Martijn van Teffelen

Chapter 6 138 CBM-I led to a greater increase in SIP-AEQ ( d = 0.29, 95%CI = 0.12 to 0.46) and WSAP ( d = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.09 to 0.43) benign bias from pre- to post-intervention compared to AC. Results also revealed that CBM-I led to a greater decrease in SIP-AEQ ( d = -0.17, 95%CI = -0.34 to 0.00) and WSAP ( d = -0.33, 95%CI = -0.83 to -0.17) hostile bias from pre- to post-intervention compared to AC. On the SIP-AEQ 23.0% of participants in the CBM-I group and 6.8% of participants in the AC group showed significant reliable change ( Χ 2 = 7.25, p = .007). On the WSAP-H 57.4% of participants in the CBM-I group and 32.4% of participants in the AC group showed significant reliable change ( Χ 2 = 8.46, p = .004). Table 3 Study 2 - Mixed regression on bias and aggression b SE t p Bias SIP-AEQ Benign bias Intercept 10.64 .91 11.68 <.001*** Time -.58 .57 1.02 .311 Condition -2.87 1.37 -2.09 .038 Condition by time 2.87 .86 3.34 .001** SIP-AEQ Hostile bias Intercept 17.47 1.65 10.60 <.001*** Time -1.56 .98 -1.61 .111 Condition 2.99 2.49 1.20 .231 Condition by time -2.94 1.48 -1.99 .050* WSAP Benign bias Intercept 3.87 .21 18.09 <.001*** Time -.12 .14 -.88 .383 Condition -.61 .32 -1.88 .062 Condition by time .64 .21 3.05 .003** WSAP Hostile bias Intercept 3.73 .20 19.07 <.001*** Time -.31 .12 -2.53 .013* Condition .77 .29 2.60 .010* Condition by time -.73 .19 -3.95 <.001*** State measures AQ-HS Intercept 23.14 1.61 14.34 <.001*** Time -3.90 .99 -3.95 <.001*** Condition -4.28 2.41 -1.77 .078 Condition by time 2.85 1.46 1.95 .054