(PS9-A24) Differences in Attentional Indicators Within Social Exclusion Contexts in Social Anxiety and Depression

Anxiety and mood disorders are prevalent and often comorbid (Kessler et al., 2012). Thus, it is important to evaluate overlapping and unique symptoms that exist across these disorders. There is an array of cognitive impairments associated with these concerns, including biased attention in interpersonal contexts (e.g., exclusion within social anxiety and depression). However, literature has largely not directly compared the cognitive influences of different types of social exclusion in those with anxiety- and mood-related symptoms. The current project documents the impact of different forms of exclusion on attention demonstrated by those with social anxiety (SA) and depression.

A sample of 45 participants (78.3% female; M=21.78 years, SD=5.16; 80.4% Caucasian; 89.1% Non-Hispanic) completed the SIAS (M=38.13, SD=15.07; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) and the PHQ-9 (M=8.31, SD=6.64; Kroenke, 2001) prior to one of two exclusion tasks as well as modified dot-probe tasks. Participants completed counterbalanced series of either the inclusion and exclusion versions of Cyberball (Williams & Jarvis, 2006) or positive and negative feedback versions of a written rejection task (adapted from Lipton et al., 2020). At baseline, post-inclusion/positive feedback, and post-exclusion/negative feedback, participants completed a dot-probe that provided reaction times to target probes (Rodgers et al., 2020). Within this dot-probe, trials represented either disengagement or engagement with emotional facial stimuli as well as either shifting or focusing across the screen to respond to the target’s orientation.

A 2 SA (Clinically-Elevated, Subthreshold) by 2 Manipulation (Ostracism, Rejection) by 3 Time (Baseline, Post-Inclusion, Post-Exclusion) by 4 Attention Index (Disengagement/Focus [DF], Disengagement/Shift [DS], Engagement/Focus [EF], Engagement/Shift [ES]) ANOVA controlling for depression was conducted to detect modulations in reaction times. A significant main effect of Attention Index (F[2.01,80.42]=19.01, p< .001) demonstrated that reaction times on the DS trials (M=0.76) were significantly slower than on DF trials (M=0.69), the EF trials (M=0.68), and the ES trials (M=0.67) as well as that reaction times on the DF trials were significantly slower than the EF trials. A marginally significant three-way SA by Manipulation by Time interaction (F[2,80]=3.22, p=.056) also demonstrated that for those who had clinically-elevated SA, those who completed Cyberball demonstrated faster reaction times post-exclusion (M=0.67) relative to baseline (M=0.69) when controlling for depression.
These results suggest that individuals broadly may demonstrate differences in abilities to manage attention when influenced by emotional stimuli and social contexts. Moreover, there may be distinct effects that emerge for those with SA when depressive symptoms are accounted for. This is in line with existing research suggesting that those with SA may demonstrate facilitated and rapid attention to engage with emotional, socially-salient information (e.g., Grafton & MacLeod, 2016) as well as that those with SA may experience biased attentional impacts due to ostracism specifically (e.g., Heeren et al., 2012).