Megan E. Hughes

Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Are you Megan E. Hughes?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)6.51 Total impact

  • Megan E. Hughes · Lauren B. Alloy · Alex Cogswell ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relation between repetitive thought and depression and anxiety symptoms was examined in an undergraduate sample. Individuals completed self-report measures of rumination, worry, depression, and anxiety as well as other related constructs including private self-consciousness, looming maladaptive style, cognitive style, cognitive content, and future outlook. Regression analyses and tests for significant differences between partial correlations were utilized to assess the study hypotheses. The results indicated that rumination and worry overlap in their association with depression and anxiety symptoms, and that rumination may be an especially important component of this overlap. Secondary analyses demonstrated that rumination and worry are two distinct constructs, as their patterns of associations with related constructs were different.
    Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 07/2008; 22(3):271-288. DOI:10.1891/0889-8391.22.3.271
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research has found that bipolar spectrum disorders are associated with Behavioral Approach System (BAS) hypersensitivity and both unipolar and bipolar depression are associated with high Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) sensitivity, but prospective studies of these relationships are lacking. We tested whether BAS and BIS sensitivities prospectively predicted the time to new onsets of major depressive and hypomanic and manic episodes in bipolar spectrum individuals. We followed 136 bipolar II or cyclothymic and 157 demographically matched normal control individuals prospectively for an average of 33 months. Participants completed the BIS/BAS scales and symptom measures at Time 1 and semi-structured diagnostic interviews every four months of follow-up. The bipolar spectrum group exhibited higher Time 1 BAS, but not BIS, scores than the normal controls, controlling for Time 1 symptoms. Among bipolar spectrum participants, high BAS sensitivity prospectively predicted a shorter time to onset of hypomanic and manic episodes, whereas high BIS sensitivity predicted less survival time to major depressive episodes, controlling for initial symptoms. Consistent with the BAS hypersensitivity model of bipolar disorder, a highly responsive BAS provides vulnerability to onsets of (hypo)manic episodes. In addition, a highly sensitive BIS increases risk for major depressive episodes.
    Bipolar Disorders 04/2008; 10(2):310-22. DOI:10.1111/j.1399-5618.2007.00547.x · 4.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this article, we tested the vulnerability hypothesis of the behavioral approach system (BAS) hypersensitivity model of bipolar disorders. We examined whether self-reported BAS sensitivity predicts lifetime bipolar spectrum diagnoses as well as symptoms and personality characteristics associated with bipolar disorder using a retrospective and concurrent behavioral high-risk design. Participants with high (HBAS; n=28) or moderate (MBAS; n=24) BAS sensitivity were selected and given a lifetime psychiatric diagnostic interview and self-report measures of proneness to bipolar symptoms, current symptoms, and personality characteristics relevant to bipolarity. HBAS participants were significantly and substantially more likely to have a lifetime bipolar spectrum disorder diagnosis than were MBAS participants, but did not differ from MBAS participants in their likelihood of a unipolar depression diagnosis. Also, the HBAS group exhibited higher impulsivity and proneness to hypomanic symptoms than the MBAS group, and BAS-reward responsiveness predicted hypomanic personality characteristics. Finally, high behavioral inhibition system (BIS) sensitivity was associated with proneness to and current depressive symptoms.
    Motivation and Emotion 10/2006; 30(2):143-155. DOI:10.1007/s11031-006-9003-3 · 1.55 Impact Factor