Cited by 109Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Internet-Based Attention Bias Modification for Social Anxiety: A Randomised Controlled Comparison of Training towards Negative and Training Towards Positive Cues

Open access
Boettcher, Johanna, Leek, Linda, Matson, Lisa, Holmes, Emily A., Browning, Michael, MacLeod, Colin, Andersson, Gerhard, Carlbring, Per·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Biases in attention processes are thought to play a crucial role in the aetiology and maintenance of Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD). The goal of the present study was to examine the efficacy of a programme intended to train attention towards positive cues and a programme intended to train attention towards negative cues. In a randomised, controlled, double-blind design, the impact of these two training conditions on both selective attention and social anxiety were compared to that of a control training condition. A modified dot probe task was used, and delivered via the internet. A total of 129 individuals, diagnosed with SAD, were randomly assigned to one of these three conditions and took part in a 14-day programme with daily training/control sessions. Participants in all three groups did not on average display an attentional bias prior to the training. Critically, results on change in attention bias implied that significantly differential change in selective attention to threat was not detected in the three conditions. However, symptoms of social anxiety reduced significantly from pre- to follow-up-assessment in all three conditions (dwithin = 0.63-1.24), with the procedure intended to train attention towards threat cues producing, relative to the control condition, a significantly greater reduction of social fears. There were no significant differences in social anxiety outcome between the training condition intended to induce attentional bias towards positive cues and the control condition. To our knowledge, this is the first RCT where a condition intended to induce attention bias to negative cues yielded greater emotional benefits than a control condition. Intriguingly, changes in symptoms are unlikely to be by the mechanism of change in attention processes since there was no change detected in bias per se. Implications of this finding for future research on attention bias modification in social anxiety are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01463137.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0071760

Cites

82 of 82 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?

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
Boettcher, J., Leek, L., Matson, L., Holmes, E. A., Browning, M., MacLeod, C., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Boettcher, Johanna
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-09-30
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
e71760
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977127560
Cited by
109
References
81
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2
FWCI
18.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DiVA (Stockholm University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Forskningsrådet för Arbetsliv och Socialvetenskap
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
attentional bias modification, social anxiety disorder, online intervention, attentional bias, selective attention, threat cues, dot-probe task, cognitive training, mechanisms of change
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Attention, Cues, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, 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