Justin D Caouette1, Amanda E Guyer2. 1. Department of Human Ecology & Center for Mind and Brain, University of California - Davis, Davis, CA, United States. Electronic address: jdcaouette@ucdavis.edu. 2. Department of Human Ecology & Center for Mind and Brain, University of California - Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emotional context insensitivity (ECI) hypothesis suggests individuals with depression have blunted affective responses to both positive and negative events. We tested ECI in a social context to examine how depression relates to affective responses to social acceptance and rejection outcomes. Furthermore, we aimed to identify cognitive mechanisms linking depression with affective response to social feedback. Finally, we tested whether these processes are similar for social anxiety. METHOD: 90 participants (age 18-26 years; 53 women) completed the two-visit Chatroom task. At Visit 1 they rated their expectations about being liked by 60 peers. At Visit 2 they completed self-reports of depressive and social anxiety symptoms, and of cognitive flexibility, then received acceptance or rejection feedback from each peer and rated their affective response. RESULTS: Greater depressive symptoms related to negative expectancy bias, lower cognitive flexibility, and less positive affective response to acceptance, but did not relate to rejection. Negative expectations and cognitive flexibility mediated the relationship between depressive symptoms and affective response for acceptance; only negative expectations mediated rejection responses. These cognitive mechanisms were not related to social anxiety. LIMITATIONS: A community sample was used to assess depression. Rumination and current mood state were omitted as potential predictors of affective response. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the ECI framework. Depression but not social anxiety interferes with positive and negative affect through cognitively mediated dampening of emotional response to social acceptance and rejection. Emotion regulation strategies in depression therapy can target social flexibility to improve alignment of affective reactions to social outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The emotional context insensitivity (ECI) hypothesis suggests individuals with depression have blunted affective responses to both positive and negative events. We tested ECI in a social context to examine how depression relates to affective responses to social acceptance and rejection outcomes. Furthermore, we aimed to identify cognitive mechanisms linking depression with affective response to social feedback. Finally, we tested whether these processes are similar for social anxiety. METHOD: 90 participants (age 18-26 years; 53 women) completed the two-visit Chatroom task. At Visit 1 they rated their expectations about being liked by 60 peers. At Visit 2 they completed self-reports of depressive and social anxiety symptoms, and of cognitive flexibility, then received acceptance or rejection feedback from each peer and rated their affective response. RESULTS: Greater depressive symptoms related to negative expectancy bias, lower cognitive flexibility, and less positive affective response to acceptance, but did not relate to rejection. Negative expectations and cognitive flexibility mediated the relationship between depressive symptoms and affective response for acceptance; only negative expectations mediated rejection responses. These cognitive mechanisms were not related to social anxiety. LIMITATIONS: A community sample was used to assess depression. Rumination and current mood state were omitted as potential predictors of affective response. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the ECI framework. Depression but not social anxiety interferes with positive and negative affect through cognitively mediated dampening of emotional response to social acceptance and rejection. Emotion regulation strategies in depression therapy can target social flexibility to improve alignment of affective reactions to social outcomes.
Authors: Melanie Feeser; Florian Schlagenhauf; Philipp Sterzer; Soyoung Park; Meline Stoy; Stefan Gutwinski; Umut Dalanay; Thorsten Kienast; Michael Bauer; Andreas Heinz; Andreas Ströhle; Felix Bermpohl Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Leonie Koban; Rebecca Schneider; Yoni K Ashar; Jessica R Andrews-Hanna; Lauren Landy; David A Moscovitch; Tor D Wager; Joanna J Arch Journal: Emotion Date: 2017-03-30
Authors: Danny Valdez; Kristen N Jozkowski; Katherine Haus; Marijn Ten Thij; Brandon L Crawford; María S Montenegro; Wen-Juo Lo; Ronna C Turner; Johan Bollen Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Huimin Zhang; Yuhua Liao; Lan Guo; Ciyong Lu; Xue Han; Beifang Fan; Yifeng Liu; Leanna M W Lui; Yena Lee; Mehala Subramaniapillai; Lingjiang Li; Roger S McIntyre Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 7.076