Advertisement

Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 844–855 | Cite as

Comparing Cognitive Defusion and Cognitive Restructuring Delivered Through a Mobile App for Individuals High in Self-Criticism

  • Michael E. Levin
  • Jack Haeger
  • Woolee An
  • Michael P. Twohig
Original Article

Abstract

There are ongoing questions regarding the similarities and differences in the clinical impact and processes of change for cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion. This clinical component test compared 87 adults high in self-criticism randomized to a cognitive defusion mobile app, restructuring app, or waitlist condition for 2 weeks. Equivalent improvements were found from the defusion and restructuring apps relative to the waitlist on self-criticism and distress as well as decentering, self-compassion, and dysfunctional attitudes. However, the defusion condition had a more consistent pattern of improvements relative to waitlist. Improvements in cognitive decentering, self-compassion, and dysfunctional attitudes mediated effects for cognitive defusion relative to waitlist. These mediators were inconsistent for cognitive restructuring. Improvements in self-compassion and cognitive decentering correlated with improvements in outcomes in the defusion condition, but not the restructuring condition. Overall, these results suggest mobile apps providing cognitive defusion and cognitive restructuring strategies are equally effective, but work through distinct processes of change.

Keywords

mHealth Acceptance and commitment therapy Cognitive therapy Mindfulness Component analysis 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Levin is a research associate with Contextual Change LLC, a business focused on developing online acceptance and mindfulness programs for student mental health. Dr. Twohig, Mr. Haeger, and Ms. An declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Baiao, R., Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., & Carvalho, S. (2015). Forms of self-criticising/attacking & self-reassuring scale: Psychometric properties and normative study. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 88, 438–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24, 574–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrera, T. L., Szafranski, D. D., Ratcliff, C. G., Garnaat, S. L., & Norton, P. J. (2016). An experimental comparison of techniques: Cognitive defusion, cognitive restructuring, and in-vivo exposure for social anxiety. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 44, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, A. T., & Haigh, E. A. P. (2014). Advances in cognitive theory and therapy: The generic cognitive model. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, B. J., Walker, J. R., Enns, M. W., & Karpinski, D. C. (2002). Self-criticism in generalized social phobia and response to cognitive-behavioral treatment. Behavior Therapy, 33, 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Graaf, I. E., Roelofs, J., & Hubers, M. J. H. (2009). Measuring dysfunctional attitudes in the general population: The dysfunctional attitude scale (form a) revised. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33, 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deacon, B. J., Fawzy, T. I., Lickel, J. J., & Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B. (2011). Cognitive defusion versus cognitive restructuring in the treatment of negative self-referential thoughts: An investigation of process and outcome. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 25, 218–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T., van Dulmen, M., Segal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D., Ma, H., & Williams, J. M. G. (2007). Initial psychometric properties of the experiences questionnaire: Validation of a self-report measure of decentering. Behavior Therapy, 38, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilbert, P., Clark, M., Hempel, S., Miles, J. N. V., & Irons, C. (2004). Criticising and reassuring oneself: An exploration of forms, styles and reasons in female students. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillanders, D. T., Bolderston, H., Bond, F. W., Dempster, M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., et al. (2014). The development and initial validation of the cognitive fusion questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 45, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes, S. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2018). Process-based CBT: The science and core clinical competencies of cognitive behavioral therapy. Oakland: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, S. C., Villatte, M., Levin, M. E., & Hildebrandt, M. (2011). Open, aware, and active: Contextual approaches as an emerging trend in the behavioral and cognitive therapies. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kazdin, A. E. (1978). Evaluating the generality of findings in analogue therapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 673–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larsson, A., Hooper, N., Osborne, L. A., Bennett, P., & McHugh, L. (2016). Using brief cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion techniques to cope with negative thoughts. Behavior Modification, 40, 452–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levin, M. E., Hildebrandt, M., Lillis, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2012). The impact of treatment components suggested by the psychological flexibility model: A meta-analysis of laboratory-based component studies. Behavior Therapy, 43, 741–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Longmore, R. J., & Worrell, M. (2007). Do we need to challenge thoughts in cognitive behavior therapy? Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luoma, J. B., & Platt, M. G. (2015). Shame, self-criticism, self-stigma, and compassion in acceptance and commitment therapy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2, 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moffitt, R., Brinkworth, G., Noakes, M., & Mohr, P. (2012). A comparison of cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion s strategies for resisting a craved food. Psychology & Health, 27, 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mundt, J. C., Marks, I. M., Shear, M. K., & Greist, J. H. (2002). The work and social adjustment scale: A simple measure of impairment in functioning. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18, 250–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rector, N. A., Bagby, R. M., Segal, Z. V., Joffe, R. T., & Levitt, A. (2000). Self-criticism and dependency in depressed patients treated with cognitive therapy or pharmacotherapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 571–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Segal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2004). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: Theoretical rationale and empirical status. In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, & M. Linehan (Eds.), Mindfulness and acceptance: Expanding the cognitive-behavioral tradition (pp. 45–65). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Torous, J. B., Levin, M. E., Ahern, D., & Oser, M. (2017). Cognitive behavioral mobile applications: Research literature, marketplace data, and evaluation guidelines. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 24, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verbeke, G., & Molenberghs, G. (2000). Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Wackerly, D. D., Mendenhall, W., & Scheaffer, R. L. (2008). Mathematical statistics with applications. Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  32. Wells, A. (2008). Metacognitive therapy: Cognition applied to regulating cognition. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36, 651–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yovel, I., Mor, N., & Shakarov, H. (2014). Examination of the core cognitive components of cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy: An analogue investigation. Behavior Therapy, 45, 482–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zelkowitz, R. L., & Cole, D. A. .(2018). Self-criticism as a transdiagnostic process in nonsuicidal self-injury and disorered eating: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior (in press).Google Scholar
  35. Zettle, R. D. (2005). The evolution of a contextual approach to therapy: From comprehensive distancing to ACT. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 1, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael E. Levin
    • 1
  • Jack Haeger
    • 1
  • Woolee An
    • 1
  • Michael P. Twohig
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations