Beyond the modified dot-probe task: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of alternate attention bias modification tasks across domains.

Attention biases towards disease-relevant cues have been implicated in numerous disorders and health conditions, such as anxiety, cancer, drug-use disorders, and chronic pain. Attention bias modification (ABM) has shown that changing attention biases can change related emotional processes. ABM most commonly uses a modified dot-probe task, which has received increasing criticism regarding its reliability and inconsistent findings. The purpose of the present review was thus to systematically review and meta-analyse alternative tasks used in ABM research. We sought to examine whether alternative tasks significantly changed attention biases and emotional outcomes, and critically examined whether relevant sample, task and intervention characteristics moderated each of these effect sizes. Seventy-four (completer n = 15,294) study level comparisons were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, alternative ABM designs had a medium effect on changing biases (g = 0.488), and a small, but significant effect on improving clinical outcomes (g = 0.117). We found this effect to be significantly larger for studies which successfully changed biases compared to those that did not. Across all tasks, it appeared that targeting engagement biases results in the largest change to attention biases. Importantly, we found tasks incorporating gaze-contingency - encouraging engagement with non-biased stimuli - show the most promise for improving emotional outcomes.

Understanding the Role of Expectancy, Anticipatory Anxiety, and Attention Bias in Nocebo Hyperalgesia: A Gaze-Contingent Attention Bias Modification Study.

Nocebo effects in pain (nocebo hyperalgesia) have been thoroughly researched, and negative expectancies have been proposed as a key factor in causing nocebo hyperalgesia. However, little is known about the psychological mechanisms by which expectations exacerbate the perception of pain. A potential mechanism that has been proposed within wider pain research is pain-related attention. The aim of the present study was thus to explore whether attention bias (AB) to pain influenced nocebo hyperalgesia. One-hundred and thirty-four healthy participants were randomized in a 2 (AB training: towards vs away from pain) × 2 (nocebo condition: nocebo vs control) design. Pain-related AB was manipulated through a novel, partially gaze-contingent dot-probe task. Participants then completed either a nocebo instruction and conditioning paradigm or a matched control condition. Primary outcomes were measures of expectancy, anticipatory anxiety, and pain intensity completed during a nocebo test phase. Results showed that the AB manipulation was unsuccessful in inducing ABs either toward or away from pain. The nocebo paradigm induced significantly greater expectancy, anticipatory anxiety, and pain intensity for the nocebo groups compared to the control groups. In a posthoc analysis of participants with correctly induced ABs, AB towards pain amplified nocebo hyperalgesia, expectancy, and anticipatory anxiety relative to AB away from pain. The results are consistent with the expectancy model of nocebo effects and additionally identify anticipatory anxiety as an additional factor. Regarding AB, research is needed to develop reliable means to change attention sample-wide to corroborate the present findings. PERSPECTIVE: This article explores the role of AB, expectancy, and anticipatory anxiety in nocebo hyperalgesia. The study shows that expectancy can trigger anticipatory anxiety that exacerbates nocebo hyperalgesia. Further, successful AB training towards pain heightens nocebo hyperalgesia. These findings identify candidate psychological factors to target in minimizing nocebo hyperalgesia.

The nocebo effect across health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The nocebo effect represents a growing concern in clinical settings. Nocebo effects occur when the treatment context generates negative expectancies that trigger the experience or worsening of negative symptoms beyond any effects attributable to the treatment itself. Despite being identified in a range of outcomes and conditions, from pain to Parkinson's disease, there has not been an attempt to systematically quantify the nocebo effects across health outcomes. The purpose of the present review was thus to systematically review and meta-analyze the nocebo literature to quantify the size of the nocebo effect across outcomes and examine which factors moderate the size of the nocebo effect, including process of induction, treatment type, or health outcome. METHOD: Systematic searches of PubMed, PychInfo, Medline, and Web of Science identified 130 (n = 8,219) independent eligible studies. To be included, studies had to include both a nocebo and control group/condition, which were compared to isolate the nocebo effect size. RESULTS: Overall, the magnitude of the nocebo effect was medium (g = 0.522) and highly heterogeneous. Two key moderators emerged: health outcome and process of induction. Here, the nocebo effect was medium for most somatic outcomes and affect, with no significant effect on worsening cognitive performance. Further, inducing nocebo effects through instruction in combination with conditioning produced larger nocebo effects. CONCLUSIONS: The present review suggests nocebo effects can be reliably induced across somatic health outcomes, and interventions that target the effect of instructions will be of critical importance to reducing the occurrence of nocebo effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The relationship between expectancy, anxiety, and the nocebo effect: a systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for future research.

Despite the theoretical prominence of expectancy and anxiety as potential mechanisms of the nocebo effect, not all studies measure expectancy and/or anxiety, and there are inconsistent findings among those that do. The present study sought to systematically review and meta-analyse available data to evaluate the relationship between expectancy, anxiety and the nocebo effect. The two key questions were: (1) whether nocebo manipulations influence expectancy and anxiety; and (2) whether expectancy and anxiety are associated with the subsequent nocebo effect. Fifty-nine independent studies (n = 3129) were identified via database searches to 1st August 2021. Nocebo manipulations reliably increased negative expectancy with a large effect (g = .837) and state anxiety with a small effect (g = .312). Changes in expectancy and state anxiety due to the nocebo manipulation were associated with larger nocebo effects (r = .376 and .234, respectively). However, there was no significant association between dispositional anxiety and the nocebo effect. These findings support theories that rely on situationally-induced expectancy and anxiety, but not dispositional anxiety, to explain nocebo effects. Importantly, being malleable, these findings suggest that interventions that target maladaptive negative expectancies and state anxiety could be beneficial for reducing the harm nocebo effects cause across health settings. Recommendations for future research are discussed.