Interpretation bias and safety behaviours (Safe-B) have been proposed as factors perpetuating social anxiety (SA). However, longitudinal research on how they contribute to SA in everyday life is scarce.

The aim was to examine whether interpretation bias predicts daily Safe-B and SA. A mediated moderation was hypothesized, where the relationship between daily social stressors and Safe-B would be moderated by interpretation bias, and Safe-B, in turn, would mediate the association between stressors and SA levels. In addition, it was hypothesized that prior levels of SA would predict higher Safe-B use, especially in co-occurrence with stressors.

An intensive longitudinal design was employed, with 138 vocational training students (51% men, mean age 20.15 years). They completed initial measures of SA and interpretation bias and 7-day diaries with measures of social stressors, Safe-B, and SA. They reported SA levels two months later.

Both stressors and interpretation bias in ambiguous situations predicted Safe-B, which in turn predicted daily SA levels. However, neither interpretation bias nor Safe-B predicted SA levels at the follow-up, and interpretation bias did not moderate the association between stressors and daily SA. In addition, the relationship between stressors and Safe-B was stronger in people with higher initial SA levels.

The results suggest that Safe-B are a mechanism through which earlier SA levels and interpretation bias contribute to higher SA levels in daily life.

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.

Studies have shown that specific cognitions and behaviours play a role in maintaining chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). However, little research has investigated illness-specific cognitive processing in CFS. This study investigated whether CFS participants had an attentional bias for CFS-related stimuli and a tendency to interpret ambiguous information in a somatic way. It also determined whether cognitive processing biases were associated with co-morbidity, attentional control or self-reported unhelpful cognitions and behaviours.

A total of 52 CFS and 51 healthy participants completed self-report measures of symptoms, disability, mood, cognitions and behaviours. Participants also completed three experimental tasks, two designed specifically to tap into CFS salient cognitions: (i) visual-probe task measuring attentional bias to illness (somatic symptoms and disability) v. neutral words; (ii) interpretive bias task measuring positive v. somatic interpretations of ambiguous information; and (iii) the Attention Network Test measuring general attentional control.

Compared with controls, CFS participants showed a significant attentional bias for fatigue-related words and were significantly more likely to interpret ambiguous information in a somatic way, controlling for depression and anxiety. CFS participants had significantly poorer attentional control than healthy individuals. Attention and interpretation biases were associated with fear/avoidance beliefs. Somatic interpretations were also associated with all-or-nothing behaviour and catastrophizing.

People with CFS have illness-specific biases which may play a part in maintaining symptoms by reinforcing unhelpful illness beliefs and behaviours. Enhancing adaptive processing, such as positive interpretation biases and more flexible attention allocation, may provide beneficial intervention targets.