Research into experimental psychopathology has grown exponentially over the last two decades, but -despite hundreds of studies published in journals such as
Behaviour Research and Therapy,
Journal of Abnormal Psychology and
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, this type of research has resulted in hardly any clinical application. A large series of analogue studies in non-clinical samples has consistently shown that attention bias and anxiety are related [
5]. Although this is usually interpreted as evidence for attentional bias being a vulnerability factor for developing anxiety, only few studies investigated this directly [
6]. So far, the only promising clinical applications derived from research into experimental psychopathology are cognitive bias modification procedures. Cognitive bias modification procedures systematically train changes in patterns of selective attention and selective interpretation. Based on cognitive theories of social anxiety, which hold that socially anxious individuals selectively attend to social threat cues, it is assumed that changing these biases by attention bias modification will lead to positive changes in social anxiety. Over the course of many trials, participants are expected to implicitly learn to attend selectively to non-threatening stimuli rather than threatening stimuli. These studies showed that anxious individuals are no faster to respond to probes replacing threat cues than to non-threat cues, but they are slower to respond to probes that are opposite to threat cues relative to non-threat cues.
Although originally evaluated in analogue samples, typically consisting of paid undergraduate (psychology) students [
3,
7], a few studies have now evaluated the effects of attention bias modification in more clinically relevant socially anxious individuals, including the study of Carlbring
et al. [
4]. Although two RCTs found eight sessions of attention bias modification to be superior to a comparable placebo condition [
8,
9], results on clinician rating and self-report questionnaires in the Schmidt
et al. study [
9] were non-significant at post-treatment; results only became statistically significant at the four-month follow-up. Between-group effect sizes (Cohen's d) at follow-up (d = 0.35 to 0.41) were small. Although using the identical treatment protocol to Schmidt
et al., Amir
et al. [
8] found much larger between-group differences (d = 0.69 to 1.59) than in the Schmidt
et al. study [
9]. These differences in outcome are difficult to explain, given that the same materials and procedures were used in the two studies. Additionally, in another recent RCT [
10], there were no significant group × time interactions for the self-reported measures of anxiety. Further, engagement toward non-threat cues did not have any effect, only training to disengage from threat led to a small reduction in anxiety, but only on a behavioral measure. Other negative results of attention bias modification with clinically socially anxious individuals were reported in an RCT by Julian
et al. [
11]. These authors also used identical assessment and training procedures to those used by Amir
et al. [
8]. An RCT by McEvoy and Perini [
12] using a different attention training task revealed that attention training did not enhance the effects of standard CBTs in clinically socially anxious individuals. Finally, theoretically, there is still no robust evidence that the cognitive change found is predicted by performance changes on a cognitive task measuring the cognitive process of interest [
10].
Taken together, the results of the studies investigating attention training in clinically socially anxious individuals suggest there is no robust evidence that attention training is of clinical value. So far, only the study by Amir
et al. [
8] has produced clinically relevant results, which are difficult to interpret given the small or negative results of a series of other clinical studies [
4,
9‐
12].