Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Cognitive Therapy and Research 2/2021

21-10-2020 | Original Article

Which Variations of a Brief Cognitive Bias Modification Session for Interpretations Lead to the Strongest Effects?

Auteurs: Shari A. Steinman, Nauder Namaky, Sarah L. Toton, Emily E. E. Meissel, Austin T. St. John, Nha-Han Pham, Alexandra Werntz, Tara L. Valladares, Eugenia I. Gorlin, Sarai Arbus, Miranda Beltzer, Alexandra Soroka, Bethany A. Teachman

Gepubliceerd in: Cognitive Therapy and Research | Uitgave 2/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Background

Brief computerized programs that train less threatening interpretations (termed Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretations, or CBM-I) can shift interpretation biases and subsequent anxiety symptoms. However, results have been inconsistent, particularly for studies conducted over the Internet.

Methods

The current exploratory study tests 13 variations of a single brief session of CBM-I, a non-CBM-I cognitive flexibility condition, a neutral condition, and a no task control condition in an analogue sample with moderate to severe anxiety.

Results

Results suggest that all conditions, except the neutral scenarios condition and the alternative way to improve cognitive flexibility, led to changes in interpretations (when compared to the no task control condition). Only conditions geared toward increasing imagery during CBM-I and targeting flexibility related to emotional material differed from the no task control condition on other post-training measures.

Conclusions

Presenting valenced interpretations of ambiguous information during brief CBM-I, regardless of the format, can lead to changes in interpretation bias. However, most conditions did not differ from the no task control condition on other post-training assessments (and differences that did occur may be due to chance). Future trials should consider further testing of CBM-I that targets flexibility related to emotional material, and should include an increased number of sessions and trials.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Additional measures were included that are not discussed here, including assessments of imagery vividness and engagement with training scenarios. For more details, please contact the first author.
 
2
There were no differences in Cohen’s d comparing the analysis of all cases to complete cases for BBSIQ, positive RRT Change, or negative RRT Change. For ASSQ, the differences in Cohen’s d ranged from -0.05 to 0.13. For three conditions, 100% Positive, Imagery Only/Audio, and Implementation Intention, these small changes in effect size were enough to change the statistical significance of the finding, with the 95% confidence interval shifting from including zero to not including zero.
 
3
Thank you to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this analysis.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1997). An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(1), 49–58. CrossRef Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1997). An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(1), 49–58. CrossRef
go back to reference Clark, D. M., Salkovskis, P. M., Ost, L. G., Breitholtz, E., Koehler, K. A., Westling, B. E., Jeavons, A., & Gelder, M. (1997). Misinterpretation of body sensations in panic disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 203–213 Clark, D. M., Salkovskis, P. M., Ost, L. G., Breitholtz, E., Koehler, K. A., Westling, B. E., Jeavons, A., & Gelder, M. (1997). Misinterpretation of body sensations in panic disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 203–213
go back to reference Edwards, C., Portnow, S., Namaky, N., & Teachman, B. A. (in press). Cognitive Bias Modification and Priming Threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research. Edwards, C., Portnow, S., Namaky, N., & Teachman, B. A. (in press). Cognitive Bias Modification and Priming Threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research.
go back to reference Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 69–119): Academic Press: San Diego. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 69–119): Academic Press: San Diego.
go back to reference Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. CrossRef Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. CrossRef
go back to reference Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B. (2000). Induced emotional interpretation bias and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 602–615. CrossRef Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B. (2000). Induced emotional interpretation bias and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 602–615. CrossRef
go back to reference Parsons, S., Kruijt, A., & Fox, E. (2016). A cognitive model of psychological resilience. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 7(3), 296–310. CrossRef Parsons, S., Kruijt, A., & Fox, E. (2016). A cognitive model of psychological resilience. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 7(3), 296–310. CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Which Variations of a Brief Cognitive Bias Modification Session for Interpretations Lead to the Strongest Effects?
Auteurs
Shari A. Steinman
Nauder Namaky
Sarah L. Toton
Emily E. E. Meissel
Austin T. St. John
Nha-Han Pham
Alexandra Werntz
Tara L. Valladares
Eugenia I. Gorlin
Sarai Arbus
Miranda Beltzer
Alexandra Soroka
Bethany A. Teachman
Publicatiedatum
21-10-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer US
Gepubliceerd in
Cognitive Therapy and Research / Uitgave 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0147-5916
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-020-10168-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2021

Cognitive Therapy and Research 2/2021 Naar de uitgave