Internet-based interpretation bias modification for social anxiety: A pilot study
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Relatively few studies have tested the clinical utility of IBM in reducing social anxiety among clinical samples.
“Unlike research on ApBM, relatively few studies have tested the clinical utility of IBM in reducing social anxiety among clinical samples (Amir and Taylor, 2012; Brettschneider et al., 2015; Brosan et al., 2011; Salemink and Wiers, 2014).”
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 Brettschneider et al., 2015
Some Internet-delivered IBM studies show clinically significant improvement in social anxiety symptoms, with 48% of participants no longer meeting criteria for social anxiety disorder after 8 IBM sessions.
“with some showing clinically significant improvement in social anxiety symptoms (e.g., 48% of participants no longer met criteria for social anxiety disorder after 8 IBM sessions; Brettschneider 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 Brettschneider et al., 2015
Internet-delivered IBM training sessions can significantly shift interpretations from negative to positive among clinical samples in Europe.
“Several studies among clinical samples in Europe have additionally shown that Internet-delivered IBM training sessions can significantly shift interpretations from negative to positive (Brettschneider et al., 2015; Salemink et al., 2014)”
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 Brettschneider et al., 2015
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