The Experts below are selected from a list of 150 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jenny Yiend - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how can we enhance Cognitive bias modification techniques the effects of prospective cognition
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2015Co-Authors: Andrew Mathews, Daniel Ka Yiu Chan, Nadia Majeed, Sukhwinder S Shergill, Jenny YiendAbstract:Abstract Background and objectives Cognitive bias modification for interpretation, a computerized program which manipulates biased interpretations, has shown therapeutic promise, including evidence that negatively biased interpretations can be reduced, leading to corresponding improvements in symptoms. Cognitive bias modification for Cognitive Errors (CBM-Errors) is a second generation CBM-I procedure which manipulates seven types of Cognitive Error and is especially relevant to depressive cognition. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the effects of the CBM-Errors manipulation would be enhanced by adding a component facilitating prospective cognition to help embed and extend newly acquired interpretations. Methods A sample of 80 volunteers completed a single session experiment. With a pretraining-posttraining design, we compared the effects of enhanced CBM-Errors (targeting Cognitive Errors plus prospective cognition) with standard CBM-Errors (targeting Cognitive Errors without prospective cognition), on interpretations of new material and mood. Results Significant differences between enhanced and standard CBM-Errors revealed that enhanced positive training was more effective at decreasing negative interpretations compared to the standard procedure. Limitations Extending the current investigation to a sample dysphoria or depression is needed for an appropriate next step. Conclusion The findings serve as ‘a proof of principle’ for the potential of prospective cognition to enhance the effects of CBM-Errors and other similar CBM procedures. Further work to enhance the effectiveness of CBM procedures is needed.
-
modifying Cognitive Errors promotes Cognitive well being a new approach to bias modification
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2011Co-Authors: Kathryn J Lester, Andrew Mathews, Phil S Davison, Jennifer L Burgess, Jenny YiendAbstract:BACKGROUND Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) procedures have been used to train individuals to interpret ambiguous information in a negative or benign direction and have provided evidence that negative biases causally contribute to emotional vulnerability. METHOD Here we present the development and validation of a new form of CBM designed to manipulate the Cognitive Errors known to characterize both depression and anxiety. Our manipulation was designed to modify the biased cognitions identified by Beck's Cognitive Error categories (e.g. arbitrary inference, overgeneralisation) and typically targeted during therapy. RESULTS In a later test of spontaneous inferences, unselected (Experiment 1) and vulnerable participants (Experiment 2) who had generated positive alternatives rather than Errors perceived novel hypothetical events, their causes and outcomes in a non-distorted manner. These groups were also less vulnerable to two different types of emotional stressor (video clips; and an imagined social situation). Furthermore participants' interpretation of their own performance on a problem-solving task was improved by the manipulation, despite actual performance showing no significant change. CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate that Cognitive Error Modification can promote positive inferences, reduce vulnerability to stress and improve self-perceptions of performance.
Andrew Mathews - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how can we enhance Cognitive bias modification techniques the effects of prospective cognition
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2015Co-Authors: Andrew Mathews, Daniel Ka Yiu Chan, Nadia Majeed, Sukhwinder S Shergill, Jenny YiendAbstract:Abstract Background and objectives Cognitive bias modification for interpretation, a computerized program which manipulates biased interpretations, has shown therapeutic promise, including evidence that negatively biased interpretations can be reduced, leading to corresponding improvements in symptoms. Cognitive bias modification for Cognitive Errors (CBM-Errors) is a second generation CBM-I procedure which manipulates seven types of Cognitive Error and is especially relevant to depressive cognition. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the effects of the CBM-Errors manipulation would be enhanced by adding a component facilitating prospective cognition to help embed and extend newly acquired interpretations. Methods A sample of 80 volunteers completed a single session experiment. With a pretraining-posttraining design, we compared the effects of enhanced CBM-Errors (targeting Cognitive Errors plus prospective cognition) with standard CBM-Errors (targeting Cognitive Errors without prospective cognition), on interpretations of new material and mood. Results Significant differences between enhanced and standard CBM-Errors revealed that enhanced positive training was more effective at decreasing negative interpretations compared to the standard procedure. Limitations Extending the current investigation to a sample dysphoria or depression is needed for an appropriate next step. Conclusion The findings serve as ‘a proof of principle’ for the potential of prospective cognition to enhance the effects of CBM-Errors and other similar CBM procedures. Further work to enhance the effectiveness of CBM procedures is needed.
-
modifying Cognitive Errors promotes Cognitive well being a new approach to bias modification
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2011Co-Authors: Kathryn J Lester, Andrew Mathews, Phil S Davison, Jennifer L Burgess, Jenny YiendAbstract:BACKGROUND Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) procedures have been used to train individuals to interpret ambiguous information in a negative or benign direction and have provided evidence that negative biases causally contribute to emotional vulnerability. METHOD Here we present the development and validation of a new form of CBM designed to manipulate the Cognitive Errors known to characterize both depression and anxiety. Our manipulation was designed to modify the biased cognitions identified by Beck's Cognitive Error categories (e.g. arbitrary inference, overgeneralisation) and typically targeted during therapy. RESULTS In a later test of spontaneous inferences, unselected (Experiment 1) and vulnerable participants (Experiment 2) who had generated positive alternatives rather than Errors perceived novel hypothetical events, their causes and outcomes in a non-distorted manner. These groups were also less vulnerable to two different types of emotional stressor (video clips; and an imagined social situation). Furthermore participants' interpretation of their own performance on a problem-solving task was improved by the manipulation, despite actual performance showing no significant change. CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate that Cognitive Error Modification can promote positive inferences, reduce vulnerability to stress and improve self-perceptions of performance.
Edward J Mccaffery - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
behavioral public finance pdf of powerpoint slide presentation
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Edward J MccafferyAbstract:The task is to give an overview of what I hope to be an emerging field of behavioral public finance. Behavioral finance, as per Barberis and Thaler 2003 (and others), consists of two parts: (1) individual level heuristics and biases, which can lead to sub-optimal (inconsistent) judgment and decision-making, and (2) institutional arbitrage mechanisms. In private finance and economics, these latter, most importantly competition and markets, act to reduce and perhaps eliminate the harms from the former. Hence we get the relatively modest policy recommendations characteristic of Sunstien and Thaler's Nudge (among many other examples), such as for default rules that set participation in 401(k) plans. In public finance, in contrast - and arguably in all sectors of the economy where there are not flourishing markets (such as among the poor?) - there are no obvious arbitrage mechanisms. Politicians and the political processes can even exacerbate persistent Cognitive Error: consider the predilection for hidden taxes, such as the corporate tax. Behavioral public finance is a hugely important subject matter. These slides, summarizing original research done with Jon Baron of Penn (see the survey piece, McCaffery and Baron 2006), explain the general setting; group together many biases under a common isolation effect, and then use Kaplow and Shavell 2002's model of optimal legal system design, tracking the two welfare theorems - i.e., set rules (including, we argue, public finance rules), so as to maximize wealth or serve efficiency, and then redistribute from the greater social pie via the tax system - to suggest the possible problems for a democracy. These include: (a), leaving wealth on the table, because the optimally psychologically pleasing policy is not the most efficient one; (b) pitting equity or redistribution against efficiency, unnecessarily, because support for redistribution depends on the purely formal aspects of public finance; and (c) allowing skillful politicians to affect preference reversals among the citizenry, by agenda setting and framing, as by getting citizens averse to deficits and in favor of government expenditures to cut taxes, today, by isolating tax cuts from spending programs.
-
behavioral public finance
2006Co-Authors: Edward J Mccaffery, Joel SlemrodAbstract:These are slides from a presentation to the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research, Squaw Valley Conference, May, 2008 (at which event Michael Jensen got me to agree to post these slides as a pdf on SSRN . . . ). The task is to give an overview of what I hope to be an emerging field of behavioral public finance. Behavioral finance, as per Barberis and Thaler 2003 (and others), consists of two parts: (1) individual level heuristics and biases, which can lead to sub-optimal (inconsistent) judgment and decision-making, and (2) institutional arbitrage mechanisms. In private finance and economics, these latter, most importantly competition and markets, act to reduce and perhaps eliminate the “harms” from the former. Hence we get the relatively modest policy recommendations characteristic of Sunstien and Thaler’s Nudge (among many other examples), such as for default rules that set participation in 401(k) plans. In public finance, in contrast—and arguably in all sectors of the economy where there are not flourishing markets (such as among the poor?)—there are no obvious arbitrage mechanisms. Politicians and the political processes can even exacerbate persistent Cognitive Error: consider the predilection for hidden taxes, such as the corporate tax. Behavioral public finance is a hugely important subject matter. These slides, summarizing original research done with Jon Baron of Penn (see the survey piece, McCaffery and Baron 2006), explain the general setting; group together many biases under a common isolation effect, and then use Kaplow and Shavell 2002’s model of optimal legal system design, tracking the two welfare theorems—i.e., set rules (including, we argue, public finance rules), so as to maximize wealth or serve efficiency, and then redistribute from the greater social pie via the tax system—to suggest the possible problems for a democracy. These include: (a), leaving wealth on the table, because the optimally psychologically pleasing policy is not the most efficient one; (b) pitting equity or redistribution against efficiency, unnecessarily, because support for redistribution depends on the purely formal aspects of public finance; and (c) allowing skilful politicians to affect preference reversals among the citizenry, by agenda setting and framing, as by getting citizens averse to deficits and in favor of government expenditures to cut taxes, today, by isolating tax cuts from spending programs.
Anamaria Vranceanu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pain catastrophizing mediates the effect of psychological inflexibility on pain intensity and upper extremity physical function in patients with upper extremity illness
Pain Practice, 2017Co-Authors: Mojtaba Talaeikhoei, David Ring, Stefan Fischerauer, Sanggil Lee, Anamaria VranceanuAbstract:Background Psychological inflexibility—the inability to take value-based actions in the presence of unwanted thoughts, feelings, or bodily symptoms—is associated with negative health outcomes including depression and anxiety. Objective We aimed to determine the association between the general construct of psychological inflexibility and pain intensity, and upper extremity physical function in patients with musculoskeletal illness in an orthopedics practice. We also set out to test multiple-mediator models proposing that psychological inflexibility affects pain intensity and upper extremity physical function directly, as well as indirectly through depression, anxiety, and pain catastrophizing. Methods One hundred and eight patients with upper extremity illness completed self-report measures of pain intensity, upper extremity physical function, psychological inflexibility, pain catastrophizing, depression, and anxiety in this cross-sectional study. Results We found that psychological inflexibility affected pain intensity and upper extremity physical function directly and indirectly. Pain catastrophizing but not depression or anxiety mediated the association of psychological inflexibility to pain intensity and upper extremity physical function. Conclusions Psychological inflexibility plays an important role in understanding the increased pain and decreased upper extremity physical function in patients with musculoskeletal pain. It also suggests that the Cognitive Error of pain catastrophizing is one of the mechanisms through which the general construct of psychological inflexibility may influence pain intensity and upper extremity physical function. Psychological treatments aimed at decreasing pain and increasing upper extremity physical function should target both pain catastrophizing and psychological inflexibility.
Kathryn J Lester - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
modifying Cognitive Errors promotes Cognitive well being a new approach to bias modification
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2011Co-Authors: Kathryn J Lester, Andrew Mathews, Phil S Davison, Jennifer L Burgess, Jenny YiendAbstract:BACKGROUND Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) procedures have been used to train individuals to interpret ambiguous information in a negative or benign direction and have provided evidence that negative biases causally contribute to emotional vulnerability. METHOD Here we present the development and validation of a new form of CBM designed to manipulate the Cognitive Errors known to characterize both depression and anxiety. Our manipulation was designed to modify the biased cognitions identified by Beck's Cognitive Error categories (e.g. arbitrary inference, overgeneralisation) and typically targeted during therapy. RESULTS In a later test of spontaneous inferences, unselected (Experiment 1) and vulnerable participants (Experiment 2) who had generated positive alternatives rather than Errors perceived novel hypothetical events, their causes and outcomes in a non-distorted manner. These groups were also less vulnerable to two different types of emotional stressor (video clips; and an imagined social situation). Furthermore participants' interpretation of their own performance on a problem-solving task was improved by the manipulation, despite actual performance showing no significant change. CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate that Cognitive Error Modification can promote positive inferences, reduce vulnerability to stress and improve self-perceptions of performance.