Wiers (once more) - ABC Training Flashcards
(17 cards)
Indications of the effects of CBMs as of Wiers et al. 2018 (comparing proof-of-principle, online & clinical RCTs)? (3)
- Proof-of-principle is eh
- CBM added to treatment results in long-term improvements of treatment outcomes
- CBM is less effective when provided online than in a clinical context
note that these are mostly prelimenary results
What are two important factors to consider when developing/implementing CBM?
- Participant motivation to change behaviour (see: difference between proof-of-concept & clinical studies)
- Clinical context (online vs. not)
In what theoretical perspective was CBM research initially rooted?
Dual-process models (target distortions in automatic mental processes drawing on associative representations)
thus approach-avoidance effects > associative account
Why is the associative account (dual-process model) not adequate in explaining CBM? (3)
- Repeated avoidance of addiction cues do not always translate to changes in addictive behaviour (depends on moderators like belief about the implications of the learned relation)
- Approach-avoidance effects can be based on verbal instruction (rather than extensive training)
- Change requires awareness of relevant contingencies (possible future events)
Thus, just training avoidance does not always work because it depends on what they believe about why they’re doing it (1), whether they understand the patterns (3) and sometimes being told is enough for change (2). It is not just automatic habits, but also about how one thinks and reasons.
the bold as an explanation for the yapping that is the paper
What is the inferential account of CBM?
considered to me more in line
CBM works through changes in propositional representations containing information about how concepts are casually related (in normal language: CBM helps by changing the way people think about how things are connected or cause each other)
- e.g., “If someone ignores me, it means they hate me.” → changing that to something more balanced like “Maybe they’re just busy.”
- Thus, maladaptive behaviour reflects goal-driven inferences that are learned/evoked on the basis of beliefs about their relevance to their goals
aka not habitual/automatic- at least not fully
How does CBM work from an inferential perspective?
CBM helps people form a kind of mental statement like:
- “When I see alcohol (stimulus), I should avoid it (response), because that helps me stay in control and feel better (positive outcome).”
- Linking the cue, the reaction and benefit leads to actual behavioural change
Different from associative’s account of automatic activation of mental associations between stimuli and response
Difference between associative account and inferential account?
just to make everything clear
Associative account:
- Can be likened to automatic habit-forming
- Prior association (e.g., alcohol-approach) replaced with new (e.g., alcohol-avoidance)
- Not conscious (mostly); stimulus-response links formed through pairing and repetition
Inferential account:
- CBM should focus on automatizing goal-directed predictions (like making the conscious thoughts more available)
- Associative combination of stimulus, response & positive outcome (mental models/inferences, e.g., “If I avoid alcohol, then I’ll stay healthy and in control.”)
- Can be triggered by internal and external cues
see inferential as how you trained juxtaposition; the training increased availability and made it near autonomous
What are three changes presented by Wiers for CBM? (name them only)
ABC paper, in relation to approach-bias retraining
- Goal-relevant alternative behaviours
- Personally relevant consequences
- Personally relevant antecent context
omg ABC!!!! (well, BCA)
Note that ABC training is thus all of these combined
Explain the CBM change “goal-relevant alternative behaviours (B)”
Universally relevant behavioural choice is trained in alcohol CBM (alcohol vs. non-alcoholic drink), which are not typically available for other substances:
- Personalized alternative behaviour is presented (e.g., smoking as coping to reduce stress, thus alternative presentation could be exercise to reduce stress)
- Increased effectiveness
Why might “traditional” CBM have been more effective for alcohol than smoking?
Wiers
Alcohol has easy behaviourally relevant alternative choices (e.g., soft drinks), this is not the case for smoking (a person holding a pen was used, which is like…)
B in ABC
Explain the CBM change “personally relevant consequences (C)”
Builds on the idea that behaviour is determined by automatic prediction of relevant action consequences in relation to current goals
- Learning relevant consequences of behavioural choices (being able to experience the effectiveness of the alternative behaviour)
- E.g., highlighting negative consequences of substance use and positive consequences for abstinence
- May be even more effective if it includes real-life goal-relevant consequences (can also be personalized)
What is the explanation for clinical context CBM being more effective than other contexts (non-clinical context CBM)
In clinical treatment negative consequences of continued drinking and positive consequences of abstinence are highlighted, which may not be the case outside of clinical treatment context, thus that may explain the lower efficacy in, e.g., online CBM
C in ABC
Explain the CBM change “personally relevant antecedent context” (A)
Antecedent = prior, this complicated sentence basically just means that the CBM is trained in a context that is relevant for the person
- Can be simulated real-life context (e.g., incorporation of real-life context cue like a refrigerator)
- Might facilitate transfer to real-life
- Can be a simple stimulus and/or a more complex situation (specific location, person, stressful moment)
- More than one can be included (obvs)
“Stressful moment” as a possible antecedent cue is possible!
What does the ABC-training as a whole consist of (this includes the order in which it is given)? Highlight with an example
Training of goal-relevant behavioural choices triggered by antecedent cues and followed by positive/negative action consequences, BAC:
- This process can be fully personalized
- For example, a person uses coke to self-medicate adhd thus B could be adhd meds, A could be a library + right before an exam deadline (where they study a lot) and C could be highlighting negative long-term effects of coke use or positive consequence of meds (e.g., helping with other symptoms).
me when I project
Why may ABC training enhance the effectiveness of other treatments? (2)
- It resembles CBT & treatments focused on maladaptive behaviours (prior-consequential) and combines both
- Targets automatization of adaptive inferences and related behaviours (revising habitual behaviour, perhaps)
Main goal of ABC training?
Automatize inferences about goalrelevant action–outcome combinations in relevant contexts
ABC training/inferential account is focused on voluntary processes (kind of), why might CBM generally not be effective for nonvoluntary processes?
Wiers
Based on prior evidence, the effect of CBM appear to go beyond these initial attentional processes (see here the non-effect on speeded detection), thus it may simply be that CBM is not a treatment made for targeting early cogntive biases or that these are more difficult to change.
“prior research” = Wiers’ own previous paper lol
