Cited by 124Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Combined cognitive bias modification treatment for social anxiety disorder: a pilot trial

Open access
Beard, Courtney, Weisberg, Risa B., Amir, Nader·2011·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) is a promising treatment for Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD). However, previous randomized trials have not systematically examined the combination of CBM for attention (CBM-A) and interpretation (CBM-I) or the credibility and acceptability of these protocols. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (N = 32) to examine the efficacy of a CBM treatment called Attention and Interpretation Modification (AIM) for SAD. AIM comprised eight, twice weekly computer sessions with no therapist contact. During AIM, participants (1) completed a dot probe task in which probes always followed neutral faces when paired with a disgust face, thereby directing attention away from threat and (2) completed a word-sentence association task in which they received positive feedback for making benign interpretations of word-sentence pairs and negative feedback for making negative interpretations. We also assessed participants' perceived credibility of and satisfaction with AIM. RESULTS: Participants receiving AIM reported significantly reduced self-reported (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale) symptoms of social anxiety relative to the placebo. These gains were also evident on a behavioral measure (performance on an impromptu speech). AIM met our benchmarks for credibility and acceptability in this community sample, although credibility ratings were modest. Participants reported that CBM-I was more helpful than CBM-A. CONCLUSIONS: A combined CBM treatment produced medium-to-large effects on social anxiety. Participants rated AIM as moderately credibly and acceptable. Should these findings be replicated in larger samples, AIM has the potential to be a widely accessible and efficacious treatment for SAD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.20873

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trial repetition, boredom, and disengagement are serious concerns for CBM training.

    “Trial repetition, boredom, and disengagement are serious concerns for CBM training (Beard et al., 2011).”

    From Acceptability and Co-Development of an Online Cognitive Bias Modification Intervention for Emerging Adults With Hazardous Alcohol Use and Social Anxiety: A Mixed Methods Study (2020) · cites this paper as Beard et al., 2011

    The Introduction reports patient comments that CBM-A may have limited acceptability because it is boring, and the Discussion recommends making the task more engaging. The Methods describe repeated practice as necessary for training, but the paper does not identify trial repetition itself as a problem or establish disengagement as a serious concern; the Discussion says participants were mostly satisfied. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This level of training in either ApBM or IBM is feasible to provide and has been associated with significant improvements in alcohol use and anxiety in extant literature.

    “This level of training in either ApBM or IBM is feasible to provide and has been associated with significant improvements in alcohol use and anxiety in extant literature, respectively (Amir and Taylor, 2012; Beard and Amir, 2008; Beard et al., 2011; Eberl et al., 2013; Eberl et al., 2014).”
  • Only a handful of studies have examined the effects of mindfulness on cognitive biases.

    “Even though Beard et al. (2011) lists mindfulness training as a CBM exercise, only a handful of studies have examined the effects of mindfulness on cognitive biases.”

    From Mindfulness Training Alters Emotional Memory Recall Compared to Active Controls: Support for an Emotional Information Processing Model of Mindfulness (2012) · cites this paper as Beard et al., 2011

    The Methods section describes CBM attention and interpretation tasks, but does not list mindfulness training as a CBM exercise. A search for mindfulness and for studies of its effects on cognitive biases found no passage addressing either point. The sentence attributes the exercise classification to Beard et al.; its statement about the number of mindfulness studies is not clearly attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]Beard C Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) for Anxiety: Current Evidence and Future Directions. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics in press PMC3092585 21306216
  2. [14]First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders - patient edition (SCID-I/PI, version 2.0) 1996 Biometrics Research Department New York
  3. [16]Heimberg RG Liebowitz MR Hope DA Schneier FR Holt CS Welkowitz LA Cognitive Behavioral Group Therapy vs Phenelzine Therapy for Social Phobia. Archives of General Psychiatry 1998 55 1133 41 9862558

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beard, C., Weisberg, R. B., & Amir, N.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
Corresponding author
Beard, Courtney
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Published
2011-09-02
Volume
28
Issue
11
Pages
981-988
ISSN
1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060608730
Cited by
124
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F32MH083330, R01MH087623, R34MH077129, MH083330)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, social anxiety disorder, attentional bias modification, interpretation bias modification, dot-probe task, treatment credibility, treatment acceptability, computerized cognitive training, speech performance
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Pilot Projects, Placebos, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review