Negative future thinking pervades emotional disorders. This hybrid efficacy–effectiveness trial tested a four-session, scalable online cognitive-bias-modification program for training more positive episodic prediction. Nine hundred fifty-eight adults (73.3% female, 86.5% White, 83.4% from United States) were randomly assigned to positive conditions with ambiguous future scenarios that ended positively, 50/50 conditions that ended positively or negatively, or a control condition with neutral scenarios. As hypothesized (preregistration: https://osf.io/jrst6), positive-training participants improved more than control participants in negative expectancy bias (d = −0.58), positive expectancy bias (d = 0.80), and self-efficacy (d = 0.29). Positive training was also superior to 50/50 training for expectancy bias and optimism (d = 0.31). Training gains attenuated yet remained by 1-month follow-up. Unexpectedly, participants across conditions improved comparably in anxiety and depression symptoms and growth mindset. Targeting a transdiagnostic process with a scalable program may improve bias and outlook; however, further validation of outcome measures is required.
BatterhamP. J.NeilA. L.BennettK.GriffithsK. M.ChristensenH. (2008). Predictors of adherence among community users of a cognitive behavior therapy website. Patient Preference and Adherence, 2, 97–105.
4.
BeckA. T.BrownG.SteerR. A.EidelsonJ. I.RiskindJ. H. (1987). Differentiating anxiety and depression: A test of the cognitive content-specificity hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96(3), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.96.3.179
5.
BeckerK. D.ChorpitaB. F.DaleidenE. L. (2011). Improvement in symptoms versus functioning: How do our best treatments measure up?Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0332-x
6.
BlackwellS. E.BrowningM.MathewsA.PictetA.WelchJ.DaviesJ.WatsonP.GeddesJ. R.HolmesE. A. (2015). Positive imagery-based cognitive bias modification as a web-based treatment tool for depressed adults: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614560746
7.
BlackwellS. E.HolmesE. A. (2010). Modifying interpretation and imagination in clinical depression: A single case series using cognitive bias modification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1680
8.
BolandJ.RiggsK. J.AndersonR. J. (2018). A brighter future: The effect of positive episodic simulation on future predictions in non-depressed, moderately dysphoric & highly dysphoric individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 100, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.10.010
9.
BorkovecT. D.NauS. D. (1972). Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 3(4), 257–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(72)90045-6
10.
BowlerJ. O.MackintoshB.DunnB. D.MathewsA.DalgleishT.HoppittL. (2012). A comparison of cognitive bias modification for interpretation and computerized cognitive behavior therapy: Effects on anxiety, depression, attentional control, and interpretive bias. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(6), 1021–1033. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029932
11.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (2018). Generalized optimism. In OettingenG.SevincerA. T.GollwitzerP. M. (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 214–230). The Guilford Press.
ChenG.GullyS. M.EdenD. (2001). Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
14.
ChristensenH.GriffithsK. M.FarrerL. (2009). Adherence in Internet interventions for anxiety and depression: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2), Article e13. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1194
15.
ClarkeP. J. F.NanthakumarS.NotebaertL.HolmesE. A.BlackwellS. E.MacLeodC. (2014). Simply imagining sunshine, lollipops and rainbows will not budge the bias: The role of ambiguity in interpretation bias modification. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38, 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-013-9564-x
16.
CollinsL. M.SchaferJ. L.KamC.-M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330
17.
De SchryverM.HughesS.RosseelY.De HouwerJ. (2016). Unreliable yet still replicable: A comment on LeBel and Paunonen (2011). Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 2039. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02039
18.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
19.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
20.
DweckC. S.YeagerD. S. (2018). Mindsets change the imagined and actual future. In OettingenG.SevincerA. T.GollwitzerP. M. (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 362–376). The Guilford Press.
21.
EberleJ. W. (2019). Shifting negative prospection with online cognitive bias modification: A randomized controlled trial [Master’s thesis, University of Virginia]. University of Virginia LibraETD digital archive. https://doi.org/10.18130/v3-s1vt-9104
FarvoldenP.DenisoffE.SelbyP.BagbyM.RudyL. (2005). Usage and longitudinal effectiveness of a web-based self-help cognitive behavioral therapy program for panic disorder. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), Article e7. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.1.e7
26.
FeingoldA. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014699
27.
FeingoldA. (2018). Time-varying effect sizes for quadratic growth models in multilevel and latent growth modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1547110
28.
FlakeJ. K.PekJ.HehmanE. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
29.
FodorL. A.GeorgescuR.CuijpersP.SzamoskoziS.DavidD.FurukawaT. A.CristeaI. A. (2020). The effectiveness of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depressive disorders: A network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(6), P506–P514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30130-9
GrundS.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA. (2018). Multiple imputation of missing data for multilevel models: Simulations and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 21(1), 111–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117703686
HohenseeN.MeyerM. J.TeachmanB. A. (2020). The effect of confidence on dropout rate and outcomes in online cognitive bias modification. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 5, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00129-8
34.
HollisS.CampbellF. (1999). What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomized controlled trials. BMJ, 319, 670–674. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670
35.
JiJ. L.BaeeS.ZhangD.Calicho-MamaniC. P.MeyerM. J.FunkD.PortnowS.BarnesL.TeachmanB. A. (2021). Multi-session online interpretation bias training for anxiety in a community sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 142, Article 103864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103864
36.
JonesE. B.SharpeL. (2017). Cognitive bias modification: A review of meta-analyses. Journal of Affective Disorders, 223, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.034
37.
KazdinA. E. (2001). Almost clinically significant (p < .10): Current measures may only approach clinical significance. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8(4), 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.8.4.455
KroenkeK.SpitzerR. L.WilliamsJ. B. W. (2003). The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 41(11), 1284–1292. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C
40.
KroenkeK.SpitzerR. L.WilliamsJ. B. W.LöweB. (2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50(6), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psy.50.6.613
41.
KroenkeK.SpitzerR. L.WilliamsJ. B. W.LöweB. (2010). The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptom Scales: A systematic review. General Hospital Psychiatry, 32(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.03.006
42.
KroenkeK.SpitzerR. L.WilliamsJ. B. W.MonahanP. O.LöweB. (2007). Anxiety disorders in primary care: Prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146, 317–325. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004
43.
LangT. J.BlackwellS. E.HarmerC. J.DavisonP.HolmesE. A. (2012). Cognitive bias modification using mental imagery for depression: Developing a novel computerized intervention to change negative thinking styles. European Journal of Personality, 26(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.855
44.
LovibondS. H.LovibondP. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.). Psychology Foundation.
45.
LöweB.KroenkeK.GrafeK. (2005). Detecting and monitoring depression with a two-item questionnaire (PHQ-2). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.09.006
46.
MacLeodC.GraftonB. (2016). Anxiety-linked attentional bias and its modification: Illustrating the importance of distinguishing processes and procedures in experimental psychopathology research. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 86, 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.07.005
MadduxJ. E.KleimanE. M. (2018). Self-efficacy. In OettingenG.SevincerA. T.GollwitzerP. M. (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 174–198). The Guilford Press.
49.
MalouffJ. M.SchutteN. S. (2017). Can psychological interventions increase optimism? A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221122
50.
MathewsA.MackintoshB. (2000). Induced emotional interpretation bias and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 602–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.4.602
51.
McGuireJ. T.NassarM. R.GoldJ. I.KableJ. W. (2014). Functionally dissociable influences on learning rate in a dynamic environment. Neuron, 84(4), 870–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.013
MeevissenY. M.PetersM. L.AlbertsH. J. (2011). Become more optimistic by imagining a best possible self: Effects of a two week intervention. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42(3), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.02.012
54.
MelvilleK. M.CaseyL. M.KavanaghD. J. (2010). Dropout from Internet-based treatment for psychological disorders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466509X472138
55.
Menne-LothmannC.ViechtbauerW.HöhnP.KasanovaZ.HallerS. P.DrukkerM.van OsJ.WichersM.LauJ. Y. F. (2014). How to boost positive interpretations? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cognitive bias modification for interpretation. PLOS ONE, 9(6), Article e100925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100925
MurphyS. E.O’DonoghueM. C.BlackwellS. E.NobreA. C.BrowningM.HolmesE. A. (2017). Increased rostral anterior cingulate activity following positive mental imagery training in healthy older adults. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12, 1950–1958. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx120
58.
MurphyS. E.O’DonoghueM. C.DrazichE. H.BlackwellS. E.NobreA. C.HolmesE. A. (2015). Imagining a brighter future: The effect of positive imagery training on mood, prospective mental imagery and emotional bias in older adults. Psychiatry Research, 230(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.059
59.
NamakyN.GlennJ. J.EberleJ. W.TeachmanB. A. (2021). Adapting cognitive bias modification to train healthy prospection. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 144, Article 103923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103923
OuimetA. J.GawronskiB.DozoisD. J. (2009). Cognitive vulnerability to anxiety: A review and an integrative model. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.05.004
62.
ParsonsS.KruijtA.FoxE. (2019). Psychological science needs a standard practice of reporting the reliability of cognitive-behavioral measurements. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(4), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.11772F2515245919879695
63.
PhamL. B.TaylorS. E. (1999). From thought to action: Effects of process- versus outcome-based mental simulations on performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002010
64.
PinheiroJ.BatesD.DebRoyS.SarkarD., & R Core Team. (2021). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
65.
QuartagnoM.CarpenterJ. (2020). jomo: A package for multilevel joint modelling multiple imputation [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=jomo
66.
QuoidbachJ.WoodA. M.HansenneM. (2009). Back to the future: The effect of daily practice of mental time travel into the future on happiness and anxiety. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902992365
67.
RamosG.ChaviraD. A. (2022). Use of technology to provide mental health care for racial and ethnic minorities: Evidence, promise, and challenges. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 29(1), 15–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2019.10.004
68.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
69.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.1.0) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
70.
RennerF.JiJ. L.PictetA.HolmesE. A.BlackwellS. E. (2017). Effects of engaging in repeated mental imagery of future positive events on behavioural activation in individuals with major depressive disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-016-9776-y
RodebaughT. L.ScullinR. B.LangerJ. K.DixonD. J.HuppertJ. D.BernsteinA.ZvielliA. (2016). Unreliability as a threat to understanding psychopathology: The cautionary tale of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 850–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000184
73.
RoepkeA. M.SeligmanM. E. P. (2016). Depression and prospection. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12087
74.
ScheierM. F.CarverC. S.BridgesM. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
75.
SeligmanM. E.RailtonP.BaumeisterR. F.SripadaC. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317
76.
StaplesL. G.DearB. F.GandyM.FogliatiV.FogliatiR.KarinE.NielssenO.TitovN. (2019). Psychometric properties and clinical utility of brief measures of depression, anxiety, and general distress: The PHQ-2, GAD-2, and K-6. General Hospital Psychiatry, 56, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2018.11.003
77.
SzpunarK. K.SchacterD. L. (2013). Get real: Effects of repeated simulation and emotion on the perceived plausibility of future experiences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028877
78.
SzpunarK. K.SprengR. N.SchacterD. L. (2014). A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111(52), 18414–18421. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417144111
79.
TaylorS. E.PhamL. B.RivkinI. D.ArmorD. A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53(4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.429
80.
TeachmanB. A. (2014). No appointment necessary: Treating mental illness outside the therapist’s office. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613512659
81.
WickhamH.ChangW.HenryL.PedersonT. L.TakahashiK.WilkeC.WooK.YutaniH.DunningtonD., & RStudio. (2021). ggplot2: Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=ggplot2
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
