Which variations of a brief cognitive bias modification session for interpretations lead to the strongest effects?

Internet anxiety cognition cognitive bias modification information processing

Journal

Cognitive therapy and research
ISSN: 0147-5916
Titre abrégé: Cognit Ther Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7707273

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Historique:
entrez: 26 7 2021
pubmed: 27 7 2021
medline: 27 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 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
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 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34305206
doi: 10.1007/s10608-020-10168-3
pmc: PMC8297881
mid: NIHMS1639958
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

367-382

Subventions

Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH113752
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R34 MH106770
Pays : United States

Références

Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:281-305
pubmed: 27019398
Behav Res Ther. 2007 Jul;45(7):1517-29
pubmed: 17349970
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 26;9(6):e100925
pubmed: 24968234
J Anxiety Disord. 2016 Aug;42:71-84
pubmed: 27376634
JMIR Ment Health. 2019 Oct 24;6(10):e11841
pubmed: 31651410
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;206(1):7-16
pubmed: 25561486
Behav Ther. 2010 Mar;41(1):73-81
pubmed: 20171329
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:53-81
pubmed: 26772208
Depress Anxiety. 2006;23(4):245-9
pubmed: 16688739
Behav Ther. 2006 Sep;37(3):237-47
pubmed: 16942975
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;49(Pt A):53-60
pubmed: 25579609
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;38(2):225-36
pubmed: 17141179
Cogn Emot. 2020 Jun;34(4):783-792
pubmed: 31650889
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:167-95
pubmed: 17716086
Behav Res Ther. 1995 Mar;33(3):335-43
pubmed: 7726811
Psychol Bull. 2011 Nov;137(6):940-58
pubmed: 21728399
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;7(6):506-514
pubmed: 32445689
Emotion. 2014 Aug;14(4):761-8
pubmed: 24749642
J Abnorm Psychol. 2000 Nov;109(4):602-15
pubmed: 11195984
Behav Res Ther. 1997 Jan;35(1):49-58
pubmed: 9009043
J Anxiety Disord. 2010 Jan;24(1):71-8
pubmed: 19747797
Addiction. 2006 Nov;101(11):1546-60
pubmed: 17034434
J Affect Disord. 2014 Jan;152-154:212-8
pubmed: 24113076
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013 Oct;81(5):793-9
pubmed: 23750459
Behav Res Ther. 2014 Jan;52:45-52
pubmed: 24317281
Dev Sci. 2009 Nov;12(6):978-90
pubmed: 19840052
Behav Res Ther. 2014 Dec;63:25-35
pubmed: 25277496
J Affect Disord. 2017 Dec 1;223:175-183
pubmed: 28759865
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Jun;82(3):404-17
pubmed: 24588406
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;14(9):418-24
pubmed: 20655801
Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 15;76(4):274-80
pubmed: 24755493
Span J Psychol. 2017 Oct 26;20:E54
pubmed: 29072159
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2010 Jun;41(2):140-4
pubmed: 19962127
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;49(Pt A):120-7
pubmed: 25841654

Auteurs

Shari A Steinman (SA)

West Virginia University.

Nauder Namaky (N)

University of Virginia.

Sarah L Toton (SL)

Caveon Test Security.

Emily E E Meissel (EEE)

San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology.

Austin T St John (ATS)

University of Virginia.

Nha-Han Pham (NH)

University of Virginia.

Alexandra Werntz (A)

University of Virginia.

Tara L Valladares (TL)

University of Virginia.

Eugenia I Gorlin (EI)

Yeshiva University.

Sarai Arbus (S)

University of Virginia.

Miranda Beltzer (M)

University of Virginia.

Alexandra Soroka (A)

University of Virginia.

Bethany A Teachman (BA)

University of Virginia.

Classifications MeSH