Adapting cognitive bias modification to train healthy prospection

Abstract

Prospection, the mental simulation of future events, has been theoretically linked to physical and mental health. Prior studies have found that prospection is malleable; however, no research to our knowledge has tested whether a scalable intervention explicitly targeting the simulation of positive future outcomes can lead to more generalized positive prospection, and enhance positive outlook and reduce distress. The current study tested a novel, web-based cognitive bias modification for interpretation (CBM-I) program designed to shift prospective bias towards more positive (as opposed to negative) representations of future outcomes among 172 participants selected for having a relatively negative baseline expectancy bias. Results showed that following CBM-I, participants in active training conditions exhibited more positive expectations about the future, and increased self-efficacy and growth mindset. Also, optimism increased and depression and anxiety symptoms decreased following active training, but this also occurred for the control condition. Analyses did not suggest that changes in positive expectations mediated changes in positive outlook outcomes. Results suggest that an online prospection intervention can lead to more positive expectations about future events and improve positive outlook, though open questions remain about what accounts for the training effects.

Shifting Episodic Prediction With Online Cognitive Bias Modification: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…The superior improvements in expectancy bias and two out of the three trait measures of positive outlook in the positive conditions (relative to the control and/or 50/50 conditions) in the present study are broadly consistent with the results of Namaky et al (2021). In both studies, participants in the positive conditions increased in positive expectancy bias and self-efficacy significantly more than control participants.…”

“…All five of these participants are included in subsequent analyses because before enrolling in the study they had checked a box confirming they were at least 18 years of age. Lothmann et al, 2014) and that other studies based on the ambiguous scenarios paradigm have shown effects with four or fewer sessions (e.g., Bowler et al, 2012;Namaky et al, 2021).…”

“…Participants were asked to complete four training sessions (two per week, 2-4 days apart), following Namaky et al (2021). This number of sessions was chosen given that CBM-I studies with multiple sessions have shown larger effects than studies with one session (Menne-1 Two participants reported birth years of 1900 and 2017 and are excluded from this mean and standard deviation.…”

“…Expectancy bias was assessed with a modified Expectancy Bias Task (Namaky et al, 2021), a reading judgment task that assesses tendencies to expect positive or negative events.…”

“…To assess eligibility at screening, a relative expectancy bias index score was computed by subtracting the mean perceived likelihood of the four negative events (absolute negative bias) from that of the four positive events (absolute positive bias); in this way, the score accounts for expectations of positive and negative events simultaneously. Eligible participants had index scores below a 1.1111 cutoff, determined by subtracting 0.5 standard deviations from the mean (1.65, SD = 1.08) relative expectancy bias index scores for 776 college students (see Namaky et al, 2021). This meant that participants' biases were more negative than those of nearly 70% of the prior sample, but not necessarily negative at an absolute level.…”