that whereas women present a higher prevalence
of internalizing problems, such as affective and anxi-
ety disorders, men have higher rates of some personal-
ity disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and
substance abuse (Simon, 2002). Most theories of gen-
der differences in psychological disorders have focused
on depression. Early research emphasized macrosocial
risk factors for depression, such as poverty, low educa-
tional status, poorer employment opportunities, and lack
of control over decision making, and suggested that they
are unequally distributed between sexes in several cul-
tures (Nolen-Hoeksema, Larson, & Grayson, 1999). In
addition, role–gender interaction theory proposes that the
lower social status of women negatively influences the
quality of their social roles (Gove, 1972). The unreward-
ing and stressful nature of these roles may account for the
higher rate of depression in women.
1Department of Psychology, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.
2Bego˜
nako Andramari Teacher Training College, Bilbao, Spain.
3Address all correspondence to Esther Calvete, Department of
Psychology, University of Deusto, Apdo. 1, 48080 Bilbao, Spain;
e-mail: ecalvete@fice.deusto.es.
Nonetheless, recent research suggests that gender
differences in psychological problems are evident dur-
ing childhood and adolescence, prior to the acquisition of
adult social roles. Therefore, role–gender interaction the-
ory alone cannot account for the differences. For instance,
gender differences in depression begin to emerge at age 14
(Wade, Cairney, & Pevalin, 2002), and during the period
from ages 15 to 18 the female rate of depression rises to
double the prevalence rate for males (Hankin et al., 1998).
In addition, gender differences in behavior problems, such
as aggressive behavior and antisocial behavior, are also ev-
ident during childhood and adolescence, with boys show-
ing higher rates of these problems than girls (e.g., Keiley,
Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 2000; Lahey et al., 2000).
As an alternative explanation, a number of re-
cent theoretical models have hypothesized that cognitive
style may account for gender differences in depression
(Cyranowski, Frank, Young, & Shear, 2000; Hankin &
Abramson, 2001). For instance, Hankin and Abramson
(2001) proposed a cognitive vulnerability-transactional
stress theory of depression, in which girls’ responses to
negative events would be characterized by rumination and
a negative inferential style. Although a few studies have
failed to support this hypothesis (Hankin, Abramson, &
179
0091-0627/05/0400-0179/0 C
2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
180 Calvete and Carde˜
noso
Siler, 2001; Lewinsohn, Joiner, & Rohde, 2001), Hankin
and Abramson (2002) found that cognitive characteris-
tics, such as negative inferences about the self, mediated
gender differences in depressive symptoms. These authors
suggested that lack of prior support for the model could
be due to problems with the reliability of measures of
cognitive vulnerability.
As an extension of the above model, we examined
whether male and female adolescents differ in a wide
range of cognitive variables, which in turn may be as-
sociated with differential development of depression and
behavior problems. One of the difficulties in addressing
gender differences in cognitive variables is the complex-
ity of both the content of cognitions and their hierarchical
arrangement. Beck’s (1976) cognitive content-specificity
model stated that each emotional disorder is character-
ized by a cognitive content that is specific to that disorder.
Applying this idea to gender differences in psychological
disorders, it could be argued that females present a higher
prevalence of cognitions that may be associated with the
development and/or maintenance of depression, whereas
males present more cognitions related to behavior prob-
lems. In other words, men and women may develop differ-
ent profiles of psychological disorders because they think
and interpret events in different ways. For instance, ac-
cording to the cognitive content-specificity model, depres-
sion, which is more prevalent among women, is charac-
terized by a predominance of negative cognitions related
to themes of loss, deprivation, failure, and personal inad-
equacy (Clark, Beck, & Brown, 1989), whereas behavior
problems, which are more prevalent among men, have
been associated with perceptions of negative intentions in
other people, underestimation of one’s own responsibil-
ity for conflicts (e.g., Dodge & Crick, 1990; Lochman,
White, & Wayland, 1991), and perceptions of frustration
and discomfort (Berkowitz, 1989).
Cognitive contents can also be expressed at different
levels. Beck proposed a hierarchical model that includes
surface cognitions and underlying cognitive structures
to explain the cognitive influence on affective disorders
(Beck, 1976). Later, a number of authors (e.g., Ingram &
Kendall, 1986) subdivided cognitive variables into cog-
nitive structures, cognitive processes, and cognitive prod-
ucts. At the deepest level, cognitive structures consist of
schemas or core beliefs about the self, the world, and the
relations with other persons. Ellis (1962) identified a num-
ber of irrational beliefs considered to be critical determi-
nants of psychopathology, such as the need for approval,
low frustration tolerance, and perfectionism. Several stud-
ies have obtained evidence for the link between irrational
beliefs and depression (e.g., Chang & D’Zurilla, 1996;
Marcotte, 1996). In addition, some studies suggest that
externalizing problems, such as aggressive behavior, are
associated with specific beliefs concerning the justifica-
tion for the use of aggression (Feindler, 1991; Slaby &
Guerra, 1988).
In general, the relatively few studies that have
explored gender differences in core beliefs have been
based on adult samples. For instance, some studies suggest
that women endorse more beliefs involving dependency
and need for approval (Coleman & Ganong, 1987;
Koopmans, Sanderman, Timmerman, & Emmelkamp,
1994). Welburn, Coristine, Dagg, Pontefract, and
Jordan (2002) found that women scored higher on
various cognitive schemas, such as self-sacrifice, failure,
enmeshment, abandonment, and defectiveness/shame,
which are associated with depression (Calvete, Est´
evez,
L´
opez de Arroyabe, & Ruiz, 2005). In addition, various
studies with children and adolescents indicate that boys
endorse beliefs that involve acceptance of aggression to
a greater extent than girls (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997;
Slaby & Guerra, 1988).
At an intermediate level, social problem solving in-
volves a process by which a person attempts to develop
effective or adaptive coping responses to problematic
situations. This process includes several cognitive com-
ponents, such as problem evaluation, seeking response
alternatives, and planning (D’Zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-
Olivares, 1998). A number of studies indicate that not
only are the specific problem-solving skills associated
with psychological problems, but also the attitude toward
the problems. In fact, a negative problem orientation, con-
sisting of low perceived self-efficacy and a perception
of the problems as threatening and unsolvable, may be
a stronger predictor of depression (Kant, D’Zurilla, &
Maydeu-Olivares, 1997; McCabe, Blankstein, & Mills,
1999; Spence, Sheffield, & Donovan, 2002). In addition,
deficits in problem solving, often manifested as impulsive
behavior, are associated with aggressive and delinquent
behavior in children and adolescents (D’Zurilla, Chang,
& Sanna, 2003; Feindler, 1991; Jaffe & D’Zurilla, 2003;
Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Over-
all, studies support the existence of gender differences in
social problem-solving processes, with women showing a
more negative orientation to problems (Maydeu-Olivares,
Rodr´
ıguez-Fornells, G´
omez-Benito, & D’Zurilla, 2000;
Robichaud, Dugas, & Conway, 2003) and men scoring
higher on impulsivity (D’Zurilla, Maydeu-Olivares, &
Kant, 1998).
Finally, at the most superficial level, cognitive
products are expressed in automatic thoughts. Several
studies have supported the impact of negative automatic
thoughts on affective disorders (e.g., Kendall, 1984;
Treadwell & Kendall, 1996), although a recent interest
Gender and Cognitive Vulnerability 181
has emerged in relation to the role of the balance
between positive and negative thoughts. This idea has
been proposed in Schwartz and Garamoni’s (1989)
states-of-mind (SOM) model of cognitive balance, which
establishes that a specific proportion of negative-to-
positive self-statements accounts for optimal emotional
adjustment, and that dysfunction occurs when this
ratio shifts. Gender differences in automatic thoughts
constitute a relatively unexplored issue. A few studies
have found that females score higher than men on
cognitions related to anxiety and depression (e.g., Jolly,
Dyck, Kramer, & Wherry, 1994), whereas other studies
have not found gender differences (Fichten, Amsel,
Robillard, & Tagalakis, 1991; Prins & Hanewald, 1997).
The first purpose of this study was to test whether
cognitive variables mediate gender differences in depres-
sive symptoms and behavior problems in adolescents. In
the mediational models tested in this study, gender was
hypothesized to be linked with a number of cognitive
variables, which would in turn be associated with psy-
chological symptoms. The variables of interest were ir-
rational beliefs, problem-solving components, and auto-
matic thoughts. These variables were chosen because they
represent the aforementioned levels of the hierarchical
cognitive model. It was expected that female adolescents
would score higher on cognitive variables that are associ-
ated with depressive symptoms, whereas male adolescents
would score higher on cognitive variables associated with
behavior problems.
On the other hand, there is wide agreement that
psychological problems in adolescents should be studied
from a developmental perspective (Lahey et al., 2000).
For instance, gender differences in depression and ag-
gressive behavior increase from early adolescence to late
adolescence (Hankin et al., 1998; Keltikangas-J¨
arvinen,
2002), and various studies suggest that older teenagers re-
port engaging in more delinquent behaviors that younger
teenagers (Lahey et al., 2000). Moreover, the relation be-
tween cognitive variables and psychological symptoms
could be moderated by age. For instance, cognitions re-
lated to acceptance by peers may be more influential at
early stages of adolescence. Thus, a second aim was to
examine whether the influence of gender on psychological
problems via cognitive variables was moderated by age.
METHOD
Participants
The research was conducted in Bizkaia, a province
in northern Spain. A total of 856 Caucasian adolescents
from 13 schools participated in the study. From these
schools, 38 groups were randomly selected, using a clus-
ter sampling procedure and balancing variables such as
educational model (compulsory secondary education, ad-
vanced secondary education, and intermediate vocational
training), educational level, and district. Seventy percent
of the adolescents lived in or around the area of the city of
Bilbao, and the rest in rural areas. There were 491 (57.2%)
females and 365 (42.8%) males, aged 14–17 (M=15.92,
SD =1.39). There were 24 missing values for age. Ac-
cording to the information provided by the school staff
about parental education, socioeconomic levels were rep-
resented with the following distribution: 9% low, 28%
low-medium, 60% medium, and 3% high-medium levels.
Measures
Automatic thoughts were assessed by the Spanish
version of the Burnett Self-Talk Inventory (BSTI, Burnett,
1996) for adolescents. Participants were asked whether
they would say to themselves each of the 32 statements
in response to 10 imaginary situations, using a Yes (3),
Sometimes (2) and No (1) response format. The BSTI
includes two scales: The Positive Self-Talk Scale and the
Negative Self-Talk Scale, both with adequate reliability
coefficients. The items in the positive self-talk category
(16 items) reflect the use of cognitions aimed at direct-
ing thought or behavior and controlling emotions. In the
Spanish version of the BSTI (Calvete & Carde˜
noso, 2002),
by means of rational analysis of item content, the items
of the Negative Self-talk Scale were grouped into two
subsets: Self-focused negative cognitions (9 items), and
other-focused negative cognitions (7 items). The other-
focused negative category refers to feeling embarrassed
and the belief that the others will assess one’s performance
negatively; and items in the self-focused negative category
reflect negative self-evaluation and self-blame. Alpha co-
efficients in the present study for positive self-talk, self-
focused cognitions, and other-focused cognitions were
.89, .69 and .72, respectively.
The SOM ratio was computed with the 16 posi-
tive and the 16 negative self-statements from the BSTI
by dividing positive self-statement scores by the sum of
positive-plus-negative self-statement scores. To compute
SOM ratios, scores were transformed to anchor them at
zero (1 =0, 2 =1, 3 =2), following the recommendations
from Amsel and Fichten (1998).
The Short Form of the Social Problem-Solving In-
ventory Revised (SPSI-R Short Form; D’Zurilla, Nezu,
et al., 1998) was used to assess problem-solving dimen-
sions. The SPSI-R Short Form is a 25-item self-report
182 Calvete and Carde˜
noso
instrument that measures two adaptive problem-solving
dimensions (positive problem orientation and rational
problem solving) and three dysfunctional dimensions
(negative problem orientation, impulsivity/carelessness
style, and avoidance style). Each item is rated on a 5-point
scale ranging from not at all true of me (0) to extremely
true of me (4). The Positive Problem Orientation dimen-
sion can be described as a problem-solving cognitive set
that involves both the belief that problems are solvable
(optimism) and the self-confidence to solve problems
successfully (high self-efficacy). In contrast, Negative
Problem Orientation consists of the general tendency to
expect problems to be unsolvable (pessimism) and to lack
self-efficacy in one’s ability to solve problems success-
fully. The Rational Problem Solving factor may be defined
as the rational, deliberate, and systematic application of
adequate problem-solving principles and techniques. The
Impulsivity/Carelessness Style is a problem-problem solv-
ing pattern characterized by active, impulsive, careless,
and incomplete attempts to solve problems. Finally, the
Avoidance Style is characterized by procrastination, pas-
sivity, and dependency (Maydeu-Olivares & D’Zurilla,
1996). Alpha coefficients for the subscales range from
.72 to .85 (D’Zurilla, Nezu, et al., 1998). A recent study
with the Spanish version of the SPSI-R Short Form con-
firmed its factor structure and obtained adequate alpha
coefficients for the five subscales (Calvete & Carde˜
noso,
2001). In this study, alpha coefficients were .55, .73,
.66, .70, and .69 for positive orientation, negative ori-
entation, rational solving, impulsivity, and avoidance,
respectively.
The Irrational Beliefs Scale for Adolescents (IBSA;
Carde˜
noso & Calvete, 2004) consists of 37 Spanish items
that adolescents score using a scale from 1 (not at all)to
4(completely true). In this study the IBSA was used to
assess the following categories of irrational beliefs: (1)
Need for Approval and Success, which involves an over
concern about the approval of others and the belief that
one should be successful and thoroughly competent in all
possible respects (e.g., When people reject me, I think I
am not worth it), (2) Low Tolerance to Frustration, which
consists of the idea that it is awful when things are not
the way they should be and, hence it is appropriate to
get upset when events are negative (e.g., I think I can’t
stand it when things are not going as I would like), (3)
Justification of Violence, which involves the idea that
aggression is adequate in a variety of situations (e.g.,
Sometimes you have to hit others because they deserve
it) and that aggression enhances self-esteem and helps to
maintain status among peers (e.g., It is better to have a row
than let them think I am a coward). The IBSA has shown
adequate reliability and factor structure (Carde˜
noso &
Calvete, 2004). In this study alpha coefficients for the
three subscales were .71, .50, and .72, respectively.
The Youth Self-Report (YSR, Achenbach, 1991)
measures an array of behavior problems. Broadband inter-
nalizing and externalizing factors can be scored, as well
as specific subscales. The instrument has shown excellent
reliability and validity, and discriminates between adoles-
cent referred and not referred for mental health services.
The Spanish version of the YSR has been studied in a large
sample of Spanish adolescents (n=2833) with good psy-
chometric properties (Lemos, Vallejo, & Sandoval, 2002).
In this study, the Spanish version was used, but only the
items that were common for both sexes were selected. Be-
havior problems were assessed by the Aggressive Behav-
ior and Delinquent Behavior subscales of the YSR. The
Aggressive Behavior subscale includes symptoms such as
temper, arguing a lot, demanding attention, and scream-
ing. The Delinquent Behavior subscale includes symp-
toms such as drinking alcohol, using drugs, stealing, and
vandalism. Depressive symptoms were assessed by the
Affective Problems subscale from the YSR. This DSM-
oriented subscale was constructed based on items selected
to be consistent with the diagnostic categories of Major
Depression and Dysthymic Disorder by experts around
the world (Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2000). The
Affective Problems subscale includes symptoms such as
crying, worthless, sadness, and self-harm. The alpha co-
efficients for Aggressive Behavior, Delinquent Behavior,
and Affective Problems were .72, .66 and .82, respectively.
Each subscale has borderline and clinical cutoff scores
based on the likelihood of referral for clinical services
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
Procedure
The adolescents completed the questionnaires and
demographic data in their classrooms. The study was pre-
sented as a research about the way young people think
and behave in several areas of their lives. Responses were
anonymous in order to guarantee honesty and participa-
tion was voluntary. Because there were no student names
included on the surveys, the school staff chose to collect
passive consent from parents. Parents were notified and
given the option of refusing to allow their son/daughter’s
participation.4The participation rate was of 99%.
4Because the questionnaires were anonymous it was not possible to
follow-up students whose responses suggested clinical need. Nonethe-
less, after the data collection, we provided the school staff with a report
about overall findings of the study. This served to raise awareness of
the possible presence of adolescents with high scores on depressive and
behavior problems.
Gender and Cognitive Vulnerability 183
Participants were encouraged to ask questions if they had
any trouble answering the instruments. The questionnaires
took between 30 and 45 min to complete.
RESULTS
The Results section is divided into the following
subsections: (a) analyses of gender and age differences
in psychological problems and cognitive variables, (b)
test of cognitive mediation, and (c) age as moderator of
cognitive mediation.
Gender and Age Differences in Psychological
Symptoms and Cognitive Variables
Differences in Psychological Symptoms
The adolescents were grouped into two groups (ages
14–15 and ages 16–17) and several Gender ×Age
ANOVAS were conducted. Girls obtained higher scores
on depressive symptoms, whereas boys scored higher on
delinquent behavior. There were no differences for ag-
gressive behavior. The age and Gender ×Age interactions
were not significant. Because statistically significant ef-
fects may not be particularly meaningful in large samples,
the interpretation of differences focused on effect sizes
(see Table I). Cohen (1988) proposed small, medium, and
large effect sizes (.2, .5, and .8) as a guide to interpret
results. Using this guideline, a medium effect was found
for depressive symptoms.
Using the clinical cutoff scores obtained in the Span-
ish national sample for the YSR subscales (Lemos et al.,
2002), adolescents with scores within the borderline (per-
centile between 90 and 97) and clinical ranges (percentile
≥98) were identified. For depressive symptoms, 32 ado-
lescents (5.30% of girls and 1.64% of boys) scored in the
clinical range and 72 (14.66% of girls and 3.8% of boys) in
the borderline range; for aggressive behavior, 28 (2.85%
of girls and 3.84% of boys) in the clinical range and 75
(9.37% of girls and 7.95% of boys) in the borderline range;
and for delinquent behavior, 36 (3.05% of girls and 5.75%
of boys) in the clinical range and 119 (9.78% of girls and
19.45% of boys) in the borderline range.
Differences in Cognitive Variables
A series of Gender ×Age Anovas was conducted to
assess differences in cognitive variables. Significant main
effects for gender were found for all cognitive variables
(see Table I). Girls reported significantly more negative
automatic thoughts, both self and other-focused cogni-
tions, whereas boys scored higher on positive self-talk
and SOM ratios. Differences were also evident in social
problem-solving dimensions, with girls scoring higher on
negative orientation, and boys scoring higher on positive
orientation, rational solving, avoidance, and impulsivity.
Finally, boys showed higher scores on justification of vi-
olence and low tolerance to frustration, whereas the girls
scored higher on need for acceptance and success. Using
the Cohen’s guideline, a large effect was found for the gen-
der difference in other-focused cognitions, and medium
effects were found for gender differences in self-focused
cognitions, SOM ratio, and justification of violence.
The effect of age was significant for self-focused
cognitions, F(1,827) =10.12, p<.05, and need for ac-
ceptance, F(1,828) =5.14, p<.05. Younger adoles-
cents scored higher on both variables (M=16.51 and
SD =4.04 at ages 14–15 vs. M=15.69 and SD =3.49
at ages 16–17 for self-focused cognitions, effect size =
.22; M=18.65 and SD =4.22 at ages 14–15 vs. M=
17.87 and SD =4.35 at ages 16–17 for need for ac-
ceptance, effect size =.17). A significant interaction of
gender and age was found for justification of violence,
F(1,828) =4.20, p<.05, and low tolerance to frustra-
tion, F(1,828) =4.58, p<.05. Post hoc analyses indi-
cated that these beliefs increased with age only among
the boys (M=17.73 and SD =4.29 at ages 14–15 vs.
M=18.20 and SD =4.51 at ages 16–17 for justification
of violence; M=8.07 and SD =2.07 at ages 14–15 vs.
M=8.48 and SD =2.00 at ages 16–17 for low toler-
ance to frustration), whereas they were similar at all ages
among the girls.
To address whether gender differences in cognitive
variables could be accounted for by differences in the rates
of elevated scores within the clinical ranges for females
and males, the analyses were repeated without these sub-
groups and all gender differences remained statistically
significant.
Association Between Cognitive Variables and
Symptoms of Depression and Delinquent Behavior
Cognitive mediation was studied for depressive
symptoms and delinquent behavior, because male and fe-
male adolescents scored similarly on aggressive behavior.
Selection of Potential Cognitive Mediators
We conducted a series of stepwise multiple regres-
sion analyses to determine which cognitive variables were
the best predictors of depressive symptoms and delinquent
184 Calvete and Carde˜
noso
Tab le I. Descriptive Statistics, and Effect Sizes for Differences in Psychological Symptoms and Cognitive Variables
Between Female and Male Adolescents
Females (n=491) Males (n=365)
Mean SD Mean SD df F Effect size
Affective problems 5.02 3.73 3.04 3.00 1,853 67.75 .58∗∗
Aggressive behavior 7.39 3.39 7.44 3.69 1,853 0.49 −.01
Delinquent behavior 2.44 2.03 3.36 2.36 1,853 37.10 −.42∗∗
Positive self-talk 37.45 5.09 38.74 4.99 1,827 11.72 −.26∗∗
Other-focused negative cognitions 13.56 2.98 11.20 2.91 1,827 130.42 .80∗∗
Self-focused negative cognitions 16.77 3.84 14.92 3.43 1,827 48.67 .50∗∗
SOM ratio .61 .14 .70 .14 1,827 90.57 −.64∗∗
Positive problem orientation 10.42 3.47 11.90 3.24 1,813 37.91 −.43∗∗
Negative problem orientation 10.00 3.79 8.38 3.71 1,813 35.33 .44∗∗
Rational problem solving 10.71 3.37 11.31 3.57 1,813 7.34 −.17∗
Impulsivity/carelessness style 5.28 3.83 6.63 3.64 1,813 22.74 −.36∗∗
Avoidance style 5.26 3.80 6.44 3.84 1,813 18.63 −.31∗∗
Justification of violence 15.53 3.78 18.02 4.42 1,828 67.95 −.61∗∗
Low tolerance to frustration 7.95 1.99 8.31 2.04 1,828 4.45 −.18∗
Need for approval and success 18.90 4.47 17.22 3.98 1,828 33.32 .39∗∗
Note. A positive effect size indicates a higher score for the females sample.
∗p<.05.∗∗p<.001.
behavior. In the first regression analysis, affective prob-
lems were used as the criterion variable and all cogni-
tive variables were entered into the equation so that the
predictor variable that contributed the most toward the
prediction of R2was entered first. Additional predictors
were added in the same way until no more variance could
be accounted for. The following five variables were in-
cluded as predictors in the equation: Negative orientation,
β=.30, t(826) =8.55, p<.001; need for acceptance,
β=.23, t(826) =6.67, p<.001; self-focused cogni-
tions, β=.10, t(826) =2.48, p<.05; positive self-
talk, β=−.09, t(826) =−3.04, p<.01; and other-
focused cognitions, β=.10, t(826) =2.58, p<.01.
This model accounted for 39% of the variance of affective
problems.
To further explore whether these cognitive variables
were associated with depressive symptoms at the clin-
ical level, the borderline group and the clinical group
were compared with the normal group (percentile ≤90,
n=714). Table II presents the means and standard de-
viations of the cognitive variables in the three groups.
The analysis of variance revealed significant differences
in the five cognitive variables across the three groups,
p<.001. Adolescents in the clinical group scored sig-
nificantly higher on all variables. All post hoc compar-
isons (Tukey method) were statistically significant at
p<.05 for negative orientation, need for acceptance,
other-focused cognitions, and self-focused cognitions. In
addition, adolescents in the normal range scored higher on
positive thoughts than adolescents in the borderline and
clinical range.
In a second stepwise regression, delinquent behav-
ior scores were used as the criterion variable and the
cognitive variables served as predictors. Four subscales
were entered into the equation: Justification of violence,
β=.24, t(823) =7.24, p<.001; impulsivity, β=.22,
t(823) =6.68, p<.001; low tolerance to frustration,
β=.10, t(823) =3.05, p<.05; and other-focused cog-
nitions, β=−.08, t(823) =−2.46, p<.05. This model
accounted for 18% of the variance in delinquent behavior
scores.
Adolescents within the normal, borderline, and clin-
ical range in delinquent behavior were compared on the
four cognitive variables. The analysis of variance showed
significant differences in impulsivity, justification of vio-
lence, and low tolerance to frustration. All post hoc group
comparisons were statistically significant for justification
of violence, and the adolescents in the clinical and bor-
derline range of delinquent behavior scored significantly
higher on impulsivity and low tolerance to frustration than
the adolescents in the normal group.
Test of Mediation for Affective Problems
To test the hypothesis that cognitive variables would
mediate the effect of gender differences on depressive
symptoms, we followed the criteria and recommendations
established by several authors (Baron & Kenny, 1986;
Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004; Holmbeck, 1997). Accord-
ing to these criteria, in the first step, gender must be signif-
icantly associated with affective problems. In the second
step, gender must be significantly associated with the
Gender and Cognitive Vulnerability 185
Table II. Differences in Cognitive Variables Between Normal, Borderline, and Clinical Subgroups
Normal range, n=714 Borderline range, n=70 Clinical range, n=31
MSDM SD M SDF(2, 826)
Subgroups for affective problems
Negative orientation 8.78 3,66 12.46 3.18 14.42 3.44 67.03∗∗
Need for approval 17.65 4.04 21.04 4.13 24.45 4.46 60.29∗∗
Other-focused cognitions 12.25 3.04 14.19 2.80 16.03 3.16 34.36∗∗
Self-focused cognitions 15.62 3.56 18.30 3.52 20.35 4.07 41.62∗∗
Positive self-talk 38.32 4.95 36.36 5.13 34.28 5.73 14.37∗∗
Normal range, n=662 Borderline range, n=119 Clinical range, n=34
Subgroups for delinquent behavior
Impulsivity/carelessness style 5.39 3.61 7.77 3.88 7.79 4.66 26.00∗∗
Justification of violence 16.06 3.84 18.11 4.64 21.35 5.08 28.11∗∗
Low tolerance to frustration 7.95 1.96 8.69 2.08 8.91 2.23 9.88∗∗
Other-focused cognitions 12.63 3.11 12.30 3.13 12.00 3.81 1.12 ns
∗p<.05.∗∗p<.001. ns =nonsignificant.
potential mediating variables. In the third step, the mediat-
ing variables must be associated with affective problems,
when the effects of gender are controlled. In this study the
third step was based on multiple-mediator analyses, rather
than single-mediator analyses, because significant effects
in single-mediator analyses for a particular mediator may
be accounted for by the other mediators in the model
(Mackinnon et al., 2001). The final step is to show that the
strength of the association between gender and affective
problems is significantly reduced when the mediators
are added to the model. If perfect mediation is obtained,
the gender effect will become zero, showing that cognitive
variables fully mediate the relation. If the path between
gender and affective problems remains significant, it
suggests that cognitive variables are partial mediators.
Table III shows the results of these analyses. In
the first step, gender significantly predicted affective
problems. In the second step, each of the five potential
cognitive mediators (negative orientation, need for
acceptance, other-focused cognitions, positive self-talk,
and self-focused cognitions) was regressed on gender to
estimate paths between gender and cognitive variables.
In the third stage, gender and the five cognitive variables
were entered simultaneously in the equation as predictor
variables. At this point, the regression coefficient of affec-
tive problems on other-focused cognitions was nonsignif-
icant.5The other regression coefficients were significant,
showing that negative orientation, need for acceptance,
5At this step, the regression coefficient of affective problems on other-
focused cognitions was significant using single-mediator analysis.
Nonetheless, we preferred to base our results on a multiple-regression
approach, which accounted better for the overlapping between cognitive
variables.
positive self-talk, and self-focused cognitions could act
as mediators between gender and affective problems.
In this study, Sobel’s equation was used to clar-
ify the significance of individual mediating pathways
(Sobel, 1982). The results of these tests were significant at
p<.001 for negative orientation and need for acceptance
(zs=−5.16 and −4.25, respectively), and at p<.05 for
self-focused cognitions and positive self-talk (zs=−2.24
and −2.31, respectively). The unstandardized regression
coefficient for gender on affective problems decreased
from −1.97 to −0.79 in the third step, showing that 59.9%
of the variability in the relationship between gender and
psychological symptoms was explained as a function of
the cognitive mediators (1.97–0.79/1.97). The proportions
of the mediated effect attributable to each of the four me-
diators were 38.28, 28.26, 14, and 12.79% for negative
orientation, need for acceptance, self-focused cognitions,
and positive self-talk, respectively.
Test of Mediation for Delinquent Behavior
A similar procedure was used to test whether
cognitive variables accounted for gender differences in
delinquent behavior. As shown in Table IV, all conditions
were met except for other-focused cognitions, because the
path from these cognitions to delinquent behavior was not
significant in the third step. The unstandardized regression
coefficient for gender decreased from 0.96 to 0.36 in the
third step, showing that 62.5% of the variability in the
relationship between gender and psychological symptoms
was explained as a function of the cognitive variables.
Tests of significance of the mediating pathways showed
that only justification of violence and impulsivity ac-
186 Calvete and Carde˜
noso
Table III. Regression Analyses Testing Mediation of the Gender Difference in Affective Problems by Cognitive Variables
Predictor variable BSEβtStep R2Criterion variable
Step 1 R2=.074,
F(1,828) =65∗∗
Gender −1.97 .25 −.27 −8.23∗∗ Affective problems
Step 2
Gender −1.64 .26 −.21 −6.28∗∗ Negative orientation
Gender −1.72 .30 −.19 −5.79∗∗ Need for approval
Gender −1.62 .32 −.17 −5.03∗∗ Self-focused cognitions
Gender −2.11 .29 −.24 −7.27∗∗ Other-focused cognitions
Gender 1.28 .35 .13 3.54∗∗ Positive self-talk
Step 3 R2=.39,
F(6,822) =87∗∗
Gender −0.79 .21 −.11 −3.68∗Affective problems
Negative orientation 0.28 .03 .30 8.62∗∗ Affective problems
Need for approval 0.19 .03 .23 6.84∗∗ Affective problems
Self-focused cognitions 0.11 .04 .12 2.88∗Affective problems
Other-focused cognitions 0.07 .04 .06 1.50 ns Affective problems
Positive self-talk −0.06 .02 −.09 −3.67∗∗ Affective problems
Note. Gender (0 =female;1=male).
∗p<.05.∗∗p<.001. ns =nonsignificant.
counted for gender influence on delinquent behavior (zs=
4.91 and 3.84, respectively, p<.001). The proportion of
the mediated effect attributable to justification of violence
and impulsivity was 53.50% and 28%, respectively.
Age Moderation of Cognitive Mediation
A series of additional hierarchical multiple regres-
sion analyses was conducted to test the hypothesis that age
could moderate cognitive mediation. A regression model
was estimated for each outcome variable (affective prob-
lems vs. delinquent behavior) and each cognitive variable
that satisfied criteria for mediation in the above section.
Following standard procedure, predictors were centered
to maximize interpretability and minimize potential prob-
lems with multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Age
was coded using effects coding (code −1 for ages 14–15
and code 1 for ages 16–17; see Frazier et al., 2004).
Age Moderation of Cognitive Mediation
for Depressive Symptoms
The first regression was conducted to test whether
age moderated the mediation through need for acceptance.
Tab le IV. Regression Analyses to Test Cognitive Mediation of Gender Prediction of Delinquent Behavior
Predictor variable BSEβtStep R2Criterion variable
Step 1 R2=.05;
F(1,28) =38.81
Gender 0.96 .15 .21 6.23∗∗ Delinquent behavior
Step 2
Gender 2.48 .29 .29 8.71∗∗ Justification of violence
Gender 1.30 .26 .17 4.93∗∗ Impulsivity/carelessness style
Gender 0.36 .14 .09 2.53∗Low tolerance to frustration
Gender −2.11 .29 −.24 −7.27∗∗ Other-focused cognitions
Step 3 R2=.17;
F(5,818) =32.77
Gender 0.36 .16 .08 2.19∗Delinquent behavior
Justification of violence 0.12 .02 .22 6.47∗∗ Delinquent behavior
Impulsivity/carelessness style 0.12 .02 .21 6.32∗∗ Delinquent behavior
Low tolerance to frustration 0.11 .04 .10 3.01∗Delinquent behavior
Other-focused cognitions −0.03 .02 −.05 −1.46 ns Delinquent behavior
Note. Gender (0 =female;1=male).
∗p<.05.∗∗p<.001. ns =nonsignificant.
Gender and Cognitive Vulnerability 187
Tab le V. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age, Gender, and Cognitive Variables Predicting Psychological Problems
Outcome BSEβtStep R2change
Affective problems
Step 1 R2=.28,F(3,826) =105∗∗
Age −0.14 .11 −.04 −1,26
Gender −0.64 .11 −.18 −5.68∗∗
Need for approval 0.40 .03 .48 14.64∗∗
Step 2 R2=.008,F(3,823) =3.18∗
Gender ×Need for approval −0.01 .03 −01 −0.29
Age ×Need for approval −0.09 .03 −.11 −3.26∗∗
Gender ×Age −0.10 .11 −.03 −0.90
Step 3 R2=.002,F(1,822) =2.68∗
Gender ×Age ×Need for approval −0.04 .03 −0.05 −1.64
Delinquent behavior
Step 1 R2=.12,F(3,826) =36.6∗∗
Age 0.09 .08 .04 1.15
Gender 0.29 .08 .13 3.74∗∗
Justification of violence 0.15 .02 .29 8.51∗∗
Step 2 R2=.02,F(3,823) =5.61∗∗
Gender ×Justification of violence 0.02 .02 .04 1.16
Age ×Justification of violence −0.07 .02 −.13 −3.68∗∗
Gender ×Age 0.14 .08 .06 1.77
Step 3 R2=.007,F(1,822) =6.42∗
Gender ×Age ×Justification of violence 0.05 .02 .09 2.53∗
Note. Age (−1=ages 14–15;1=ages 16–17).
∗p<.05. ∗∗p<.001.
In the first step, age, gender, and need for acceptance
were regressed on depressive symptoms. In the sec-
ond step we entered the two-way interactions (Age ×
Gender, and Age ×Need for acceptance), and in the
third step we entered the three-way interaction (Age
×Gender ×Need for acceptance). The Age ×Need
for acceptance interaction served as a significant pre-
dictor of affective symptoms (β=−.11, R2=.01,
p<.05). According to the framework proposed by
Baron and Kenny (1986), the presence of this inter-
action is indicative of moderated mediation. The triple
interaction was not significant (see results in Table V).
To illustrate the Age ×Need for acceptance interac-
tion, we plotted the regression of affective problems
on need for acceptance and age. Consistent with the
procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991), we
used the low (one standard deviation below the mean)
and high (one standard deviation above the mean) val-
ues for need for acceptance and the effects coding for
age. As Fig. 1 shows, the influence of need for accep-
tance on depressive symptoms was higher among ado-
lescents at ages 14–15, β=.55, t(342) =12.17, p<
.001, than at ages 16–17, β=0.51, t(522) =12.17,
p<.001.
Next, we estimated three similar hierarchical regres-
sion models using negative orientation, self-focused cog-
nitions, and positive self-talk as the cognitive variables.
None of the interaction terms in these regression models
were statistically significant.6
Age Moderation of Cognitive Mediation
for Delinquent Behavior
Finally, we tested whether age moderated the influ-
ence of cognitive variables on delinquent behavior. Re-
sults were significant only for justification of violence.
The hierarchical regression model of age, gender, justifi-
cation of violence, Age ×Gender, Age ×Justification of
violence, and Age ×Gender ×Justification of violence
showed that both the Age ×Justification of violence in-
teraction and the three-way Age ×Gender ×Justifica-
tion of violence interaction were significantly associated
with delinquent behavior (see Table V). Post hoc equa-
tions predicted delinquent behavior from justification of
violence at two levels of justification of violence (at 1
standard deviation below the mean and 1 standard de-
viation above), and at ages 14–15 and ages 16–17. The
justification of violence was a stronger predictor of delin-
quent behavior among younger than older adolescents
(β=.23 and .12, respectively, p<.001). In the three-
way interaction, as depicted in Fig. 2, justification of
6Toease presentation, regression models for the other cognitive variables
are not included. These results are available by contacting the authors.
188 Calvete and Carde˜
noso
Fig. 1. Interaction between age and need for approval and success in
the prediction of affective problems.
violence did not predict delinquent behavior among fe-
male adolescents at ages 16–17 [β=.04, t(279) =0.68,
ns], whereas it was a predictor among younger girls,
[β=.43, t(200) =6.64, p<.001], and among male
adolescents at all ages [β=.36, t(140) =4.47, p<.001
and β=.30, t(207) =4.43, p<.001, respectively, for
ages 14–15 and ages 16–17].
DISCUSSION
Results from this study suggest that male and female
adolescents present a different cognitive profile, which
in turn could account for gender differences in depres-
sive symptoms and delinquent behavior. Negative orien-
tation towards social problems was the cognitive vari-
able that best explained gender differences in depressive
symptoms. Consistent with previous studies (Marcotte,
Alain, & Gosselin, 1999; Maydeu-Olivares et al., 2000;
Robichaud et al., 2003), girls showed a greater tendency
to expect problems to be unsolvable and to doubt their
Fig. 2. Interaction between age, gender, and justification of violence in
the prediction of delinquent behavior.
own abilities to solve conflicts. Adolescents with this pes-
simistic attitude toward problems tend to feel discouraged
when they have to cope with life difficulties (Marcotte
et al., 1999). Thus, this result provides additional evidence
for the influence of a negative problem orientation on
psychological maladjustment (Kant et al., 1997; McCabe
et al., 1999; Spence et al., 2002).
The second variable that met criteria for media-
tion between gender and depressive symptoms was self-
focused negative cognitions. The content of this type of
automatic thoughts reflects negative self-evaluation, fail-
ure, and self-blame, which, according to the cognitive
content-specificity model, are characteristics of depres-
sion (Beck, 1976; Clark et al., 1989). Findings concerning
negative orientation and self-focused cognitions can also
be analyzed within the context of the hopelessness the-
ory of depression (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989),
which conceptualizes cognitive vulnerability to depres-
sion as a characteristic negative cognitive style. Adoles-
cents with this style tend to make negative inferences
about the cause and consequences of the problems (i.e.,
low self-confidence expectations), and the implications
for one’s self (i.e., low self-efficacy). Therefore, our find-
ings are particularly consistent with the results obtained by
Hankin and Abramson (2002). In their study, the general
cognitive style, attributional style, and negative inferences
for self-mediated gender differences in depression.
Female adolescents’ lower levels of positive auto-
matic thoughts also accounted for gender differences in
depressive symptoms. The association between depres-
sion and lack of positive self-statements has been hy-
pothesized in the tripartite model of depression and anx-
iety (Clark & Watson, 1991) and has obtained support in
several studies (e.g., Burgess & Haaga, 1994; Calvete &
Connor-Smith, in press; Jolly et al., 1994).
The fourth variable that mediated the relationship
between gender and depressive symptoms was the need
for approval and success. Female adolescents showed a
high degree of concern about the way in which they are
perceived or evaluated by other people, as expressed both
in the need for acceptance beliefs and others-focused neg-
ative cognitions. These results agree with the proposals
of a number of authors. For instance, Cyranowski et al.
(2000) hypothesized that girls experience a greater need
for affiliation that could place adolescent girls at particular
risk for specific interpersonal negative events. Other au-
thors have suggested that women could be more dependent
on others in terms of self-esteem than men, and that they
would be characterized by a greater concern about aban-
donment and rejection by others (e.g., Cross & Madson,
1997; Marcotte et al., 1999; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus,
1994; Prinstein & Aikins, 2004). The findings are also
Gender and Cognitive Vulnerability 189
consistent with the higher importance assigned by women
to social support (Ystgaard, Tambs, & Dalgard, 1999)
and to interpersonal harmony and sensitivity (Rosenberg,
1989).
Although the strongest gender differences in cog-
nitive variables were observed for other-focused nega-
tive cognitions, this variable did not satisfy criteria for
mediation when multiple-mediator analyses were used,
suggesting that its influence on depressive symptoms was
accounted for by the other variables in the model. In any
case, the higher scores among female adolescents on both
self- and other-focused negative cognitions, together with
the lower scores on positive cognitions led to a more nega-
tive cognitive balance, as expressed in the SOM ratio. The
boys’ SOM ratio mean fell into the positive dialogue SOM
category (.67–.90), which according to Schwartz (1997)
is characteristic of well-balanced and adaptive persons,
whereas the girls’ SOM ratio mean fell into the successful
coping dialogue (.59–.66), which is associated with adap-
tive (but not optimal) coping under distressing conditions.
Regarding behavior problems, only two cognitive
variables met criteria for mediation of the association
between gender and delinquent behavior: Justification of
violence and impulsivity/carelessness style. As expected,
male adolescents scored higher than female adolescents
on both variables, which have been previously associ-
ated with externalizing problems. Adolescents with an
impulsive style consider few solution alternatives, often
impulsively go with the first idea to come to mind, and
evaluate alternatives and their consequences quickly and
without careful information processing (D’Zurilla et al.,
2003). Thus, a combination of this style with aggression-
biased cognitions may partly explain the development of
delinquent behavior.
It is important to note that the influence of
aggression-biased cognitions on delinquent behavior was
moderated by age, with younger adolescents showing a
stronger association between these variables. Moreover,
justification of violence was not a predictor of delinquent
behavior among female adolescents at ages 16–17. The
findings also revealed that age influenced cognitive me-
diation of depressive symptoms. A significant interaction
between age and need for acceptance indicated that the
need for acceptance was a stronger predictor of depressive
symptoms among the younger adolescents. Furthermore,
adolescents at ages 14–15 reported a greater concern about
acceptance by others.
It is important to take a developmental perspective
on relations between negative thinking and symptoms
because the content of negative cognitions placing indi-
viduals at greatest risk may change over the life span
(Hankin & Abramson, 2001). Adolescents’ identity
emerges from a match between how they view themselves
and how others see them (Bernard & Joyce, 1984) and
early adolescence is characterized by a strong dependence
on the opinions of peers. Thus, beliefs about acceptance
by others and success may have a stronger influence on
the development of depression in early adolescence.
Unlike many prior studies, male adolescents did not
report more aggressive behavior than females. This may
be related to recent statistics suggesting an increase in
aggression and violence among girls (Moretti, Holland,
& McKay, 2001). Alternatively, the result could be due
to use of the YSR Aggressive Behavior subscale, which
assesses both overt aggression and oppositional behav-
ior. Various studies have failed to find gender differences
for oppositional behavior (Lahey et al., 2000). Moreover,
girls may express aggressive behavior in forms that dif-
fer from commonly recognized overt or physical acts of
aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Future research on
gender differences may benefit from the use of measures
distinguishing oppositional behavior, delinquent behav-
ior, overt aggression, and covert aggression.
Finally, an important question that future research
should address concerns the origins of gender differences
in cognitive vulnerability. Various cognitive theories have
focused on early experiences and parent–child interac-
tions as particularly relevant to the development of cog-
nitive styles (Ingram, 2003). These experiences could be
different due to the existence of gender-linked parent-
ing and socialization (Simon, 2002). It is possible also
that boys and girls are socialized to express their dis-
tress in a sex-stereotyped form (Keenan & Shaw, 1997).
For instance, through the process of socialization, girls’
distress would be channeled into predominantly inter-
nalizing problems or covert forms of aggressive behav-
iors, whereas boys would be encouraged to act out their
distress.
In addition, socialization could be different across
cultures. This study was based on a Spanish sample of
adolescents and the majority of prior research on cog-
nitive vulnerability to psychological problems has been
based on North American samples. Although Spanish and
American cultures are both rooted in Western philosophi-
cal traditions, Spanish culture is more collectivist and less
individualistic than North American culture (Oyserman,
Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). This fact could influence
the results obtained for variables such as need for accep-
tance and other-focused negative cognitions. Thus, cross-
cultural studies could help to clarify the role of socializa-
tion on gender differences in psychopathology.
This study has a number of shortcomings. First, we
did not examine the presence of negative life events, al-
though they are considered an important etiological factor
190 Calvete and Carde˜
noso
in the development of psychological disorders. In fact,
recent theoretical models hypothesize that cognitive vul-
nerability interacts with negative life events to contribute
to symptoms (Hankin et al., 2001) and that greater ex-
posure to stressful events can account for girl’s higher
levels of depressive symptoms (Davies & Windle, 1997).
Second, this research was based on a community sam-
ple. Although, cognitive mediators significantly differ-
entiated between adolescents in the normal, borderline,
and clinical range for psychological symptoms, future re-
search should replicate findings of this study in clinically
referred samples. Third, some of the measures used in
this research exhibited poor internal consistency (i.e., the
low tolerance to frustration subscale) and, as Hankin and
Abramson (2002) have suggested, this fact could prevent
the emergence of significant results for cognitive medi-
ation of psychological disorders. Fourth, this investiga-
tion used a cross-sectional design. In consequence, our
findings do not allow us to conclude that the cognitive
variables included in this study lead to symptoms of de-
pression and delinquent behavior. The relations between
cognitions and symptoms could be bidirectional, and, as
a result, cross-sectional relations between these variables
may reflect a confounding effect of reciprocally related
processes. Last, the findings were based merely on self-
reports and, although the adolescents themselves may be
the best source of information about their thoughts and
behaviors (Funder & Colvin, 1997), self-reports are also
susceptible to biases.
In summary, the findings of this research supported
the existence of gender differences in several cognitive
variables, which in turn could influence, at least partially,
the development of different psychological disorders in
male and female adolescents. In brief, female adolescents
scored lower on positive thoughts and higher on negative
problem orientation, need for approval and success, and
self-focused automatic thoughts, all of which are linked
to internalizing problems. Male adolescents scored higher
on justification of violence and impulsivity/carelessness
style, which were associated with delinquent behavior.
These findings, although limited, have clinical implica-
tions. The identification of domains of cognitive vulnera-
bility from a developmental and gender perspective may
help clinicians assess and target areas of focus for therapy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a grant from the
Departamento de Justicia, Trabajo y Seguridad Social
(Basque Government). The authors thank Dr Thomas
D’Zurilla and Dr Alberto Maydeu-Olivares for allowing
the use of the Spanish version of the SPSI-revised, and
Dr Seraf´
ın Lemos for help with the normative data of the
YSR in the Spanish sample. Sincere thanks go also to the
Editor and the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript for
their helpful suggestions.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. L., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness
depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological
Review,96, 358–372.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self-report and 1991
profile. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M., Dumenci, L., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Ratings of
relations between DSM-IV diagnostic categories and items of the
CBCL/6-18, TRF, and YSR. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Available at
www.aseba.org.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA school-
age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Re-
search Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
Amsel, R., & Fichten, C. (1998). Recommendations for self-statements
inventories: Use of valence, end points, frequency, and relative
frequency. Cognitive Therapy and Research,22, 255–277.
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, 1173–1182.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders.
Madison, WI: International Universities Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An exam-
ination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin,106, 59–73.
Bernard, M. E., & Joyce, M. R. (1984). Rational-emotive therapy with
children and adolescents. New York: Wiley.
Burgess, E., & Haaga, D. A. F. (1994). The Positive Automatic Thoughts
Questionnaire—Revised: Equivalent measures of positive think-
ing? Cognitive Therapy and Research,18, 15–24.
Burnett, P. (1996). Children’s self-talk and significant other’s positive
and negative statements. Educational Psychology,16, 57–67.
Calvete, E., & Carde˜
noso, O. (2001). Creencias, Resoluci´
on de Proble-
mas Sociales y Correlatos Psicol´
ogicos (Beliefs, problem-solving
and psychological correlates). Psicothema,13, 95–100.
Calvete, E., & Carde˜
noso, O. (2002). Self-talk in adolescents: Dimen-
sions, states of mind, and psychological maladjustment. Cognitive
Therapy and Research,26, 473–485.
Calvete, E., & Connor-Smith, J. (in press). Automatic thoughts and
psychological symptoms: A cross-cultural comparison of American
and Spanish students. Cognitive Therapy and Research.
Calvete, E., Est´
evez, A., L´
opez de Arroyabe, E., & Ruiz, P. (2005).
The Schema Questionnaire—Short form: Structure and relation-
ship with automatic thoughts and symptoms of affective disorders.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment,21, 91–100.
Carde˜
noso, O., & Calvete, E. (2004). Desarrollo del Inventario de Creen-
cias Irracionales para adolescentes (Development of the Irrational
Beliefs Inventory for Adolescents) . Psicolog´
ıa Conductual,12,
289–304.
Chang, E. C., & D’Zurilla, T. J. (1996). Irrational beliefs as predictors
of anxiety and depression in a college population. Personality and
Individual Differences,20, 215–219.
Clark, D. A., Beck, A. T., & Brown, G. (1989). Cognitive mediation
in general psychiatric outpatients: A test of the content-specificity
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56, 958–
964.
Gender and Cognitive Vulnerability 191
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and
depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology,100, 316–336.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1987). Sex, sex-roles and irrational
beliefs. Psychological Reports,61, 631–638.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development,67, 993–
1002.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals
and gender. Psychological Bulletin,122, 5–37.
Cyranowski, J. M., Frank, E., Young, E., & Shear, K. (2000). Adolescent
onset of the gender difference in lifetime rates of major depression.
Archives of General Psychiatry,57, 21–27.
Davies, P. T., & Windle, M. (1997). Gender-specific pathways between
maternal depressive symptoms, family discord, and adolescents
adjustment. Developmental Psychology,33, 657–668.
Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information processing
bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,16, 8–22.
D’Zurilla, T. J., Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Self-esteem
and social problem-solving as predictors of aggression in col-
lege students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,22, 424–
440.
D’Zurilla, T. J., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Kant, G. L. (1998). Age and
gender differences in social problem-solving ability. Personality
and Individual Differences,25, 241–252.
D’Zurilla, T. J., Nezu, A. M., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1998). Manual
for the Social Problem-Solving Inventory Revised (SPSI-R),North-
Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in Psychotherapy.NewYork:
Springer.
Feindler, E. (1991). Cognitive strategies in anger control interventions
for children and adolescents. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and
adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures (pp. 66–95).
New York: Guilford Press.
Fichten, C. S., Amsel, R., Robillard, K., & Tagalakis, V. (1991).
Thoughts about encounters between nondisabled and disabled
peers: Situational constraints, states-of-mind, valenced thought cat-
egories. Cognitive Therapy and Research,15, 345–369.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator
and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,51, 115–134.
Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1997). Congruence of others’ and self-
judgments of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617–690). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Gove, W. R. (1972). The relationship between sex roles, marital status
and mental illness. Social Forces,51, 34–44.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender
differences in depression: An elaborated cognitive vulnerability-
transactional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin,127, 773–796.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2002). Measuring cognitive vulnera-
bility to depression in adolescents: Reliability, validity, and gender
differences. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
31, 491–504.
Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., McGee, R.,
& Angell, K. E. (1998). Development of depression from pread-
olescence to young adulthood: Emerging gender differences in a
10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,107,
128–140.
Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., & Siler, M. (2001). A prospective test
of the hopelessness theory of depression in adolescence. Cognitive
Therapy and Research,25, 607–632.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and sta-
tistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples
from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,65, 599–610.
Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs
about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,72, 408–419.
Ingram, R. E. (2003). Origins of cognitive vulnerability to depression.
Cognitive Therapy and Research,27, 77–88.
Ingram, R. E., & Kendall, P. C. (1986). Cognitive clinical psychology:
Implications of an information processing perspective. In R. E.
Ingram (Ed.), Information processing approaches to clinical psy-
chology (pp. 3–21). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Jaffe, W. B., & D’Zurilla, T. J. (2003). Adolescent problem solving,
parent problem solving, and externalizing behavior in adolescents.
Behavior Therapy,34, 295–312.
Jolly, J. B., Dyck, M., Kramer, T. S., & Wherry, J. N. (1994).
Integration of positive and negative affectivity and cognitive
content-specificity: Improved discrimination of anxious and de-
pressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,103, 544–
552.
Kant, G. L., D’Zurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1997). Social
problem-solving as a mediator of stress-related depression and
anxiety in middle-aged and elderly community residents. Cognitive
Therapy and Research,21, 73–96.
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences on
young girls’ early problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin,121,
95–113.
Kendall, P. C. (1984). Behavioral assessment and methodology. In
G. T. Wilson, C. M. Franks, K. D. Brownell, & P. C. Kendall
(Eds.), Annual review of behavior therapy: Theory and practice
(Vol. 9, pp. 39–94). New York: Guilford Press.
Keiley, M. K., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2000). A
cross-domain growth analysis: Externalizing and internalizing be-
haviors during 8 years of childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology,28, 161–179.
Keltikangas-J¨
arvinen, L. (2002). Aggressive problem-solving strategies,
aggressive behavior, and social acceptance in early and late adoles-
cence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,31, 279–287.
Koopmans, P. C., Sanderman, R., Timmerman, I., & Emmelkamp,
P. M. G. (1994). The irrational beliefs inventory (IBI): Development
and psychometric evaluation. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment,10, 15–27.
Lahey, B. B., Miller, T. L., Schwab-Stone, M., Goodman, S. H.,
Waldman, I. D., Canino, G., et al. (2000). Age and gender dif-
ferences in oppositional behavior and conduct problems: A cross-
sectional household study of middle childhood and adolescence.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology,109, 488–503.
Lemos, S., Vallejo, G., & Sandoval, M. (2002). Estructura factorial del
Youth Self Report (YouthSelf-Report factor structure). Psicothema,
14, 816–822.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Joiner, T. E., & Rohde, P. (2001). Evaluation of cogni-
tive diathesis-stress model in predicting major depressive disorder
in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,110, 203–215.
Lochman, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Social-cognitive processes of
severely violent, moderately aggressive, and nonaggressive boys.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,62, 366–374.
Lochman, J., White, K. J., & Wayland, K. K. (1991). Cognitive-
behavioral assessment and treatment with aggressive children. In
P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-
behavioral procedures (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press.
Mackinnon, D., Goldberg, L., Clarke, G., Elliott, D., Cheong, J., Lapin,
A., et al. (2001). Mediating mechanisms in a program to reduce in-
tentions to use anabolic steroids and improve exercise self-efficacy
and dietary behavior. Prevention Science,2, 15–28.
Marcotte, D. (1996). Irrational beliefs and depression in adolescents.
Adolescence,31, 935–954.
Marcotte, D., Alain, M., & Gosselin, M. J. (1999). Gender differences
in adolescent depression: Gender-typed characteristics or problem-
solving skills deficits? Sex Roles,41, 31–48.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & D’Zurilla, T. J. (1996). A factor-analytic study
of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory: An integration of theory
and data. Cognitive Therapy and Research,20, 115–133.
192 Calvete and Carde˜
noso
Maydeu-Olivares, A., Rodr´
ıguez-Fornells, A., G´
omez-Benito, J., &
D’Zurilla, T. (2000). Psychometric properties of the Spanish adap-
tation of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R).
Personality and Individual Differences,29, 669–708.
McCabe, R. E., Blankstein, K. R., & Mills, J. S. (1999). Interpersonal
sensitivity and social problem-solving: Relations with academic
and social self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and academic perfor-
mance. Cognitive Therapy and Research,23, 587–604.
Moretti, M. M., Holland, R., & McKay, S. (2001). Self-other represen-
tations and relational and overt aggression in adolescents girls and
boys. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,19, 109–126.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gen-
der differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological
Bulletin,115, 424–443.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining the
gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,77, 1061–1072.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assump-
tions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,128, 3–72.
Prins, P. J., & Hanewald, G. J. F. P. (1997). Self-statements of test-
anxious children: Thought-listing and questionnaire approaches.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,65, 440–447.
Prinstein, M. J., & Aikins, J. W. (2004). Cognitive moderators of the
longitudinal association between peer rejection and adolescent de-
pressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,32,
147–158.
Robichaud, M., Dugas, M., & Conway, M. (2003). Gender differences
in worry and associated cognitive-behavioral variables. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders,17, 501–517.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Middle-
town, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Schwartz, R. M. (1997). Consider the simple screw: Cognitive science,
quality improvement, and psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology,65, 970–983.
Schwartz, R. M., & Garamoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and
psychopathology: Evaluation of an information processing model
of positive and negative states of mind. Clinical Psychology Review,
9, 271–294.
Simon, R. W. (2002). Revisiting the relationship among gender, marital
status, and mental health. American Journal of Sociology,107,
1065–1096.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression
in adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmental Psychol-
ogy,24, 580–588.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect
effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.),
Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Spence, S. H., Sheffield, J., & Donovan, C. (2002). Problem-solving
orientation and attributional style: Moderators of the impact of
negative life events on the development of depressive symptoms
in adolescence? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,31, 219–
229.
Treadwell, K. R. H., & Kendall, P. C. (1996). Self-talk in youth with
anxiety disorders: States of mind, content specificity, and treatment
outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,64, 941–
950.
Wade, T. J., Cairney, J., & Pevalin, D. J. (2002). Emergence of gender
differences in depression during adolescence: National Panel re-
sults from three countries. Journal of American Academy of Child
and Adolescence Psychiatry,41, 190–198.
Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., & Jordan, S. (2002).
The Schema Questionnarie-Short Form: Factor analysis and rela-
tionship between schemas and symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and
Research,26, 519–530.
Ystgaard, M., Tambs, K., & Dalgard, O. S. (1999). Life stress, social
support and psychological distress in late adolescence: A longitu-
dinal study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,34,
12–19.
