↓ Skip to main content

How to Boost Positive Interpretations? A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
165 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to Boost Positive Interpretations? A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0100925
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Menne-Lothmann, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Petra Höhn, Zuzana Kasanova, Simone P. Haller, Marjan Drukker, Jim van Os, Marieke Wichers, Jennifer Y. F. Lau

Abstract

The current meta-analysis explores the strength of effects of cognitive bias modification training for interpretation bias (CBM-I) on positive (i.e., adaptive) interpretations and mood as well as the training and sample characteristics influencing these effects. Data-bases were searched with the key words "interpret* bias AND training" and "interpret* bias AND modif*". Reference lists of identified articles were checked and authors of identified articles were contacted for further relevant articles and unpublished data. Studies were reviewed for inclusion with eligibility criteria being that the study (a) aimed to target interpretation biases through any kind of training, (b) assessed mood and/or interpretation bias as outcome measures, (c) allocated individuals to training conditions at random, and (d) recruited adult samples. A meta-analytic multilevel mixed-effects model was employed to assess standardized mean changes in interpretation bias, negative mood, and emotional reactivity. In addition, several training and sample characteristics were explored for their potential to enhance benign training effectiveness. On average, benign CBM-I resulted in an increase in positive interpretation bias (p<.01) and a decrease in negative mood state (p<.001), but did not affect emotional reactivity. These effects were not consistently different from control conditions with no or neutral training. However, within benign training conditions imagery instructions and more training sessions were related to larger cognitive and mood effects, whereas feedback about training performance and inclusion of non-benign training items (instead of including benign items only) boosted cognitive effects only. Finally, training was more effective in women (cognitive and mood effects) and presumably samples with symptomatic emotional dysregulation (cognitive effects). Although the effects of emotional dysregulation and number of training sessions could not well be distinguished, there is an indication that when used with imagery instructions and more training sessions, benign CBM-I can be employed as a useful complementary treatment to usual psychotherapies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Croatia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 223 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 23%
Student > Bachelor 35 16%
Student > Master 34 15%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 36 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 144 64%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Sports and Recreations 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 46 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2023.
All research outputs
#6,132,837
of 24,631,014 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#84,138
of 212,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,893
of 232,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,213
of 4,403 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,631,014 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,403 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.