| 1. |
- Kruijt, Anne-Wil, et al.
(författare)
-
Mechanics of Contingency-Based Cognitive Bias Modification : Pre-Existing Bias Affects Potency of Active Training but Not Placebo Conditions
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Behavioural & Cognitive Therapies. - Tübingen : dgvt-Verlag. - 9783871598524 ; , s. 161-161
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) refers various computerized training protocols aimed at modifying individuals’ automatic information processing patterns (cognitive biases). CBM protocols are commonly regarded as potential new treatments, targeting cognitive biases believed to be involved in anxiety, depression, substance abuse, disordered eating, pain perception, insomnia, etc. Designed to reward response tendencies associated with more desired information processing patterns trough repeated practice, CBM tasks tend to rely on a (hidden) contingency between stimulus valence and response rewards. In CBM studies, active training conditions are typically contrasted with control conditions lacking the contingency, often called 50/50 placebo. This report focusses on the wide-spread, and intuitive, notion that pre-existing bias may affect the contingency experienced by an individual engaging in a 50/50 placebo control condition thereby inadvertently rendering the intended placebo condition more potent.Method: We employed probabilistic reasoning, presenting formulae to compute the probability for each type of trial to modify or consolidate an individuals initial response tendency. In addition, an interactive online visualization app has been made available.Results: Contrary to the often-forwarded notion, pre-existing bias cannot increase the potency of a 50/50 placebo condition. In contrast, we arrived at the unforeseen conclusion that lack of pre-existing bias may render an active training condition functionally similar to a placebo condition.Discussion: Our probabilistic arguments invite discussion of CBM’s implicitness assumption, as well as the ever more clearly emerging problem of information processing biases not being reliably observed in clinical populations whereas our arguments suggest that pre-existing bias is necessary for CBM to function in the manner that it is devised to function.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rozental, Alexander, et al.
(författare)
-
Targeting Procrastination Using Psychological Treatments : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Behavioural & Cognitive Therapies. - Tübingen : dgvt-Verlag. - 9783871598524 ; , s. 310-310
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Procrastination can be stressful and frustrating, but it seldom causes any major distress. However, for some people, it can become problematic, resulting in anxiety, lowered mood, physical complaints, and decreased well-being. Still, few studies have investigated the benefits of targeting procrastination. In addition, no attempt has previously been made to determine the overall efficacy of providing psychological treatments.Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching for eligible records in Scopus, Proquest, and Google Scholar. Only randomized controlled trials comparing psychological treatments for procrastination to an inactive comparator and assessing the outcomes by a self-report measure were included. A random effects model was used to determine the standardized mean difference Hedge’s g at post- treatment. Furthermore, test for heterogeneity was performed, fail-safe N was calculated, and the risk of bias was explored. The study was pre-registered at Prospero: CRD42017069981.Results: A total of 1639 records were identified, with twelve studies (21 comparisons, N = 718) being included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall effect size g when comparing treatment to control was 0.34, 95% Confidence Interval [0.11, 0.56], but revealing significant heterogeneity, Q(20) = 46.99, p < .00, and I2 = 61.14%, 95% CI [32.83, 84.24]. Conducting a subgroup analysis of three out of four studies using cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) found an effect size g of 0.55, 95% CI [0.32, 0.77], and no longer showing any heterogeneity, Q(4) = 3.92, p = 0.42, I2 = 0.00%, 95% CI [0.00, 91.02] (N = 236). Risk of publication bias, as assessed by the Egger’s test was not significant, z = -1.05, p = 0.30, fail-safe N was 370 studies, and there was some risk of bias as rated by two independent researchers. In terms of secondary outcomes, the self-report measures were too varied to present an aggregated estimate.Discussion: Psychological treatments seem to have small benefits on procrastination, but the studies displayed significant between-study variation. Meanwhile, CBT was associated with a moderate benefit, but consisted of only three studies. Recommendations for future research are provided, including the use of more valid and reliable outcomes and a screening interview at intake.
|
|
