here is additional info to add: A power analysis was conducted using G*Power software (Version 3.1; Faul et al. 2009) and revealed that, to have 80% power to find an effect of Cohen's d = 0.61 (see Jones and Sharpe 2017) given an alpha level of 0.05, a total of 111 participants were needed. A series of 2 CBM-A (Present; Absent) 2 CBM-I (Present; Absent) ANOVAs were con- ducted to investigate group differences in age, and scores on the DASS-21, SIAS, SPS, and PANAS. Chi square analyses were conducted to investigate group differences in gender. Significant differences that emerged were entered as covari- ates in subsequent analyses to ensure such differences did not account for differences between groups on outcome variables. Data from DPT trials with RTs < 200 ms or from par- ticipants with an error rate 50% were removed. The total error rate was low (M = 7.15%). Attentional bias scores were calculated by subtracting the mean RT of trials in which the probe replaces the socially-threatening word from the mean RT of trials in which the probe replaces the neutral word. A negative score indicates biased attention towards threat. Data from WSAP trials with RTs < 200 ms were removed. Proportions of threat interpretations were calculated by dividing the number of relevant interpretations endorsed by the total number of valid trials, then multiplying this quo- tient by 100. Higher proportions of threat interpretations indicate a negative interpretation bias