Cognition and Emotion

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20

Social impression formation and depression:

examining cognitive flexibility and bias

Wisteria Deng, Tyrone D. Cannon & Jutta Joormann

To cite this article: Wisteria Deng, Tyrone D. Cannon & Jutta Joormann (2023) Social impression
formation and depression: examining cognitive flexibility and bias, Cognition and Emotion,
37:1, 137-146, DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2023.2165043

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2023.2165043

View supplementary material

Published online: 06 Jan 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 303

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcem20
COGNITION AND EMOTION
2023, VOL. 37, NO. 1, 137–146
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2023.2165043

BRIEF ARTICLE

Social impression formation and depression: examining cognitive

flexibility and bias
Wisteria Deng , Tyrone D. Cannon and Jutta Joormann
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Depression is associated with a bias toward negative interpretations of social Received 26 September 2022
situations and resistance to integrating evidence consistent with positive Revised 18 December 2022
interpretations. These features could contribute to social isolation by generating Accepted 30 December 2022
negative expected value for future social interactions. The present study examined
KEYWORDS
potential associations between depressive symptoms and positive (i.e. trust and Cognitive inflexibility; social
liking) and negative (i.e. distrust and disliking) social impression formation of impression; interpersonal
individuals who previously appeared in positive or negative contexts. Participants relationship; context
(N = 213) completed the Interpretation Inflexibility Task and were subsequently insensitivity
asked to provide social impression ratings of characters from each scenario type of
the task (i.e. positive and negative) as well as characters not previously
encountered. In examining social impression formation, higher severity of
depressive symptoms was associated with higher negative social impression
ratings regardless of scenario outcome, as well as lower positive social impression
ratings, but only for characters who previously appeared in positive contexts.
Those higher in depression also rated novel characters as significantly more
unlikeable and untrustworthy and to an equivalent degree as the characters
previously encountered. These findings suggest a role of negative interpretation
bias and inflexibility in contributing to negative evaluations of potential social
interaction partners in depression.

One of depression’s most pernicious features is reluc-
tance to engage in activities, in particular social inter-
action, that are potentially pleasurable. Social
isolation, in turn, likely contributes to the mainten-
ance of depressed mood, as in a vicious cycle (Hu
et al., 2022). Given the potential salutary effects of
social interaction, understanding the mechanisms
underlying low social interest and engagement in
depression is crucial for developing interventions
that could harness interactions with others in the
service of elevating mood and maintaining euthymia.
Viewed within a reinforcement learning/predictive
modelling framework, reduced social interest and
engagement in depression can be conceptualised as
reflecting a state in which the rewarding qualities of
social interaction are devalued. That is, in those with
depression, social stimuli, rather than predicting posi-
tive reward value, may be predictive of negative
reward value, thereby inhibiting engagement (Silk
et al., 2012). In this formulation, the key question
becomes, what factors drive the prediction of nega-
tive reward value of social interaction in those with
depression?
Prior work has shown that when interpreting
ambiguous emotional stimuli, individuals with
depression exhibit strong initial biases (priors) for
negative interpretations (Joormann & Gotlib, 2010)
and reduced integration of evidence disconfirming
negative interpretations, while also showing
intact (or even enhanced) integration of evidence

CONTACT Wisteria Deng wisteria.deng@yale.edu Department of Psychology, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT
06520, USA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2023.2165043.
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
138 W. DENG ET AL.
disconfirming positive interpretations (Deng et al.,
2022; Everaert et al., 2018). How these biases affect
social impression formation and social behaviour in
depression has not yet been determined empirically.
In general, negative interpretations of past inter-
actions frequently prompt the formation of negative
impressions about people involved in those inter-
actions (Denrell, 2005). Such negative biases in
social perception may be especially accentuated in
depression (Silk et al., 2012), contributing to social
withdrawal and perpetuating negative social
impressions and depressed mood (Derntl et al.,
2011). Indeed, studies examining social functioning
in depression have suggested an importance of
understanding biased impression formation in
depression (Haim-Nachum & Levy-Gigi, 2021). It has
been theorised that even as other people display
good intentions and initiate social interaction with
positive outcomes, depression-prone individuals
may maintain initial negative impressions and experi-
ence difficulty forming positive impressions (Hames
et al., 2013). While a theoretical connection between
biased social impression formation and interpretation
inflexibility in depression has been established,
empirical research is needed to test this proposed
relationship.
If negative interpretation bias and inflexibility in
evaluating ambiguous socioemotional contexts con-
tribute to a negative expected value of future social
interaction, they are likely to do so by associative pro-
cesses in which individuals present in those contexts
come to be viewed in a negative light. Specifically,
the perception of other people’s trustworthiness
and liking can affect one’s expectations regarding
whether future social interactions with them will be
experienced as rewarding (Denrell, 2005; Soygüt &
Savaşir, 2001). Individuals higher in depression
expect less complimentary responses from others in
friendly situations and rate the expected responses
of others as more undesirable than those lower in
depression (Soygüt & Savaşir, 2001). Perceiving
oneself as unlikable may result in the anticipation of
social rejection and the subsequent need for exces-
sive reassurance seeking in depression (Stewart &
Harkness, 2017), whereas perceiving others as
untrustworthy interferes with recognising others’
positive feedback and revising negative social
impressions accordingly (Li et al., 2019). As individuals
with depressive symptoms question the credibility of
positive feedback and disregard other positive social
cues (e.g. perceiving happy faces as less engaging)
(Radke et al., 2014), they may be more likely to main-
tain both a negative view of self and negative expec-
tations of future social interactions.
The impression formation process, especially the
judgment of another person’s character, relies
heavily on prior knowledge about how that person
acts in interpersonal contexts (Rogers, 2018).
However, because depressed individuals show a
negative interpretation bias for both negative and
positive emotional stimuli (Feeser et al., 2013) as
well as an asymmetric deficit in resolving ambiguous
scenarios toward more positive interpretations (Deng
et al., 2022; Everaert et al., 2018), they are more likely
to retain negative evaluations of prior interpersonal
contexts and thereby negative expectations of
future interactions with others who were present in
those contexts, regardless of whether the scenarios
involved objectively positive or negative outcomes.
The present study utilised the Interpretation
Inflexibility Task as a platform for examining the
relationships between depression, interpretation
bias and flexibility, and social impression formation.
After rating interpretations of initially ambiguous
social situations that resolved toward a negative or
a positive outcome, participants viewed faces of ancil-
lary characters from the scenarios (as well as new
faces not previously encountered) and rated the char-
acters’ trustworthiness and likelihood of compliment-
ing them in a future interaction, as well as the inverses
of these characteristics, likelihood of plotting against
them and disliking them. In particular, we aimed to
test if there is an interaction effect between
depression severity and IIT scenario emotional
valence (positive, negative and foils) on social
impression ratings. Based on the foregoing, we pre-
dicted that both depressive symptoms and interpret-
ation inflexibility would be associated with more
negative social impressions (i.e. perceiving distrust
and dislike from others), regardless of whether the
scenario resolved to a positive or negative outcome.
We also expected to replicate previous findings of a
bias and difficulties revising the bias (i.e. inflexibility)
among individuals with depressive symptoms.
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 213) were recruited via Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online crowdsourcing
platform that provides access to a large and diverse

sample for mental health research studies (demo-
graphics: see Supplement Table 1). Participation in
this study was restricted to MTurk users who were
18 years or older and lived in the United States.
Data quality
Following recommendations for research using
crowdsourced samples, the study only recruited
MTurk users who had a history of providing good-
quality responses. Participants were required to
have completed at least 500 MTurk studies and to
have had their work approved (vs. rejected) in 98%
of the studies they completed previously on MTurk.
In addition, three questions were included to discrimi-
nate attentive from inattentive participants. These
questions were presented at random intervals and
participants were required to answer all three cor-
rectly. Consistent with previous research, one partici-
pant was excluded from all analyses because they
completed the survey in less than 60% of the pro-
jected time (< 27 min). The projected time was deter-
mined by taking the average time of completion from
a previous MTurk study using the same task (Deng
et al., 2022). Research using a similar approach (e.g.
requiring a history of good quality response) has
demonstrated that MTurk data are comparable to
those collected in the laboratory.
Measures
Interpretation inflexibility task
The Interpretation Inflexibility Task (IIT) is a validated,
picture-based task assessing individuals’ belief inflexi-
bility and interpretation bias in social and emotional
scenarios (Deng et al., 2022). The IIT consists of 24
scenarios depicting interpersonal situations, each is
gradually revealed to the respondents in three
stages: with 80% of the photo blurred, 20% of the
photo blurred and the original photo with no blurring
effects. The blurred region was selected with the goal
of obscuring the emotional valence of a given scen-
ario. By gradually reducing the percentage of the
photo that is blurred, the respondent receives more
information that may help to resolve the initially
ambiguous situation.
Two types of scenarios were included in the IIT to
examine whether interpretation inflexibility differed
according to the valence of the new evidence. An
example positive outcome scenario is shown in
Figure 1 (top). In this example, each of the three
COGNITION AND EMOTION 139
pictures that make up the scenario (panels 1a-1c)
reveal more information about the scenario, culminat-
ing in panel 1c, which encourages a positive interpret-
ation. An example negative outcome scenario of the
IIT is also shown in Figure 1 (panels 2a-2c). Each of
the three pictures (panels 2a-2c) reveals more infor-
mation about the scenario, culminating in panel 2c,
which prompts a negative interpretation. For each
of the three pictures, four possible interpretations of
the depicted scenario were presented to participants,
who were asked to rate the plausibility of each
interpretation. Interpretations include 1 Absurd, 2
Lures, and 1 True interpretation for each scenario.
For example, the IIT scenario depicted in Figure 1(a,
b), and 1c is followed by an absurd interpretation
(“People discuss the smell of the field”), two lure
interpretations (“People stop you from starting a
fight” and “People are making fun of you”), and a
true interpretation (“People celebrate what a great
player you are”). Participants were instructed to
imagine each scenario as if they were an observer in
the situation and could see it through their own
eyes. It is also worth highlighting that while there is
a “true” interpretation for every scenario, whether par-
ticipants have endorsed the “true” interpretation at
the last stage is less important. Instead, the task was
designed to capture how the likelihood ratings
change for each statement across the stages of
disambiguation.
Social impression formation
After completing the IIT, participants were asked to
rate the trustworthiness of selected IIT characters
and to rate how much they thought these characters
like them. These ratings were acquired 30 min after
the IIT. As a manipulation check, participants were
also asked if they recognised the characters as
having appeared before (in the IIT).
In this task, participants were shown a total of 24
faces, 18 of which were previously shown IIT charac-
ters whose faces were cropped from their individual
IIT scenarios (see Figure 2), 9 from each emotional
valence condition (i.e. positive vs. negative outcome
scenarios). The chosen characters were never the
main character that was blurred in the IIT. Instead,
they appeared in a context that was gradually disam-
biguated and became increasingly emotional. To
control for depression-related baseline levels of trust-
worthiness and liking, 6 foils were included showing
novel faces that had not been part of the IIT. The 6
foils were stock photos from the same series (i.e.
140 W. DENG ET AL.
Figure 1. Example IIT scenarios, with gradual unblurring to achieve the disambiguation of emotional information.
produced by the same artist on the same website) as
the IIT pictures but had not been selected as a task
scenario during the IIT development.
For each of the faces, participants were asked to
imagine being in a social interaction with the
depicted character, and rate on a 7-point Likert scale
(ranging from 1, “very unlikely” to 7, “very likely”)
how likely it is to (1) receive a compliment from the
character; (2) trust the character; (3) be disliked by
the character and (4) be plotted against by the charac-
ter. The latter two ratings were used to control for the
valence of question framing (i.e. emphasising
Figure 2. Example Post-IIT social impression item.
negative characteristics rather than positive as in the
first two). Scores of positive and negative social
impressions were calculated respectively by aver-
aging items 1 and 2 (i.e. liking and trustworthiness
for positive), items 3 and 4 (i.e. dislike and distrust
for negative) together.
Beck depression inventory-II (BDI-II)
The BDI-II (Beck et al., 1996) is a well-established 21-
item self-report measure of depressive symptom
severity over the past two weeks. Participants rate
the degree to which they have experienced each

symptom on a four-point scale (from 0 to 3). The BDI-II
has overall good reliability and validity (Richter et al.,
1998). The internal consistency of the BDI-II in this
study was ωtotal = .96. This measure was included
because previous research using the IIT suggests
that depressive symptom severity is related to inflexi-
bility of interpretations above and beyond interpret-
ation bias (Deng et al., 2022).
Procedure
All participants gave informed consent in accord-
ance with the Yale University Institutional Review
Board. Participants completed a survey which
began with demographic questions followed by
the IIT items, which were presented in randomised
order. Participants then completed the BDI-II and
other individual differences measures, before
giving ratings based on their impression of social
characters. Upon completion of the survey, partici-
pants were debriefed and received remuneration
(6 USD).
Data analysis
Based on participants’ performance during the IIT, the
following computational approach was employed to
capture (a) initial interpretation bias and (b) within-
person revision of prior interpretations (Deng et al.,
2022). An interpretation bias score was calculated at
each of the three stages for the 24 IIT scenarios, by
taking the additive inverse of the true statement
plausibility rating divided by the average of the
endorsement ratings for the two lures. In particular,
the initial interpretation bias was represented by the
bias score at stage 1 (i.e. the first picture of each IIT
scenario). Using the interpretation bias scores at
each stage, the interpretation flexibility index was cal-
culated by taking the Root Mean Square of Successive
Differences (RMSSD) that captures moment-to-
moment fluctuations in interpretation bias as a
proxy for positive or negative interpretation inflexi-
bility (as derived from scenarios with positive or nega-
tive emotional valences). Higher RMSSD values
represent high moment-to-moment variability and
suggest flexibility in revising an initial (biased)
interpretation. By contrast, low RMSSD values rep-
resent low moment-to-moment variability and
reflect inflexibility in revising an initial interpretation
bias based on novel information provided by the IIT
scenarios. The following formula was applied to
COGNITION AND EMOTION 141
calculate the interpretation flexibility index for each
scenario.
Interpretation flexibility index


















































 (bias score stage 3 − bias score stage 2)2 +

 (bias score stage 2 − bias score stage 1)2
=
2
The analytic plan aimed to address two primary
objectives: (a) replicate previous findings of negative
bias and inflexibility in depression, associating
depression severity with difficulty endorsing positive
outcomes, independent of initial interpretation bias;
(b) test the relation between depressive symptoms
and social impression formation (i.e. measured by
the perception of others’ trustworthiness and liking),
especially how such relations are affected by prior
exposure to these characters in a positive or negative
social context (compared to the foils). First, to
examine whether previously observed relations
between interpretation inflexibility and depression
replicate in this sample, multiple regression models
were built testing whether interpretation bias and
inflexibility uniquely explained variation in depressive
symptoms. For each scenario type, regression models
were tested separately with depression as the depen-
dent variable. In each model, interpretation bias and
inflexibility (negative or positive, depending on the
scenario outcomes) were simultaneously entered
into the regression equation as the independent
variables.
For the second part of the study, impression
ratings for characters previously shown in the IIT scen-
arios were categorised according to valence – positive
impression (trustworthiness and liking) vs. negative
impression (distrust and dislike). In addition,
emotional valence of the IIT scenarios was taken
into account (faces taken from positive vs. negative
outcome scenarios of the IIT vs. foils). Mixed effects
regression models were built with social impression
ratings as the dependent variable, depression severity
(as measured by the BDI scores) as a between-subject
factor, and valence of the ratings (positive vs. nega-
tive), as well as valence of IIT scenario outcomes (posi-
tive vs. negative) as within-subject factors.
Assumptions of homoscedasticity and normality of
residuals were met for all analyses. Collinearity stat-
istics were within acceptable limits (VIF’s < 1.21, Toler-
ance’s > .83).
142 W. DENG ET AL.

Results for both positive and negative outcome scenarios,

Sample characteristics
Participants’ BDI-II scores (M = 10.05, SD = 11.87) rep-
resented varying symptom severity across the spec-
trum: 147 respondents reported minimal (range: 0–
13), 16 reported mild (range: 14–19), 25 reported
moderate (range: 20–28), and 25 reported severe
(range: 29–58) depressive symptoms. The observed
BDI-II scores enabled this study to examine the
relations between social impression formation and
depressive symptoms along broad continua of
symptom severity. For this study, the BDI-II scores
are included as a continuous variable in all analyses.
Interpretation inflexibility in depression
Replicating prior work, zero-order correlations
showed that depression severity was significantly cor-
related with higher negative interpretation bias and
lower positive interpretation bias. In addition,
depression severity was associated with interpret-
ation inflexibility, but only the correlation with endor-
sing positive outcomes was significant, not for
negative outcomes (Table 1).
In regression models with both interpretation bias
and inflexibility predicting symptoms of depression,
flexibility predicts depressive symptoms even after
controlling for variation in biases (Table 2).
Depressive symptoms and social impression
ratings
A mixed effects model was built with impression
ratings as the dependent variable, valence of
impression (positive/negative) and IIT scenarios (posi-
tive/negative) as the within-subject variables, and
depressive symptoms as the between-subject inde-
pendent variable. All three main effects were signifi-
cant, with more negative social impressions
associated with depression, negative framing of the
character rating, and negative outcome scenarios.
Depressive symptoms also interacted significantly
with each of the within-subject factors. Given that
there was a trend for a three-way interaction effect
among depression severity, valence of impression
ratings, and valence of IIT scenario outcomes (t =
−1.91, SE = .01, p = .057; Table 3), we focused on
decomposing this higher-order effect for purposes
of display and interpretation.
Figure 3 plots the relationships between depress-
ive symptoms and character ratings by valence of
scenario outcomes, separately for positive and

Table 1. Correlation matrix between depression and belief updating indices.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Depression -.18** −.12 −.24** .23** −.11 −.01 .33** .30**
2. Positive IFI − .54** .02 −.15* .15* −.42** −.10 −.21**
3. Negative IFI - −.12 −.08 −.01 −.30** −.22** −.13
4. PIB - −.37** .19** −.20** .21** −.22**
5. NIB - −.16* .22** −.09 .17*
6. Liking and trust (positive outcome scenario) - −.10 .79** 0.04
7. Liking and trust (negative outcome scenario) - .07 .85**
8. Dislike and distrust (positive outcome scenario) - .01
9. Dislike and distrust (negative outcome scenario) -
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. PIB = positive interpretation bias, NIB = negative interpretation bias, IFI = interpretation flexibility index.

Table 2. Regression models examining the relation among depressive symptoms, interpretation bias and inflexibility.
Dependent variables Component b SEb β t p-value R2
Depressive symptoms
Constant 12.98 5.72 2.27 .024 .125
Flexibility (P) −3.86 1.65 −.16 −2.34 .020
PIB −8.77 3.37 −.18 −2.60 .010
NIB 6.87 3.39 .14 2.03 .044
Constant 12.22 5.72 2.14 .034 .118
Flexibility (N) −2.66 1.33 −.13 −2.00 .047
PIB −9.54 3.42 −.20 −2.79 .006
NIB 7.19 3.39 .15 2.12 .035
Note. Flexibility (P) = interpretation flexibility index from positive outcome scenarios, Flexibility (N) = interpretation flexibility index from nega-
tive outcome scenarios, PIB = positive interpretation bias, NIB = negative interpretation bias.
 COGNITION AND EMOTION 143

Table 3. Effects of depressive symptom severity, emotion valence of bias as covariates in the regression model). No signifi-
impression ratings (Positive vs. Negative) and of IIT scenario cant interactions were found between impression
outcomes on total ratings of social impression.
ratings or depression severity and participants’
Dependent variable: ratings of social impression
memory of the characters. In other words, our
Predictors Estimates CI p
finding on the interaction between depression sever-
(Intercept) 6.29 5.79–6.78 <0.001
Depressive symptoms −0.05 −0.08 – −0.02 0.001 ity and impression ratings is not dependent on the
Valence of impression −2.18 −2.48 – −1.87 <0.001 differential recognition of the characters.
ratings
Valence of IIT scenario −0.79 −1.02 – −0.57 <0.001
outcomes Discussion
Depressive symptoms * 0.04 0.02–0.06 <0.001
Valence of This study had two aims: (a) replicating previous
impression ratings
Depressive symptoms * 0.01 −0.00–0.03 0.065 findings that show a bias and difficulties revising the
Valence of IIT bias (i.e. inflexibility) among individuals with depress-
scenario ive symptoms; (b) examining the relation between
Valence of impression 0.49 0.35–0.63 <0.001
ratings * Valence of depressive symptoms and social impression for-
IIT scenario mation for characters that previously appeared in
Depressive symptoms * −0.01 −0.02–0.00 0.057 positive or negative contexts (or were foils). We repli-
Valence of
impression ratings * cated prior work in showing that both bias and inflexi-
Valence of IIT bility, in both positive and negative outcome
scenario scenarios, predicted depressive symptoms. In examin-
Random Effects
σ 2
0.63 ing social impression formation, higher severity of
τ00 subject 0.27 depressive symptoms was associated with higher
ICC 0.30 negative social impression ratings for all characters,
N subject 213
Observations 1278 as well as lower positive social impression ratings
Marginal R2 / 0.242 / 0.469 (only for characters appeared in positive contexts).
Conditional R2 While inflexibility in both positive and negative
outcome scenarios predicted depressive symptoms
negative impression ratings. Overall, compared with in regression models that also account for interpret-
those lower in depression, individuals with higher ation biases, the zero-order correlation was only sig-
depressive symptoms gave significantly higher nificant between depressive symptoms and
ratings of negative characteristics (distrust and inflexibility in adapting to positive outcomes. Previous
dislike), regardless of scenario outcome. This pattern work has shown that depression is more consistently
is attenuated and inverted for ratings of positive associated with difficulties revising existing beliefs
characteristics (trustworthiness and liking), on which and adapting to positive (vs. negative) outcomes
more severe depressive symptoms were associated (Deng et al., 2022) – which is in line with our
with lower positive ratings, but only significantly so findings. More work is needed to examine positive
for characters who previously appeared in positive and negative belief revisioning respectively, especially
contexts. Stated another way, whereas the positive given the relevance of emotional context in studying
and negative character ratings of those lower in inflexibility in depression. On a similar note, while
depression were graded according to scenario depression severity was linked with both diminished
valence (e.g. higher positive ratings and lower positive impressions for characters from a positive
negative ratings for characters from scenarios with context and exaggerated negative impressions for
positive outcomes), character ratings for those all characters, the association between depressive
higher in depression showed no such gradations; symptoms and increased negative social impressions
rather, regardless of scenario outcome, ratings of is especially consistent across studies (Flett et al.,
those higher in depression converged toward the 2014; Pearson et al., 2010). Prior work showed a scen-
profile of foils (not previously encountered) who ario-based negative bias in depression, which
were viewed as dislikeable and likable, untrustworthy prompts an individual to interpret social scenarios
and trustworthy, to equivalent degrees. All as negative regardless of their outcome. Adding on
findings remained significant adjusting for initial to the existing literature, this study revealed that
interpretation bias (i.e. including initial interpretation negative social impressions persist despite prior,
144 W. DENG ET AL.

Figure 3. Interaction effects between depression severity and IIT scenario emotional valence (positive, negative and foils) on social impression
ratings. Regression lines are plotted at predicted values from mixed effect regressions of character ratings by depression, impression valence,
and scenario context, with standard errors of predicted values, adjusting for initial interpretation bias.

positive contexts the depicted characters were seen
in. The finding on social impression formation furthers
our understanding of negative bias in depression –
such bias not only exists in scenario-specific interpret-
ations, but also generalises to form poor social
impressions of the characters, an interpretation sup-
ported by the equivalency of negative ratings for
foils (characters not previously encountered) and
characters from both positive and negative outcome
scenarios for those higher in depression.
Furthermore, in responding to the novel characters
(i.e. foils) and characters from negative contexts, there
was only a significant association between depressive
symptoms and increased negative ratings (e.g. distrust
and dislike), not decreased positive ratings (e.g. trust
and liking). This finding supports existing research
that posits trust and distrust as two distinct concepts
(Van De Walle & Six, 2014). In other words, positive
and negative social impressions are not just two
ends of the same continuum, but two distinct con-
cepts that may coexist and create uncertainty to
social situations (Van De Walle & Six, 2014). While
the ability to form positive social impressions may
be at least partially intact in individuals with depress-
ive symptoms (Segarra et al., 2016), they are also sus-
ceptible to forming negative impressions about these
characters. The competing beliefs about other charac-
ters and conflicting expectations of interpersonal
encounters may accentuate the uncertainty of social
outcomes among individuals with depressive symp-
toms. Coupled with the intolerance of uncertainty in
depression (i.e. responding to uncertain situations
with worry and rumination), mixed impressions of
others can discourage individuals from future social
interactions, perpetuate repetitive negative thoughts
and hamper social functioning (Carleton et al., 2012).
The study is not without limitations. While partici-
pants were prompted to imagine interacting with
characters depicted in the task, certain scenarios
may be less relatable to some participants, creating
potential difficulty to imitate real-life social inter-
actions with the characters. While the characters

selected display a wide range of emotions to taper the
impacts of bias against specific emotions (e.g. bias
against a face displaying sadness) on impression
ratings, the valence of the stimuli (i.e. the emotions
the characters are showing) may still confound the
findings. Future work is needed to establish a baseline
impression rating for each stimulus in the general
population. In addition, the design of the current
study did not allow for examining impression updat-
ing over time. Longitudinal studies can tap into the
persistence or stability of these social impressions
with follow-up measurements after a greater time
lapse. In the same vein, future in-person studies can
explore the valence of social impressions when indi-
viduals are in an emotion-laden context, such as a
threatened state. Moreover, while the present study
measured impression ratings for non-IIT characters
(i.e. foil ratings), the limited number of foils may
hinder the interpretability of foil ratings as the base-
line level of social impressions. Future research may
collect impression ratings of more foil characters
before participants complete the IIT, so as to establish
a baseline level of positive vs. negative impressions of
novel characters.
In addition to cognitive bias and inflexibility in
belief updating, individual differences in personality
may play a crucial role in facilitating the transition
from event-specific interpretations to generalised
social impressions. Higher levels of self-esteem, for
example, may influence one’s expectations of other
characters’ action in social settings, prompting expec-
tations of compliments and less anticipation of dislike
(Orth et al., 2014). Further exploration of individual
differences as moderators between depression and
negative social impressions can provide novel
targets for behavioural interventions (e.g. building
self-efficacy as a means to encourage social
engagement).
While numerous interventions for depression aim
at bolstering positive anticipations and modifying
negative expectations about the self and the future
(Horwitz et al., 2017), a focus on reevaluating negative
social impressions of others could be beneficial.
Specifically, early intervention for individuals with
subclinical depressive symptoms could involve chal-
lenging their anticipation of social rejections, building
a sense of trust in others as well as training social skills
to perceive others’ intention with less negative bias
(e.g. emotion labelling, mindful observations)
(Elsayed et al., 2021; Seshadri et al., 2021). Considering
the motivational deficits and aberrant cognitive effort
COGNITION AND EMOTION 145
allocation in depression (Treadway, 2016), the inflexi-
bility in social interpretations and impression for-
mation may also be related to a higher subjective
cost of the cognitive effort involved in belief
revisioning.
In sum, our findings highlight that individuals with
depressive symptoms experience difficulty not only in
endorsing scenario-specific positive interpretations,
but also in integrating positive contextual information
and revising negative social impressions. Our findings
underline the impacts of negative belief inflexibility
on social impression formation, noting the need for
challenging negative social impressions as a potential
target for intervention.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the
work featured in this article.
ORCID
Wisteria Deng http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6563-7772
Tyrone D. Cannon http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5632-3154
References
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. F. (1996). Comparison
of Beck Depression Inventories-IA and-II in Psychiatric
Outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(3), 588–
597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_13
Carleton, R. N., Mulvogue, M. K., Thibodeau, M. A., McCabe, R. E.,
Antony, M. M., & Asmundson, G. J. (2012). Increasingly certain
about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety
and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(3), 468–479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.01.011
Deng, W., Everaert, J., Creighton, M., Bronstein, M. V., Cannon, T.,
& Joormann, J. (2022). Developing a novel assessment of
interpretation flexibility: Reliability, validity and clinical impli-
cations. Personality and Individual Differences, 190, 111548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111548
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me:
Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological
Review, 112(4), 951–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.
112.4.951
Derntl, B., Seidel, E. M., Eickhoff, S. B., Kellermann, T., Gur, R. C.,
Schneider, F., & Habel, U. (2011). Neural correlates of social
approach and withdrawal in patients with major depression.
Social Neuroscience, 6(5-6), 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17470919.2011.579800
Elsayed, N. M., Vogel, A. C., Luby, J. L., & Barch, D. M. (2021).
Labeling emotional stimuli in early childhood predicts
146 W. DENG ET AL.
neural and behavioral indicators of emotion regulation in late
adolescence. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and
Neuroimaging, 6(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.
2020.08.018
Everaert, J., Bronstein, M. V., Cannon, T. D., & Joormann, J. (2018).
Looking through tinted glasses: Depression and social
anxiety are related to both interpretation biases and
inflexible negative interpretations. Clinical Psychological
Science, 6(4), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2167702617747968
Feeser, M., Schlagenhauf, F., Sterzer, P., Park, S., Stoy, M.,
Gutwinski, S., Dalanay, U., Kienast, T., Bauer, M., Heinz, A.,
Strohle, A., & Bermpohl, F. (2013). Context insensitivity
during positive and negative emotional expectancy in
depression assessed with functional magnetic resonance
imaging. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 212(1), 28–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.11.010
Flett, G. L., Besser, A., & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). Perfectionism and
interpersonal orientations in depression: An analysis of vali-
dation seeking and rejection sensitivity in a community
sample of young adults. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and
Biological Processes, 77(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1521/
psyc.2014.77.1.67
Haim-Nachum, S., & Levy-Gigi, E. (2021). To be or not to be
flexible: Selective impairments as a means to differentiate
between depression and PTSD symptoms. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 136, 366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpsychires.2021.02.015
Hames, J. L., Hagan, C. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2013). Interpersonal pro-
cesses in depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9
(1), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-
050212-185553
Horwitz, A. G., Berona, J., Czyz, E. K., Yeguez, C. E., & King, C. A.
(2017). Positive and negative expectations of hopelessness
as longitudinal predictors of depression, suicidal ideation,
and suicidal behavior in high-risk adolescents. Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 47(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.
1111/sltb.12273
Hu, H. X., Jiang, S. Y., Shan, H. D., Chu, M. Y., Lv, Q. Y., Yi, Z. H., Lui,
S. S. Y., Cheung, E. F. C., & Chan, R. C. K. (2022). Negative
belief-updating bias for positive daily life events in individ-
uals with schizophrenia and social anhedonia. Cognitive
Neuropsychiatry, 27(4), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13546805.2021.2014309
Joormann, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2010). Emotion regulation in
depression: Relation to cognitive inhibition. Cognition &
Emotion, 24(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02699930903407948
Li, C., Liu, D., & Dong, Y. (2019). Self-esteem and problematic
smartphone use among adolescents: A moderated mediation
model of depression and interpersonal trust. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 2872. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.
02872
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., Widaman, K. F., & Conger, R. D. (2014). Is
low self-esteem a risk factor for depression? Findings from a
longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. Developmental
Psychology, 50(2), 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0033817
Pearson, K. A., Watkins, E. R., & Mullan, E. G. (2010). Submissive
interpersonal style mediates the effect of brooding on
future depressive symptoms. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 48(10), 966–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.
2010.05.029
Radke, S., Guths, F., Andre, J. A., Muller, B. W., & de Bruijn, E. R.
(2014). In action or inaction? Social approach-avoidance ten-
dencies in major depression. Psychiatry Research, 219(3), 513–
517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.07.011
Richter, P., Werner, J., Heerlein, A., Kraus, A., & Sauer, H. (1998).
On the Validity of the Beck Depression Inventory.
Psychopathology, 31(3), 160–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/
000066239
Rogers, K. B. (2018). Do you see what I see? Testing for individual
differences in impressions of events. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 81(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0190272518767615
Segarra, N., Metastasio, A., Ziauddeen, H., Spencer, J., Reinders,
N. R., Dudas, R. B., Arrondo, G., Robbins, T. W., Clark, L.,
Fletcher, P. C., & Murray, G. K. (2016). Abnormal frontostriatal
activity during unexpected reward receipt in depression
and schizophrenia: Relationship to anhedonia.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 41(8), 2001–2010. https://doi.
org/10.1038/npp.2015.370
Seshadri, A., Orth, S. S., Adaji, A., Singh, B., Clark, M. M., Frye, M.
A., McGillivray, J., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2021).
Mindfulness-Based cognitive therapy, acceptance and com-
mitment therapy, and positive psychotherapy for major
depression. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 74(1), 4–12.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20200006
Silk, J. S., Davis, S., McMakin, D. L., Dahl, R. E., & Forbes, E. E.
(2012). Why do anxious children become depressed teen-
agers? The role of social evaluative threat and reward proces-
sing. Psychological Medicine, 42(10), 2095–2107. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0033291712000207
Soygüt, G., & Savaşir, I. (2001). The relationship between inter-
personal schemas and depressive symptomatology. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 48(3), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-0167.48.3.359
Stewart, J. G., & Harkness, K. L. (2017). Testing a revised interper-
sonal theory of depression using a laboratory measure of
excessive reassurance seeking. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 73(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.
22338
Treadway, M. T. (2016). Current topics in behavioral neuro-
sciences. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 27,
337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2015_400
Van De Walle, S., & Six, F. (2014). Trust and distrust as distinct
concepts: Why studying distrust in institutions is important.
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and
Practice, 16(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.
2013.785146