(PS2-A10) Examining Cognitive Styles Maintaining Social Anxiety and Depression: What Is Shared and What Is Distinct?

People with higher social anxiety (SA) are at an increased risk of developing depression (DEP), and comorbid SA and DEP affects all areas of well-being and functioning. Although SA and DEP are conceptualized as separate disorders, their high co-occurrence suggests shared processes that contribute to the maintenance and severity of SA and DEP. For example, negative cognitive styles (e.g., inflexible thoughts and expectations) are core to our understanding of SA, DEP, and SA-DEP; however, the content and context of these thoughts and expectations likely differs and may be symptom-specific. More research is needed to compare the array of negative cognitive processes maintaining SA and DEP.

We examined these associations among a high-risk group of cisgender women (N = 112; approximately 50% met criteria for SA disorder). We used linear regression analyses to test associations between symptoms of DEP, social interaction anxiety (SIA), social performance anxiety (SPA), and four negative cognitive styles including cognitive (in)flexibility, stress-reactive rumination, dysfunctional attitudes, and rejection sensitivity. Follow-up tests evaluated which cognitive styles and diagnostic symptom sets were linked.

Results demonstrated that DEP, SIA, and SPA were not significantly associated with cognitive (in)flexibility (F(3,93) = 0.17, p</em> < .05, R2 = .01). In the full model, DEP was significantly associated with dysfunctional attitudes (F(3,101) = 19.61, p< .05, R2 = .37; β=.74, p< .05); however, when DEP was removed from the model, SIA was significantly associated with dysfunctional attitudes (F(2, 102) = 18.05, p< .05, R2 = .26; β=.59, p< .05). DEP was significantly associated with stress reactive rumination (F(3,99) = 15.71 , p< .05. R2 = .32; β=14.38, p< .05); however, neither SIA nor SPA were significant in follow-up tests (F(2,100) = 10.02 p</em> < .05, R2 = .17). Finally, SIA was significantly associated with rejection sensitivity (F(3,100) = 4.71 , p< .05, R2 = .12; β=.12, p< .05). When SIA was removed from this model, SPA was significantly associated with rejection sensitivity (F(2,101) = 4.26 , p< .05, R2 = .08; β=.10, p< .05).

Taken together, results support the specificity of key cognitive styles that maintain DEP (i.e., dysfunctional attitudes and stress reactive rumination) and SA (i.e., rejection sensitivity), while suggesting that dysfunctional attitudes may reflect a shared cognitive style for both DEP and SIA. We will carefully review limitations to the generalizability of our findings on cognitive styles. In particular, these results may not apply to marginalized identities (e.g., non-cisgender, non-White racial/ethnic individuals) who experience disproportionate levels of discrimination that have negative impacts on cognition broadly, irrespective of affective problems. Future work is needed to help differentiate the harmful cognitive impacts of discrimination from cognitive styles characteristic of SIA and DEP. An improved understanding of person- and subgroup-specific differences in cognitive styles among individuals with SA, DEP, and SA-DEP may reveal important factors that exacerbate and maintain DEP among people with higher SIA and support more personalized approaches to cognitive restructuring.