Implicit interpretation biases affect emotional vulnerability: A training study

Abstract

Cognitive theories of emotion propose that the interpretation of emotion-eliciting situations crucially shapes affective responses. Implicit or automatic biases in these interpretations may hinder emotion regulation and thereby increase risk for the onset and maintenance of psychological disorders. In this study, participants were randomly assigned to a positive or negative interpretation bias training using ambiguous social scenarios. After the completion of the training, a stress task was administered and changes in positive and negative affect and self-esteem were assessed. The results demonstrate that the interpretation bias training was successful in that participants exhibited a tendency to interpret novel scenarios in accordance with their training condition. Importantly, the positive training condition also had a protective effect on self-esteem. Participants in this condition did not exhibit a decrease in self-esteem after the stress task, whereas participants in the negative condition did. These results demonstrate that implicit cognitive biases can be trained and that this training affects self-esteem. Implications of these findings for research on psychopathology and emotion regulation are discussed.

Keywords:

• Cognitive bias modification
• Training
• Interpretation
• Stress reactivity
• Emotional vulnerability

Notes

¹Positive affect items included contented, energetic, satisfied, calm, thankful, safe, and optimistic. Negative affect included disappointed, angry, sad, upset, discouraged, fearful, helpless, disgusted, frustrated, and insecure. Items to assess low self-esteem included inadequate, shameful, and incompetent, while items to assess high self-esteem included effective, self-confident, self-centred, and prideful.

²Correlations between positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), and self-esteem (SE) scales are as follows. PA and SE: r(50) = .78, p < .001; NA and SE: r(50) = −.45, p = .001. Intercorrelations between change scores are as follows. Change scores of PA and SE: r(50) = .29, p < .05; Change scores of NA and SE: r(50) = −.33, p < .05.