Cited by 32Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Internet-based interpretation bias modification for social anxiety: A pilot study

Brettschneider, Mona, Neumann, Pauline, Berger, Thomas, Renneberg, Babette, Boettcher, Johanna·2015·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives The biased interpretation of ambiguous social situations is considered a maintaining factor of Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD). Studies on the modification of interpretation bias have shown promising results in laboratory settings. The present study aims at pilot-testing an Internet-based training that targets interpretation and judgmental bias. Method Thirty-nine individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for SAD participated in an 8-week, unguided program. Participants were presented with ambiguous social situations, were asked to choose between neutral, positive, and negative interpretations, and were required to evaluate costs of potential negative outcomes. Participants received elaborate automated feedback on their interpretations and judgments. Results There was a pre-to-post-reduction of the targeted cognitive processing biases (d = 0.57-0.77) and of social anxiety symptoms (d = 0.87). Furthermore, results showed changes in depression and general psychopathology (d = 0.47-0.75). Decreases in cognitive biases and symptom changes did not correlate. The results held stable accounting for drop-outs (26%) and over a 6-week follow-up period. Forty-five percent of the completer sample showed clinical significant change and almost half of the participants (48%) no longer met diagnostic criteria for SAD. Limitations As the study lacks a control group, results lend only preliminary support to the efficacy of the intervention. Furthermore, the mechanism of c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.04.008

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 32

Authors
Brettschneider, M., Neumann, P., Berger, T., Renneberg, B., & Boettcher, J.
Affiliations
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Boettcher, Johanna
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
49
Issue
Pt A
Pages
21-29
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W226076623
Cited by
32
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
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
social anxiety disorder, interpretation bias modification, online intervention, ambiguous social situations, automated feedback, judgment bias, depression, treatment feasibility
MeSH terms
Formative Feedback, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Phobic Disorders, Pilot Projects, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Bias, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Internet, 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