Macatee · Behavior therapy 2020 · cross-sectional family study · n=638

Distress Tolerance as a Familial Vulnerability for Distress-Misery Disorders.

Cited 9 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional family-based observational study.

PubMed 33051033 · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2019.12.008 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The authors investigated whether perceived distress tolerance (DT) is a familial vulnerability factor for internalizing and substance use disorders (SUDs). Perceived DT, neuroticism, and clinical diagnostic histories were assessed in 638 individuals across 256 families. Analyses examined familial correlation of perceived DT and tested group differences between healthy controls and participants with remitted distress-misery disorders (major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD), fear disorders (panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders), or SUDs, adjusting for neuroticism.

What was found

The abstract reports directional statistical outcomes without numerical values, effect sizes, or confidence intervals: - Perceived DT was significantly correlated within families. - Perceived DT was significantly lower in individuals with remitted distress-misery disorders compared to healthy controls, remaining significant after adjusting for neuroticism. - Perceived DT was not significantly different in individuals with remitted fear disorders compared to controls. - Perceived DT was not significantly different in individuals with versus without remitted SUD, and there were no effects for comorbid SUD and distress-misery disorders.

Why it matters

This study suggests that perceived distress tolerance is a familial, transdiagnostic vulnerability trait specific to distress-misery disorders rather than fear or substance use disorders, and that this link is distinct from general negative affect or neuroticism.

Limits

The abstract provides no exact numerical data, test statistics, or effect sizes. The cross-sectional design cannot differentiate a premorbid vulnerability from a scar effect of past illness. Perceived DT was assessed as a self-reported trait rather than via behavioral tolerance paradigms, and demographic characteristics are not detailed.

Cited by