Cited by 162Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Confusing procedures with process when appraising the impact of cognitive bias modification on emotional vulnerability

Open access
Grafton, Ben, MacLeod, Colin, Rudaizky, Daniel, Holmes, Emily A., Salemink, Elske, Fox, Elaine, Notebaert, Lies·2017·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Summary If meta-analysis is to provide valuable answers, then it is critical to ensure clarity about the questions being asked. Here, we distinguish two important questions concerning cognitive bias modification research that are not differentiated in the meta-analysis recently published by Cristea et al (2015) in this journal: (1) do the varying procedures that investigators have employed with the intention of modifying cognitive bias, on average, significantly impact emotional vulnerability?; and (2) does the process of successfully modifying cognitive bias, on average, significantly impact emotional vulnerability? We reanalyse the data from Cristea et al to address this latter question. Our new analyses demonstrate that successfully modifying cognitive bias does significantly alter emotional vulnerability. We revisit Cristea et al's conclusions in light of these findings.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.176123

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Some attention bias modification projects have been limited by small sample sizes and poor trial methodology.

    “Unfortunately, some projects have been limited by small sample sizes and poor trial methodology [20–23].”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy preceded by an experimental Attention Bias Modification procedure in recurrent depression: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2018) · cites this paper as [20]

    In “Implications and future directions” (page not provided), the paper says some attention-bias modification procedures were delivered through less rigorous approaches, particularly in uncontrolled home environments. It does not identify small sample sizes as a limitation, so that part of the claim is unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Poor outcomes of conventional ABM may be explained by deficient training procedures, such as failure to modify the target process of reducing pre-existing AB in orienting towards threat.

    “Poor outcomes may be explained by deficient training procedures: if ABM threat-avoidance training fails to modify its target process (i.e., reduce pre-existing AB in orienting towards threat), this could explain its failure to reduce anxiety [5,8,16,17].”
  • The co-occurrence of reductions in anxiety and AB measures during ABM training is compatible with a causal role of AB in anxiety.

    “Several studies have found that reductions in anxiety and AB measures co-occurred during ABM training, which is compatible with a causal role of AB in anxiety [5,8,17].”
  • Several studies have found that reductions in anxiety and AB measures co-occurred during ABM training.

    “Several studies have found that reductions in anxiety and AB measures co-occurred during ABM training, which is compatible with a causal role of AB in anxiety [5,8,17].”

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
Grafton, B., MacLeod, C., Rudaizky, D., Holmes, E. A., Salemink, E., Fox, E., & Notebaert, L.
Affiliations
The University of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Grafton, Ben
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2017-11
Volume
211
Issue
5
Pages
266-271
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2765605003
Cited by
160
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Autoritatea Natională pentru Cercetare Stiintifică (DP140103713, DP140104448)
  • Unitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si Inovarii (DP140104448, DP140103713)
  • Medical Research Council (MRC-A060-5PR50)
  • Australian Research Council (DP170104533)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (324176)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, emotional vulnerability, meta-analysis reanalysis, reanalysis critique
MeSH terms
Affective Symptoms, Humans, Psychotherapeutic Processes, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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