Attentional processes and contamination-related intrusion distress

Contamination fear and attention bias variability early in the COVID-19 pandemic

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a dramatic increase in the salience and importance of information relating to both the risk of infection, and factors that could mitigate against such risk. This is likely to have contributed to elevated contamination fear concerns in the general population. Biased attention for contamination-related information has been proposed as a potential mechanism underlying contamination fear, though evidence regarding the presence of such biased attention has been inconsistent. A possible reason for this is that contamination fear may be characterised by variability in attention bias that has not yet been examined. The current study examined the potential association between attention bias variability for both contamination-related and mitigation-related stimuli, and contamination fear during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. A final sample of 315 participants completed measures of attention bias and contamination fear. The measure of average attention bias for contamination-related stimuli and mitigation-related stimuli was not associated with contamination fear (r = 0.055 and r = 0.051, p > 0.10), though both attention bias variability measures did show a small but statistically significant relationship with contamination fear (r = 0.133, p < 0.05; r = 0.147, p < 0.01). These attention bias variability measures also accounted for significant additional variance in contamination fear above the average attention bias measure (and controlling for response time variability). These findings provide initial evidence for the association between attention bias variability and contamination fear, underscoring a potential target for cognitive bias interventions for clinical contamination fear.

Attentional bias variability and its association with psychological and health symptoms: A meta-analysis

The present meta-analysis sought to assess the association between an emerging neurocognitive marker of psychopathology in attentional bias variability (ABV) and key psychological and health outcomes. A comprehensive literature review yielded 53 studies in 43 manuscripts (N = 5428). Overall, clinical and sub-clinical samples exhibited greater ABV than control samples (g = 0.462). Trauma samples showed significantly greater ABV than control samples (g = 0.782, medium-large effect), whereas social anxiety samples did not (g = 0.147). Similarly, ABV was associated with degree of trauma symptoms (r = 0.21 - 0.25). ABV was associated with some symptoms of depression and anxiety, although these were small and inconsistent. These findings suggest a specific relationship between ABV and post-traumatic stress symptoms, with evidence equivocal for other psychological difficulties (although also less research). Key recommendations for future research include investigating mechanisms underlying ABV and the importance of controlling for non-attentional processes, such as reaction time variability, to ensure the validity of ABV measures.

Cognitive Biases in Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Pain

The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of cognitive processing biases in Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic pain, 2 conditions that are highly co-morbid. The final sample comprised 333 individuals (86 with T2D and chronic pain, 65 with chronic pain, 76 with T2D, 106 without any form of diabetes or pain). Participants completed questionnaires assessing pain and diabetes-related outcomes, as well as measures of interpretation bias, attentional bias, and attentional bias variability. In a 2 (pain status) x 2 (T2D status) x 3 (bias valence) ANOVA design, interpretation biases were found to be stronger in individuals with chronic pain than individuals without pain, although there were no differences according to T2D status. No group differences in attentional biases were found. Among individuals with T2D, greater interpretation bias was associated with better blood glucose control, but also greater fear of hypoglycemia. For individuals with chronic pain, greater interpretation bias and attentional bias variability was associated with worse pain outcomes. Whilst interpretation bias may be present in chronic pain, it also appears to indicate better glycemic control in individuals with T2D. These findings suggest a more dynamic approach to understanding cognitive bias is needed, to consider when these biases are more or less adaptive, so that they can be better harnessed to improve outcomes for individuals with T2D who experience chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: These findings suggest that cognitive biases can be associated with psychopathology in chronic pain and in T2D, but can also potentially be adaptive in those with T2D. Diabetes management interventions may require a careful balance between promoting sufficient concern to motivate engagement in adaptive diabetes self-management, whilst also minimizing fear of hypoglycemia.