Interpretation bias modification for hostility: A randomized clinical trial.

Objective: Hostility is a transdiagnostic phenomenon that can have a profound negative impact on interpersonal functioning and psychopathological severity.Evidence suggests that cognitive bias modification for interpretation bias (CBM-I) potentially reduces hostility.However, stringent efficacy studies in people with clinical levels of hostility are currently lacking.Method: The present study investigated the effects of CBM-I in two studies: one feasibility study (Study 1) in a mixed clinical-community sample of men (N = 29), and one randomized clinical study (Study 2) in a mixed-gender sample with clinical levels of hostility (N = 135), pre-registered at https://osf.io/r46jn.We expected that CBM-I would relate to a larger increase in benign interpretation bias and larger reductions in hostile interpretation bias, hostility symptoms and traits, and general psychiatric symptoms at post-intervention compared to an active control (AC) condition.We also explored the beneficial carry-over effects of CBM-I on working alliance in subsequent psychotherapy 5 weeks after finishing CBM-I (n = 17).Results: Results showed that CBM-I increased benign interpretation bias in both studies and partially reduced hostile interpretation bias in Study 2, but not in Study 1. Findings of Study 2 also showed greater reductions in behavioral (but not self-reported) aggression in CBM-I relative to control, but no condition differences were found in self-report hostility measures and general psychiatric symptoms.Conclusions: Overall, we found modest support for CBM-I as an intervention for hostility, with some evidence of its efficacy for hostile interpretation bias and aggression.We discuss study limitations as well as directions for future research.What is the public health significance of this article?Interpreting ambiguous everyday situations in a hostile way is common for people experiencing hostility.Overall, we found modest support for interpretation training as an intervention for hostility, with some evidence of its efficacy for hostile interpretation bias and aggression.We discuss study limitations as well as directions for future research.