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

Ben Grafton, Colin MacLeod, Daniel Rudaizky, Emily A. Holmes, Elske Salemink, Elaine Fox, Lies Notebaert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)
303 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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 a/'s conclusions in light of these findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)266-271
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Journal of Psychiatry
Volume211
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2017

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Confusing procedures with process when appraising the impact of cognitive bias modification on emotional vulnerability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this