Cognitive Bias Modification for paranoia (CBM-pa) is a novel, theory-driven psychological intervention targeting the biased interpretation of emotional ambiguity associated with paranoia. Study objectives were (i) test the intervention's feasibility, (ii) provide effect size estimates, (iii) assess dose–response and (iv) select primary outcomes for future trials.

In a double-blind randomised controlled trial, sixty-three outpatients with clinically significant paranoia were randomised to either CBM-pa or an active control (text reading) between April 2016 and September 2017. Patients received one 40 min session per week for 6 weeks. Assessments were given at baseline, after each interim session, post-treatment, and at 1- and 3-months post-treatment.

A total of 122 patients were screened and 63 were randomised. The recruitment rate was 51.2%, with few dropouts (four out of 63) and follow-up rates were 90.5% (1-month) and 93.7% (3-months). Each session took 30–40 min to complete. There was no statistical evidence of harmful effects of the intervention. Preliminary data were consistent with efficacy of CBM-pa over text-reading control: patients randomised to the intervention, compared to control patients, reported reduced interpretation bias (d = −0.48 to −0.76), improved symptoms of paranoia (d = −0.19 to −0.38), and lower depressed and anxious mood (d = −0.03 to −0.29). The intervention effect was evident after the third session.

CBM-pa is feasible for patients with paranoia. A fully powered randomised control trial is warranted.

Most measures of anxious avoidance are limited to disorder-specific mechanisms and ignore the measurement of courage/approach responding in confronting fearful situations.

The purpose of the present study was to construct and validate a self-report assessment of the tendency towards avoidant or approach responding in fearful situations, the Response to Fearful Situations Scale (RFSS).

In Study 1 (n = 241), exploratory factor analysis resulted in two factors, avoidance and approach. Study 2 (n = 423) replicated the two-factor structure and established test–re-test reliability. In Study 3 (n = 44), the RFSS demonstrated predictive validity on a behavioural avoidance task. In Studies 4 (n = 253) and 5 (n = 256), the RFSS was associated with clinical symptoms above existing measures of avoidance.

These results validate the use of the RFSS as a transdiagnostic measure of avoidance and approach.