Effects of standard and explicit cognitive bias modification and computer-administered cognitive-behaviour therapy on cognitive biases and social anxiety

Abstract

Background and objectivesThis study examines the effects of a single session of Cognitive Bias Modification to induce positive Interpretative bias (CBM-I) using standard or explicit instructions and an analogue of computer-administered CBT (c-CBT) program on modifying cognitive biases and social anxiety.MethodsA sample of 76 volunteers with social anxiety attended a research site. At both pre- and post-test, participants completed two computer-administered tests of interpretative and attentional biases and a self-report measure of social anxiety. Participants in the training conditions completed a single session of either standard or explicit CBM-I positive training and a c-CBT program. Participants in the Control (no training) condition completed a CBM-I neutral task matched the active CBM-I intervention in format and duration but did not encourage positive disambiguation of socially ambiguous or threatening scenarios.ResultsParticipants in both CBM-I programs (either standard or explicit instructions) and the c-CBT condition exhibited more positive interpretations of ambiguous social scenarios at post-test and one-week follow-up as compared to the Control condition. Moreover, the results showed that CBM-I and c-CBT, to some extent, changed negative attention biases in a positive direction. Furthermore, the results showed that both CBM-I training conditions and c-CBT reduced social anxiety symptoms at one-week follow-up.LimitationsThis study used a single session of CBM-I training, however multi-sessions intervention might result in more endurable positive CBM-I changes.ConclusionsA computerised single session of CBM-I and an analogue of c-CBT program reduced negative interpretative biases and social anxiety.

Asymmetrical transfer effects of cognitive bias modification: Modifying attention to threat influences interpretation of emotional ambiguity, but not vice versa

“…Previous research (White et al., 2011) has only demonstrated this transfer effect with attentional training to attend to threat; the present results suggest that in high anxious individuals, attentional training to avoid threat (and attend to non-threat stimuli) could impact on both their attentional and interpretive bias. However, contrary to previous research (Amir et al., 2010, Mobini et al., 2014), the demonstrated transfer effects were not reciprocal, and interpretive training (CBM-I) did not aid attentional avoidance of threat stimuli over neutral stimuli.…”

“…However, these models might also predict that modifying interpretive bias should impact upon attentional bias (given the shared mechanism underlying them). Although there is some evidence suggesting this to be the case (Amir et al., 2010, Mobini et al., 2014), we were not able to replicate this finding in the present study. This could be due to methodological differences between the studies.…”

“…That is, it might be that biases in attention precede and subsequently influence interpretive bias in a downstream manner (Ouimet, Gawronski, & Dozois, 2009), with the influence of interpretive processing on upstream attentional processing being more difficult. Two studies have tested the impact of modifying interpretive bias on attentional bias (Amir et al., 2010, Mobini et al., 2014). Consistent with a common mechanism hypothesis (in which modifying either bias impacts on a central mechanism related to the other bias) modifying threat-related interpretive bias did have an impact upon threat-related attentional bias.…”

“…We therefore concentrated on positive (non-threat focussed) CBM (multiple sessions of either CBM-A or CBM-I) in a high anxious sample, enabling us to address the applied question of whether either CBM-A or CBM-I has broader effects on the cognitive biases underpinning anxiety, and as such whether one or the other might be most beneficial to use therapeutically, a question that is currently unanswered. The present study aimed to replicate previous findings that CBM-A modifies interpretive selectivity (White et al., 2011) and CBM-I modifies attentional selectivity (e.g., Amir et al., 2010, Mobini et al., 2014), and develop these findings by testing the comparative transfer effects of neutral CBM on alleviating threat-related attentional and interpretive biases. We sought to further understand the relationship between attentional and interpretive selectivity by training one group of participants to interpret emotional ambiguity in a positive direction (using CBM-I) and another group to focus their attention on non-threat (as opposed to threat-related) stimuli (CBM-A).…”

Modifying Obsessive-Compulsive Beliefs about Controlling One’s Thoughts

“…Moreover, although the internal validity of the study was increased by not informing the participants that the training was intended to differentially impact their beliefs and behaviors, this design feature limits the generalizability of the findings to clinical contexts, where an individual would be aware of the aim of training. Interestingly, some recent research suggests that the explicit versus implicit nature of instructions does not impact the efficacy of CBM-I (Mobini et al 2014). The use of a non-clinical sample also limits clinical generalizability; however, findings from analogue samples are still informative, as OCD has been shown to be a dimensional disorder .…”