Cited by 148Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health Interventions

Alcohol Cognitive Bias Modification training for problem drinkers over the web

Open access
Wiers, Reinout W., Houben, Katrijn, Fadardi, Javad S., van Beek, Paul, Rhemtulla, Mijke, Cox, W. Miles·2015·Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

Following successful outcomes of cognitive bias modification (CBM) programs for alcoholism in clinical and community samples, the present study investigated whether different varieties of CBM (attention control training and approach-bias re-training) could be delivered successfully in a fully automated web-based way and whether these interventions would help self-selected problem drinkers to reduce their drinking. Participants were recruited through online advertising, which resulted in 697 interested participants, of whom 615 were screened in. Of the 314 who initiated training, 136 completed a pretest, four sessions of computerized training and a posttest. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions (attention control or one of three varieties of approach-bias re-training) or a sham-training control condition. The general pattern of findings was that participants in all conditions (including participants in the control-training condition) reduced their drinking. It is suggested that integrating CBM with online cognitive and motivational interventions could improve results.

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 · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.08.010

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • ApBM is most likely to be effective when delivered alongside standard treatments, rather than as a stand-alone intervention.

    “the technique is most likely to be effective when delivered alongside standard treatments, rather than as a stand-alone intervention (Wiers et al., 2015).”

    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 Wiers et al., 2015

    The Discussion (page not provided) suggests that differences between active and control training may appear only when training supplements CBT or motivational enhancement therapy. It presents this as a possible explanation, not an established finding that ApBM is most likely to work alongside standard treatment; this study did not directly compare adjunctive and stand-alone delivery. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiers, R. W., Houben, K., Fadardi, J. S., van Beek, P., Rhemtulla, M., & Cox, W. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
Wiers, Reinout W.
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
40
Pages
21-26
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110861029
Cited by
148
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 3
FWCI
10.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (453‐08‐001, VICI 453-08-001)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-23-1269, RES-000-22-0314, RES-000-)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, alcohol consumption, problem drinkers, online intervention, computer-based training, online recruitment, alcohol consumption reduction, motivational interventions
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholism, Attention, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet

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