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

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Clinical Psychological Science Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-16 DOI:10.1177/21677026221103128
Jeremy W Eberle, Mehdi Boukhechba, Jianhui Sun, Diheng Zhang, Daniel H Funk, Laura E Barnes, Bethany A Teachman
{"title":"Shifting Episodic Prediction With Online Cognitive Bias Modification: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Jeremy W Eberle,&nbsp;Mehdi Boukhechba,&nbsp;Jianhui Sun,&nbsp;Diheng Zhang,&nbsp;Daniel H Funk,&nbsp;Laura E Barnes,&nbsp;Bethany A Teachman","doi":"10.1177/21677026221103128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Negative future thinking pervades emotional disorders. This hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial tested a four-session, scalable online cognitive bias modification program for training more positive episodic prediction. 958 adults (73.3% female, 86.5% White, 83.4% from United States) were randomized to positive conditions with ambiguous future scenarios that ended positively, 50/50 conditions that ended positively or negatively, or a control condition with neutral scenarios. As hypothesized (preregistration: https://osf.io/jrst6), positive training participants improved more than control participants in negative expectancy bias (<i>d</i> = -0.58), positive expectancy bias (<i>d</i> = 0.80), and self-efficacy (<i>d</i> = 0.29). Positive training was also superior to 50/50 training for expectancy bias and optimism (<i>d</i> = 0.31). Training gains attenuated yet remained by 1-month follow-up. Unexpectedly, participants across conditions improved comparably in anxiety and depression symptoms and growth mindset. Targeting a transdiagnostic process with a scalable program may improve bias and outlook; however, further validation of outcome measures is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":54234,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychological Science","volume":"11 5","pages":"819-840"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10513109/pdf/nihms-1806828.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221103128","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Negative future thinking pervades emotional disorders. This hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial tested a four-session, scalable online cognitive bias modification program for training more positive episodic prediction. 958 adults (73.3% female, 86.5% White, 83.4% from United States) were randomized to positive conditions with ambiguous future scenarios that ended positively, 50/50 conditions that ended positively or negatively, or a control condition with neutral scenarios. As hypothesized (preregistration: https://osf.io/jrst6), positive training participants improved more than control participants in negative expectancy bias (d = -0.58), positive expectancy bias (d = 0.80), and self-efficacy (d = 0.29). Positive training was also superior to 50/50 training for expectancy bias and optimism (d = 0.31). Training gains attenuated yet remained by 1-month follow-up. Unexpectedly, participants across conditions improved comparably in anxiety and depression symptoms and growth mindset. Targeting a transdiagnostic process with a scalable program may improve bias and outlook; however, further validation of outcome measures is required.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在线认知偏差修正的情景预测转换:一项随机对照试验。
消极的未来思维充斥着情绪障碍。这项混合疗效-有效性试验测试了一个四节课、可扩展的在线认知偏差修正程序,用于训练更积极的情景预测。958名成年人(73.3%为女性,86.5%为白人,83.4%来自美国)被随机分配到具有明确未来情景的阳性条件下,即以阳性或阴性结束的50/50条件下,或具有中性情景的对照条件下。如假设(预注册:https://osf.io/jrst6)在负预期偏差(d=-0.58)、正预期偏差(d=0.80)和自我效能感(d=0.29)方面,积极训练参与者比对照参与者改善得更多。在预期偏差和乐观度(d=0.31)方面,正面训练也优于50/50训练。训练增益减弱,但在1个月的随访中仍然存在。出乎意料的是,不同条件下的参与者在焦虑、抑郁症状和成长心态方面的改善程度相当。以可扩展程序为目标的跨诊断过程可以改善偏见和前景;然而,还需要进一步验证成果衡量标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychological Science
Clinical Psychological Science Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The Association for Psychological Science’s journal, Clinical Psychological Science, emerges from this confluence to provide readers with the best, most innovative research in clinical psychological science, giving researchers of all stripes a home for their work and a place in which to communicate with a broad audience of both clinical and other scientists.
期刊最新文献
Testing a Reward-Processing Model of Negative Urgency in Women With and Without Binge Eating Bias in the Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder Among Sexual- and Gender-Minority Persons: Results From a Vignette-Based Experiment Opening the Black Box: The Underlying Working Mechanisms in Virtual-Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety Disorders A Bayesian Longitudinal Network Analysis of Panic-Disorder Symptoms and Respiratory Biomarkers Additive Benefits of Individual, Relational, and Community Factors on Physical- and Mental-Health Trajectories Among Black Americans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1