NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ992800
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2012-Dec
Pages: 13
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 63
ISSN: ISSN-0022-006X
A Comparison of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation and Computerized Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Effects on Anxiety, Depression, Attentional Control, and Interpretive Bias
Bowler, Jennifer O.; Mackintosh, Bundy; Dunn, Barnaby D.; Mathews, Andrew; Dalgleish, Tim; Hoppitt, Laura
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v80 n6 p1021-1033 Dec 2012
Objective: Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) and cognitive bias modification for interpretation (CBM-I) both have demonstrated efficacy in alleviating social anxiety, but how they compare with each other has not been investigated. The present study tested the prediction that both interventions would reduce anxiety relative to a no-intervention comparison condition, but CBM-I would be particularly effective at modifying threat-related cognitive bias under high mental load. Method: Sixty-three primarily Caucasian adults (mean age = 22.7, SD = 5.87; 68.3% female) with high social anxiety, randomly allocated to 3 groups: CBM-I (n = 21), cCBT (n = 21), and a no-intervention control group (n = 21) provided complete data for analysis. Pre- and postintervention (4 sessions lasting 2 weeks, control participants only attended the pre-post sessions) self-report measures of anxiety, depression, attentional control, and threat-related interpretive bias were completed. In addition, interpretive bias under high versus low cognitive load was measured using the Scrambled Sentences Test. Results: Both CBM-I and cCBT groups reported significantly reduced levels of social anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression and improved attentional control, relative to the control group, with no clear superiority of either active intervention. Although both active conditions reduced negative bias on the Scrambled Sentences Test completed under mental load, CBM-I was significantly more effective at doing so. Conclusions: The results suggest that although not differing in therapeutic efficacy, CBM-I and cCBT might differ in the resilience of their effects when under mental load. (Contains 3 tables and 3 figures.)
American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A