Section Bank P/S #74

[663697]

I think I missed the mark on this passage, but just wanted to clarify this question:

Proponents of the SG hypothesis would expect that, compared to others, an individual prone to depression is:

a. more likely to experience independent stressors, less likely to experience dependent stressors
b. more likely to experience independent stressors, just as likely to experience dependent stressors
c. just as likely to experience independent stressors, more likely to experience dependent stressors (correct answer)
d. more likely to experience both independent and dependent stressors

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the last 2 sentences correctly. I understood it as saying that dependent stressors = behavior, independent stressors = the negative life events influenced by the individual's behavior.

If my interpretation is correct, why would D be incorrect? Shouldn't more dependent stressors lead to more independent stressors? Or is it because it states that the independent stressors can't be controlled by the individual?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tvbbnumber41]

It may help to read the last THREE sentences in that particular paragraph.

"Early research focused on negative life events that an individual cannot control as the causes of depression" = independent stressor

"...role of negative life events that are INFLUENCED by the individual's behavior." = dependent stressor

Given this, independent stressors cannot be controlled for. In other words, as a whole, all people are subjected to the same chances of experiencing particular stressful life events (independent stressors). However, individuals who are prone to depression are more likely to experience dependent stressors because, as the passage suggests, "...individuals who are prone to depression are more likely to exhibit behaviors and cognitions that lead to stressful situations (dependent stressor)."

You were most likely confused about the wording. Very difficult question though, it got me as well. Hope this helps!