CBM-I Training and Its Effect on Interpretations of Intent, Facial Expressions, Attention and Aggressive Behavior

Abstract

There is abundant evidence suggesting that attention and interpretation biases are powerful precursors of aggression. However, little is known how these biases may interact with one another in the development and maintenance of aggression. Using cognitive bias modification of interpretation (CBM-I), the present study examined whether training more pro-social or hostile intent attributions would affect attention bias, interpretation bias of facial expressions, aggression and mood. University students (17-48 years) were assigned to either a positive training (n = 40), negative training (n = 40), or control training (n = 40). Results showed that the positive training successfully changed measures of intent attributions in a pro-social direction compared to the control training. The negative training changed measures of intent attributions in a hostile direction but not more so than the control training. We found no generalization of the training effects to relevant other outcomes. Possible explanations underlying these findings are discussed.

Keywords: aggression; attention bias; cognitive bias modification; facial expressions; interpretation bias.

Figure 1. Example Image From the Baseline Phase

Figure 2. Example Image From the Training Phase

Figure 3. Average Sum Scores of IB − Intent at Pre− and Post−Training for Each Training Condition

Note. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Higher IB-intent scores indicate that hostile interpretations of intent were rated as more likely to be true than pro-social interpretations of intent.

Figure 4. Average Sum Scores of IB − Facial Expressions at Pre− and Post−Training for Each Training Condition

Note. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Higher IB-facial expressions scores indicate that hostile interpretations of facial expressions were rated as more likely to be true than pro-social interpretations of facial expressions.

Figure 5. Average Attentional Bias Scores at Pre− and Post−Training for Each Training Condition

Note. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. Higher AB scores indicate that more attention allocation to adaptive (facial) than to maladaptive (negative outcome) cues.