Do Attachment Style and Emotion Regulation Strategies Indicate Distress in Predictive Testing?
- 1.9k Downloads
Predictive genetic testing for a neurogenetic disorder evokes strong emotions, and may lead to distress. The aim of this study is to investigate whether attachment style and emotion regulation strategies are associated with distress in persons who present for predictive testing for a neurogenetic disorder, and whether these psychological traits predict distress after receiving test results. Self-report scales were used to assess attachment insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing) in adults at 50 % risk for Huntington’s Disease (HD), Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), and Hereditary Cerebral Hemorrhage With Amyloidosis - Dutch type (HCHWA-D), when they presented for predictive testing. Distress was measured before testing and twice (within 2 months and between 6 and 8 months) after receiving test results. Pearson correlations and linear regression were used to analyze whether attachment style and emotion regulation strategies indicated distress. In 98 persons at risk for HD, CADASIL, or HCHWA-D, attachment anxiety and catastrophizing were associated with distress before predictive testing. Attachment anxiety predicted distress up to 2 months after testing. Clinicians may consider looking for signs of attachment anxiety and catastrophizing in persons who present for predictive testing, to see who may be vulnerable for distress during and after testing.
KeywordsAttachment style Emotion regulation strategies Predictive testing Neurogenetic disorders Huntington’s disease CADASIL HCHWA-D Distress
The authors thank Sanne Huybregts (psychology student) for her help in preparing the introduction.
Conflict of Interest
Lucienne van der Meer, Erik van Duijn, Erik Giltay, and Aad Tibben declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Studies and Informed Consent
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
- Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Oxford England: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss (Vol. II: Separation, anxiety and anger). London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
- Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, W. S. Rholes, J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- De Beurs, E., & Zitman, F. (2005). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Reliability and validity of a practical alternative to SCL-90. Maandblad Geestelijke volksgezondheid, 61, 120–141.Google Scholar
- Derogatis, L. R. (1975). The Brief Symptom Inventory. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research.Google Scholar
- Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2009). Cognitive coping and psychological adjustment in different types of stressful life events. Individual Differences Research, 7, 168–181.Google Scholar
- Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2002). CERQ: Manual for the use of cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire. Leiderdorp: DATEC.Google Scholar
- Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (1st ed., pp. 13–35). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lesnik Oberstein, S. A. J., Boon, E. M. J., and Terwindt, G. M. (2012). CADASIL [GeneReviews™, Internet]. https://doi.org/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1500/.
- Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Adult attachment and affect regulation. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd ed., pp. 503–531). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Horesh, N. (2006). Attachment bases of emotion regulation and posttraumatic adjustment. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (1st ed., pp. 77–99). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pielage, S. B. (2006). Adult attachment and psychosocial functioning. Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
- Pietromonaco, P., Feldman Barrett, L., & Powers, S. I. (2006). Adult attachment theory and affective reactivity and regulation. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (1st ed., pp. 57–74). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van der Meer, L. B., Van Duijn, E., Wolterbeek, R., & Tibben, A. (2013). Offspring of a parent with genetic disease: childhood experiences and adult psychological characteristics. Health Psychol. Google Scholar
- Van Duijn, E., Kingma, E. M., Timman, R., Zitman, F. G., Tibben, A., Roos, R. A., et al. (2008). Cross-sectional study on prevalences of psychiatric disorders in mutation carriers of Huntington’s disease compared with mutation-negative first-degree relatives. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 1804–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van Oostrom, I., Meijers-Heijboer, H., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Brocker-Vriends, A. H., van Asperen, C. J., Sijmons, R. H., et al. (2007). Prognostic factors for hereditary cancer distress six months after BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing. European Journal of Cancer, 43, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://doi.org/creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.