Cited by 172Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Cognitive Bias Modification Using Mental Imagery for Depression: Developing A Novel Computerized Intervention to Change Negative Thinking Styles

Open access
Lang, Tamara J., Blackwell, Simon E., Harmer, Catherine J., Davison, Phil, Holmes, Emily A.·2012·European Journal of Personality

Abstract

Why do some people see their glass as half–empty rather than half–full or even imagine that the glass will be filled in the future? Experimental methods can illuminate how individual differences in information processing style can profoundly impact mood or even result in disorders such as depression. A computerized cognitive bias modification intervention targeting interpretation bias in depression via positive mental imagery (CBM–I) was evaluated by investigating its impact on mental health and cognitive bias compared with a control condition. Twenty–six depressed individuals completed either positive imagery–focussed CBM–I or a control condition daily at home over one week. Outcome measures were collected pre–treatment and post–treatment and at two–week follow–up. Individuals in the positive condition demonstrated significant improvements from pre–treatment to post–treatment in depressive symptoms, cognitive bias and intrusive symptoms compared with the control condition. Improvements in depressive symptoms at two–week follow–up were at trend level. The results of this first controlled comparison of positive imagery–focussed CBM–I for depression further support the clinical potential of CBM–I and the development of a novel computerized treatment that could help patients imagine a more positive future. Broader implications concern the modification of individual differences in personality variables via their interaction with key information processing targets. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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/per.855

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • Reducing interpretation bias resulted in reduced anxiety symptoms and depression levels in prior studies.

    “Results of these particular studies indeed showed that reducing interpretation bias resulted in reduced anxiety symptoms (Beard and Amir 2008) and depression levels (Blackwell and Holmes 2010; Lang et al. 2012).”

    From Mindfulness, Interpretation Bias, and Levels of Anxiety and Depression: Two Mediation Studies (2019) · cites this paper as Lang et al. 2012

    In Results (Post-treatment outcome analysis; page not provided), the positive CBM-I group showed reductions in interpretation bias and depressive symptoms compared with controls. Changes in bias and symptoms were correlated, but the authors say the small sample precluded mediation analysis. The paper therefore supports improvement in depression alongside reduced bias, not the stronger claim that reducing bias itself caused the improvement. The anxiety finding is attributed to Beard and Amir, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

1 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders — Patient edition (SCID-I/P, Version 2.0) 1996 New York Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lang, T. J., Blackwell, S. E., Harmer, C. J., Davison, P., & Holmes, E. A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Holmes, Emily A.
Venue
European Journal of Personality
Published
2012-03
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
145-157
ISSN
  • 0890-2070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0984
OpenAlex
W2103791298
Cited by
171
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 12
FWCI
17.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust Clinical Fellowship (WT088217)
  • Royal Society
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • Lupina Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, mental imagery, depression, interpretation bias, positive mental imagery, computer-based intervention, cognitive biases, intrusion symptoms, depressive symptoms, information processing style, individual differences

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