Evidence Hub

The effect of training to target cognitive biases towards social rejection in eating disorders

An Z, Kwag KH, Kim M, Yang JW, Moon JJ, Treasure J, Kim YR

European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association, 2024

32 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effect of cognitive bias modification for interpretation (CBM-I) training in Korean women with eating disorders (EDs).

METHOD: Sixty-three women with EDs participated in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention group where they received six sessions of CBM-I training (n = 31) in addition to treatment-as-usual or were put on a waiting list (n = 32). Participants' interpretation and attention biases, emotion regulation, affect, and ED psychopathology were assessed at baseline, end-of-intervention (4 weeks), and follow-up (8 weeks).

RESULTS: Participants who completed the CBM-I training displayed greater reductions in negative interpretation bias (Δη2 = 0.107) and emotion dysregulation (Δη2 = 0.085) with medium to large effect sizes compared to the control group, which were maintained from baseline to follow-up. Disengagement from negative faces and a focus on positive faces was found in the intervention group with a moderate effect size at the end-of-intervention (Δη2 = 0.090). Both intervention and control groups showed improvements in ED psychopathology. Baseline neuroticism was positively correlated with CBM-I effect.

DISCUSSION: The results suggest that modifying interpretation bias towards ambiguous social stimuli might be an effective adjuvant treatment to reduce negative expectations of social situations and improve emotion regulation in women with bulimia nervosa and anorexia nervosa.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 32 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free