Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has become one of the most widely used mental-health treatments by modifying thought distortions and maladaptive behaviors (Olatunji, Cisler, & Deacon, 2010; Ege & Reinholdt-Dunne, 2016). CBT reduces anxiety symptoms, particularly by mediating attentional biases to threat and interpretative biases of emotionally-ambiguous situations (Beard, 2011; Hadwin & Richards, 2016). However, the role of emotional regulation, the ability to control one’s emotional reaction, in interpretative biases has yet to be properly explored. It is our goal to fill this gap and to explore the relationship of emotional regulation to the biases underlying anxiety.
When individuals cannot regulate their emotional response to situations, …show more content…
We will need computers, dot-probe task software, copies of the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) (Gross & John, 2003) and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) (Garnefski, Kraaij, and Spinhoven, 2002), pencils, and journals. Participants will complete a dot-probe task on desktop computers to measure attentional bias. The dot probe task is a computer program designed to measure attentional biases. Participants see one neutral and one threatening stimuli, which fade away, and a dot appears in the place of one of the stimuli. Participants then indicate the location of the dot via keyboard. When reaction time is significantly quicker towards the dot in the former location of the threatening stimuli, a participant has shown attentional bias. Participants will also complete the ERQ and CERQ questionnaires to measure emotional regulation skills, as well as completing Beck’s Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1993) to measure their baseline anxiety. We chose to use both the ERQ and CERQ because they cover different coping strategies of emotional regulation, thus giving us a better measure of the construct. We will assign participants to either no intervention (control group), attentional bias intervention (ABM) or an emotional regulation intervention (group goal setting, writing, and discussion). These interventions will take place over two sessions over …show more content…
Congruent with our hypotheses, Mobini et al. (2014) found that reducing negative interpretative bias also reduces attentional bias. However, researchers did not use an attentional bias intervention, instead using two interventions that focus on interpretative-bias: CBM-I and CBT-c. Both interventions were extremely short-term, and post-tests were done a week later. In contrast, Bowler et al. (2017) found no bidirectional effect of interpretative biases on attentional biases. Participants who were in the interpretative-bias intervention condition did not see a reduction of attentional bias but did see a reduction of interpretative bias. Participants in the attentional bias condition saw a decrease in both types of bias. The type of interpretative bias intervention used in Bowler et al. (2017), as well as the measure of interpretative bias, was nearly identical to that of Mobini et al. (2014). Thus, it is surprising that while Mobini et al. (2014) found bidirectional results in interpretative-bias interventions, Bowler failed to do so. The only large methodical difference was the number of sessions, as Mobini et al. (2014) used only a single session, and Bowler used a single session a week for four weeks. Our study will explore new territory as we look to use an emotional regulation intervention, not the interpretative-bias intervention that Mobini et al. (2014) and Bowler et al.
When individuals cannot regulate their emotional response to situations, …show more content…
We will need computers, dot-probe task software, copies of the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) (Gross & John, 2003) and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) (Garnefski, Kraaij, and Spinhoven, 2002), pencils, and journals. Participants will complete a dot-probe task on desktop computers to measure attentional bias. The dot probe task is a computer program designed to measure attentional biases. Participants see one neutral and one threatening stimuli, which fade away, and a dot appears in the place of one of the stimuli. Participants then indicate the location of the dot via keyboard. When reaction time is significantly quicker towards the dot in the former location of the threatening stimuli, a participant has shown attentional bias. Participants will also complete the ERQ and CERQ questionnaires to measure emotional regulation skills, as well as completing Beck’s Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1993) to measure their baseline anxiety. We chose to use both the ERQ and CERQ because they cover different coping strategies of emotional regulation, thus giving us a better measure of the construct. We will assign participants to either no intervention (control group), attentional bias intervention (ABM) or an emotional regulation intervention (group goal setting, writing, and discussion). These interventions will take place over two sessions over …show more content…
Congruent with our hypotheses, Mobini et al. (2014) found that reducing negative interpretative bias also reduces attentional bias. However, researchers did not use an attentional bias intervention, instead using two interventions that focus on interpretative-bias: CBM-I and CBT-c. Both interventions were extremely short-term, and post-tests were done a week later. In contrast, Bowler et al. (2017) found no bidirectional effect of interpretative biases on attentional biases. Participants who were in the interpretative-bias intervention condition did not see a reduction of attentional bias but did see a reduction of interpretative bias. Participants in the attentional bias condition saw a decrease in both types of bias. The type of interpretative bias intervention used in Bowler et al. (2017), as well as the measure of interpretative bias, was nearly identical to that of Mobini et al. (2014). Thus, it is surprising that while Mobini et al. (2014) found bidirectional results in interpretative-bias interventions, Bowler failed to do so. The only large methodical difference was the number of sessions, as Mobini et al. (2014) used only a single session, and Bowler used a single session a week for four weeks. Our study will explore new territory as we look to use an emotional regulation intervention, not the interpretative-bias intervention that Mobini et al. (2014) and Bowler et al.