Cited by 391Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Positive Interpretation Training: Effects of Mental Imagery Versus Verbal Training on Positive Mood

Holmes, Emily A., Mathews, Andrew, Dalgleish, Tim, Mackintosh, Bundy·2006·Behavior Therapy

Abstract

Therapists often assume a special association between mental imagery and emotion, though empirical evidence has been lacking. Using an interpretation training paradigm, we previously found that imagery had a greater impact on anxiety than did verbal processing of the same material (Holmes & Mathews, 2005). Although the finding of a differential impact of imagery versus verbal processing of negative material was replicated, findings did not extend to benign material. Results therefore left open the question of whether there may be a special association between imagery and positive emotion. The current experiment examined positive interpretation training. Numerous scenarios were presented with initial ambiguity as to positive outcome or not, with final information then yielding consistently positive resolutions. Participants were asked to either imagine these positive events or to listen to the same descriptions while thinking about their verbal meaning. Those participants in the imagery condition reported greater increases in positive affect and rated new descriptions as being more positive than did those in the verbal condition. Results suggest that positive training can be enhanced through imagery as opposed to verbal processing. This study also provides the first test of a standardized intervention using an "interpretive bias training" paradigm to improve positive mood.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beth.2006.02.002

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holmes, E. A., Mathews, A., Dalgleish, T., & Mackintosh, B.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Holmes, Emily A.
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-09
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
237-247
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997912580
Cited by
391
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 20
FWCI
13.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
mental imagery, verbal processing, positive mood, interpretation training, positive affect, emotion regulation, cognitive training intervention, ambiguous scenarios
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Cognition, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Practice, Psychological, Reference Values, Set, Psychology, Verbal Learning, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Imagery, Psychotherapy, Mood Disorders

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