Counteract Anhedonia! Introducing an Online-Training to Enhance Reward Experiencing – A Pilot Study Research Articles Counteract Anhedonia! Introducing an Online-Training to Enhance Reward Experiencing – A Pilot Study Cara Limpächer 1 § , Tordis Kindt 2 § , Jürgen Hoyer 1 [1] Behavioral Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. [2] University Clinic and Outpatient Clinic for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Halle, Germany. §These authors contributed equally to this work. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751, https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 Received: 2024-01-18 • Accepted: 2024-05-01 • Published (VoR): 2024-06-28 Handling Editor: Winfried Rief, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany Corresponding Author: Cara Limpächer, Hohe Str. 53, 01187 Dresden, Germany. Telephone: +49 351 463 36956. E- mail: cara.limpaecher@tu-dresden.de Supplementary Materials: Materials, Preregistration [see Index of Supplementary Materials] Abstract Background: Anhedonia is a risk factor for a severe course of depression but is often not adequately addressed in psychotherapy. This study presents the Training to Enhance Reward Experience (T-REx), a novel self-help approach that uses savoring and mental imagery to target impairments in reward experience associated with anhedonia. We aimed to examine feasibility and acceptability of T-REx and exploratively investigated its effects on anhedonia and other clinical variables. Method: In an online, randomized controlled trial, 79 subjects participated for five days in T-REx or the active control condition Gratitude Writing (GW). We assessed changes in anhedonia, depression, and active behavior at inclusion, after the waiting period, post-intervention and at follow-up. The intervention effects were examined for the full sample and an anhedonic sub- sample. Results: T-REx and GW were equally feasible and clearly accepted by the sample. Both interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms and increased behavioral activation. Although there was no significant main effect of the interventions, between-group differences were observed for depressive symptoms and active behavior at post-intervention and follow-up, favoring T-REx. Further, within-group changes for T-REx were larger than for GW. The observed This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly cited. https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.32872/cpe.13751&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-06-28 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7349-7255 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4014-0916 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1697-6732 https://www.psychopen.eu/ https://cpe.psychopen.eu/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ effects had a greater magnitude in the anhedonic sub-sample, suggesting that individuals with more pronounced anhedonic symptoms derived greater benefit from the interventions. Discussion: This first study of T-REx provides promising results that should prompt further investigations of T-REx in clinical samples. The results suggest that T-REx has a positive effect on depression symptoms and active behavior. Further, its potential as a valuable adjunct to behavioral activation interventions is discussed. Keywords depression, reward experience, behavioral activation, savoring, gratitude writing Highlights • We theoretically deduced, developed, and examined a novel treatment option for anhedonia based on savoring and mental imagery. • The Training to Enhance Reward Experience (T-REx) reduces depression and increases active behavior. • T-REx proves to be a promising extension of behavioral activation or other CBT treatments. Depression is one of the most frequent mental disorders worldwide and among the three leading causes of non-fatal health loss and years lived with disability (GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators, 2018). Psychotherapeutic approaches including cognitive-behavioral therapy are generally successful and recommended in treatment guidelines (e.g., National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], 2022). However, patients often experience relapses (36 – 54%, Steinert et al., 2014) and residual symptoms like sleep problems, fatigue, and loss of interest endure even after other symptoms of depression have already subsided (Nierenberg, 2015). Problems of reward experience and loss of interest are frequent. Of those affected by major depressive disorder, up to 75% report to suffer from anhedonia, i.e., inability to experience pleasure or enjoyment from activities that would normally be pleasurable (Franken et al., 2007). Further, 37% endure severe, chronic anhedonic symptoms, which coincide with higher severity of depression (Pelizza & Ferrari, 2009). Higher anhedonia predicts a poor longi­ tudinal course of depression (Kessler et al., 2017). It is postulated to be a predictor of suicidal ideation (Ducasse et al., 2018) and the presence of anhedonia might ease the progression from ideation to action (Auerbach et al., 2022). Most conceptualizations of anhedonia converge upon three main subcomponents: (1) Anticipatory pleasure represents the motivation to expend effort for rewards and includes implicit and explicit wanting processes, (2) consummatory pleasure refers to the responsivity towards rewards, (3) reward learning is defined as probabilistic and reinforcement learning of stimulus-reward contingencies (Craske et al., 2019). The dys­ function of any of the three components of the reward process may lead to the disruptive Training to Enhance Reward Experience 2 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ effects that anhedonia may have for psychotherapy (Rømer Thomsen et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2021). In recent decades, psychotherapy research has primarily focused on developing strategies to reduce psychopathology, such as sadness and anxiety. Improvements in well-being are often viewed as by-products of symptom reduction. However, patients indicate the restoration of positive affect as their primary treatment goal (Demyttenaere et al., 2015). Despite the growing interest in Positive Psychology (Seligman et al., 2006), treatment options aiming to re-establish positive affect are scarce (Boumparis et al., 2016; Sandman & Craske, 2022). On a positive note, current treatment programs can likely be improved by incorporating techniques that focus on positive affect (Dunn et al., 2020). In view of the reduced responsiveness of reward processing in anhedonic patients, recent approaches suggest improving activation and mood by targeting the reward system more specifically (Forbes, 2020; Nagy et al., 2020). To this end, we want to introduce the Training to Enhance Reward Experience (T-REx), a new self-help approach that focuses on restoring and actively creating positive affect. Training to Enhance Reward Experience The Training to Enhance Reward Experience (T-REx) was derived from the literature on mechanisms underlying anhedonia. It takes an integrative approach and incorporates techniques such as savoring and mental imagery, that have already been shown to be effective in increasing positive affect. Savoring is a meta-cognitive process that refers to the process of “generating, intensifying, and prolonging enjoyment through one’s own volition” (Bryant, 2003, p. 176). It describes the ability to regulate positive emotions by looking forward to an upcoming positive event, savoring the moment while the positive event takes place and looking back on positive experiences (Bryant, 1989). The process of savoring intensifies and prolongs the experienced pleasure and reward. In the training, mental imagery is used to facilitate savoring of positive experiences in the past and also to vividly anticipate positive moments and emotions elicited by positive experiences in the future. The training is not a novel intervention per se but rather a new approach that is intended to be simple, effective within a short period of time, and a valuable adjunct to existing interventions, notably Behavioral Activation (BA) treatments (e.g., Hoyer & Vogel, 2018). Purpose of the Present Study In a pilot randomized controlled trial we compared T-REx with Gratitude Writing (GW), an empirically supported positive psychology intervention known for enhancing positive affect and well-being (Jans-Beken et al., 2020). The study focused on assessing the effec­ tiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of T-REx in comparison to GW as an active control condition. As our main research question, we wanted to examine the intervention's Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 3 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ effect on symptoms of anhedonia, depression, and active behavior. While taking part in T-REx, participants train the ability to savor positive moments in the past, when they regularly and repeatedly reminisce about positive experiences. Consequently, the positive affect that has been felt is intensified and prolonged to counteract anhedonic and depressive symptoms. Therefore, we expected that participation in the T-REx group results in a significantly greater reduction of anhedonic and depressive symptoms than in the GW group, across all measurement points. Further, we expected a significantly greater increase in active behavior for T-REx compared to GW, because mental imagery of future activities has shown to increase the motivation to actually engage in those activities (Heise et al., 2022). Additionally, we expected improvements in anhedonia, depression, and active behavior for both groups from pre- to post-intervention, but not during the waiting period. Method Sample Participants were recruited through online forums and websites with a focus on depres­ sion, psychology, or mental health, and in lectures at several universities in Germany. Inclusion criteria were an age between 18 and 65 years, being able to write using a PC, and having at least good German language skills. Exclusion criteria were obsessions or compulsions, acute suicidality, psychotic symptoms, substance abuse, currently receiving psychotherapeutic counseling, started or changed dose of antidepressant medication during the past 3 months. All inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed using single items. Informed consent was obtained before participation, and the study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Procedure The web-based longitudinal study was conducted online via SoSci Survey (Leiner, 2021); all questionnaires and instructions for the interventions were delivered on this platform. Directly after study inclusion, participants completed the baseline questionnaire (t1). We randomly assigned participants to either T-REx or GW. Both groups were compared to a within patient waitlist control group. After a waiting time of one week the respective intervention started and participants completed the pre-intervention questionnaires (t2). After participating in the interventions for five days, participants filled in post-interven­ tion questionnaires at the last intervention day (t3) and follow-up questionnaires two weeks afterwards (t4). Training to Enhance Reward Experience 4 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Material Interventions Both interventions were designed as online self-guided approaches. For comparability, the time required for the interventions was similar, with both interventions taking approximately 15 minutes per day. Each day of the intervention, participants received an email with a link that took them directly to the intervention’s instructions, provided in both written and audio format. T-REx consists of four parts. The initial phase on day one consists of psychoeduca­ tional information about the training rationale (reward sensitization). The latter three parts of the training target components of the reward system and thus aim to enhance reward experience by building on the three time orientations of savoring. Participants are encouraged to focus their attention on experiences (activities, perceptions, etc.) that they perceive as pleasant. Therefore, their task for the next days is to collect positive moments in everyday life. In the standardized instructions, we provide two examples of methods for collecting these moments (e.g., a smartphone to take a picture of something representative of the experience), however, participants are free to choose their own method (reward registration). Each evening, participants are asked to recall the positive moments they collected during the day and to reminisce about them by mentally visual­ izing these moments (reward reliving). Lastly, participants are asked to think of positive experiences that could occur the next day (reward anticipation). Audio-instructions for positive mental time travel are used as reinforcing enjoyment experience strategies for recalling and anticipating rewards. Instructions for mental imagery were adapted from Renner et al. (2019). We opted for mental imagery as it has demonstrated superior effectiveness as a motivational amplifier in activity scheduling when compared to verbal reasoning, as evidenced by Ji et al. (2021). The comparator intervention GW consists of two parts. Similar to T-REx, participants receive a psychoeducational introduction to the intervention on the first day. Every eve­ ning on the following four days, subjects receive an instruction to write about something they are grateful for. Within this exercise, gratitude can be directed to people as well as to experiences, situational circumstances, or other personal topics. Once participants identify something they are grateful for, they are instructed to write about it in as much detail as possible, including any feelings or thoughts that arise. The instructions for GW have been developed after reviewing the instructions of Magyar-Moe (2009) and Rupp et al. (2018). Primary Outcome Measures We used the Snaith-Hamilton-Pleasure-Scale (SHAPS; Snaith et al., 1995; German ver­ sion: Franz et al., 1998) to assess anhedonic symptoms. The questionnaire consists of 14 items and subjects are instructed to imagine whether they might feel pleasure during Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 5 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ certain experiences. Snaith et al. proposed to recode the four response categories into dichotomous categories, that is, agree and disagree (score 0 and 1). More recent papers have used a continuous scoring method to increase sensitivity to change (Franken et al., 2007), producing scores ranging from 14 (not at all anhedonic) to 56 (severely anhedonic). The present study adopts this continuous scoring approach. The internal reliability of the continuously scored SHAPS has been found to be adequate in both non-clinical (α = 0.91) and clinical (α = 0.94) samples (Franken et al., 2007). The internal reliability for the continuously scored SHAPS was also adequate in the current sample (α = 0.79). The Beck’s Depression Inventory II (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996; German version: Hautzinger et al., 2006) is a widely used questionnaire in both clinical and non-clinical samples, includes 21 items that can be rated on a 4-point scale (0 – 3) and assesses somatic-affective and cognitive dimensions of depression. The total score can range between 0 and 63 and indicates mild (≥ 16), moderate (20-28) or severe (≥ 29) depressive symptoms. Psychometric properties and validity are well-established (Herzberg et al., 2008; Kühner et al., 2007), the BDI-II showed high internal consistency (α = .92-.93) and high test-retest reliability (r = .93, Beck et al., 1996), comparable to this study (α = .95). The 9-item short form of the Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale – short form (BADS; Manos et al., 2011; German version: Teismann et al., 2016) assesses concepts of BA (activity and avoidance) by measuring behavioral activity in the past week with statements that can be rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (complete­ ly). The summated score ranges from 0 to 54 and higher scores refer to greater activity (Kanter et al., 2007). The BADS showed good internal consistency in previous studies (α = .85, Teismann et al., 2016), and in this study (α = .80). The primary outcome measures reported here differ from those outlined in the preregistration, where initially more outcome measures were planned. Due to space constraints, we opted to report only the most pertinent outcomes. Additional Measures To examine acceptability, we applied a feedback questionnaire with three items that were rated on a 4-point scale (adapted from Robichaud et al., 2020). Participants provided feedback on their overall satisfaction with the intervention, the quality of the study material, and whether the time effort was worth it. A fourth item asked participants if they would recommend the intervention to a friend who suffers from loss of pleasure or interest. To address the feasibility of the interventions we examined retention and attrition rates, as measured by the percentage of dropout between baseline (t1) and follow-up (t4). We separately assessed adherence rates as measured by the relative number of subjects who completed all five days of the respective intervention. To account for potential attrition bias (Dumville et al., 2006), we included comparisons of baseline characteristics Training to Enhance Reward Experience 6 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ between dropouts and completers using t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests of independence for categorical variables. Statistical Analysis Intent-to-treat analyses were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM), assuming data were missing at random. As one cannot prove that data is missing at random, we first examined whether participants with missing data differed from those with complete data on any demographic or pretreatment level of the study variables. A linear mixed model for each of the three outcome measures was implemented with a random intercept for subject. The models included SHAPS-score, BDI-II score, or BADS-score, respectively, as the outcome variable, the level 1 predictor time (t1, t1, t3, t4), the level 2 predictor group (T-REx vs. GW), and a cross-level interaction between time and group. We tested the interaction of time and group by comparing the full to reduced models without the respective interaction term via likelihood ratio tests (LRTs). We specified T-REx and baseline measurement (t1) as reference categories and parameters were estimated with the maximum likelihood estimation method. Differences from t1 to t2 represent waiting time, differences from t1 to t3 post-intervention differences and from t1 to t4, the fol­ low-up-period. Estimated marginal means, planned contrasts, within and between-group effect sizes (expressed as Cohen’s d), and confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from the mixed-modeling analysis. In accordance with Cohen (1988), effect sizes of d = 0.2 were interpreted as small, of d = 0.5 as medium and of d ≥ 0.8 as large. In all analyses α was set to .05. We used R (R Core Team, 2023) with the following packages: lme4 (Bates et al., 2015) to perform a linear mixed effects analysis, and em­ means (Lenth et al., 2022) to calculate the statistical significance of pairwise differences. Results Participant Flow and Characteristics In total, 251 individuals attempted to participate in the study. Of these, 172 were excluded as ineligible or declined to participate. Following the screening, 79 participants (65 females, Mage[SD] = 26.44[9.31]) in total were randomized to either T-REx (n = 39) or GW (n = 40) and provided baseline data (see Figure S1 for CONSORT flowchart in the online Supplementary Materials). Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials shows the demographic and clinical characteristics. At baseline, the groups did not significantly differ in demographic characteristics and clinical variables (all ps > .05, see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials). Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 7 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Feasibility and Acceptability Analysis The overall retention rate from baseline to follow-up was 72% (n = 57), thus n = 22 subjects dropped out of the study before completing the last assessment. Looking at T-REx and GW separately, the retention rates (including follow-up) were 82% (n = 32) and 63% (n = 25), respectively. The dropout was higher for GW than for T-REx, although this difference was not statistically significant χ2 = 3.76, p = .053. Adherence for T-REx was 90% and 75% for GW. To identify potential baseline factors that might have affected whether participants dropped out by the two weeks follow-up, and whether this varied between interventions, a series of factorial ANOVAs (group by dropout) were conducted. Participants who dropped out were on average older than completers (M = 31.8 vs. 24.4, F[1,75] = 12.88, p < .001, ηp2 = < 0.01), but this did not differ by group, with a non-significant interaction (F[1, 75]= 0.006, p = .938, ηp2 < 0.01). There were no differences on clinical outcomes or demographic variables for those who dropped out by two weeks follow-up, nor interactions with group (all ps > .05). On average, participants indicated their satisfaction regarding the interventions, qual­ ity of study materials, and time effort between 3,00 – 3,29 from 4. All subjects who completed T-REx would recommend the intervention to a friend suffering from a loss of pleasure or interest. Within completers of GW 90% would recommend the intervention to a friend, although this difference was not statistically significant (χ2 = 3.67, p = .055). Changes in Anhedonia, Depression, Behavioral Activation We compared the mixed effect models with and without the interaction term for all primary outcome measures. For all three outcome measures the null-hypothesis could not be rejected: The models with the interaction term did not explain significantly more variance than the reduced models (SHAPS: χ2[3] = 1.14, p = .768; BDI-II: χ2[3] = 2.80, p = .423; BADS: χ2[3] = 2.58, p = .461), hence there was no significant difference in average slope between the two groups. Since the interaction of time and group was not significant, we consider main effects of time and group in the following. As predicted, the change in SHAPS, BDI-II and BADS-score over the one week waiting time was small and not significant (all ps > .05). There was no significant main effect of time or group on the SHAPS-score at any of the measurement occasions (all ps > .05). However, we found a significant main effect of time for BDI-II at post-training (β = -3.12, SE = 0.96, p = .001) and follow-up (β = -3.96, SE = 0.99, p < .001), meaning that compared to baseline, after the intervention and at two weeks follow-up, BDI-II in both groups was roughly three to four points lower than at baseline. We found no significant main effect of group (β = 2.65, SE = 2.41, p = .275), while data inspection revealed that participants in T-REx have on average three BDI-II points less than participants in GW. Again, we found a significant main effect of time for BADS at post-training (β = 4.05, SE = 1.22, p = .001) and follow-up (β = 5.65, SE = 1.26, p < .001), indicating that after Training to Enhance Reward Experience 8 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ both interventions and at two weeks follow-up, BADS scores were on average roughly four to five points higher than at baseline. Further, we found no main effect of group on BADS-scores (β = -0.66, SE = 2.16, p = .757). In addition, we rerun the analyses excluding the items of the BDI-II that Cogan et al. (2024) recently identified as assessing anhedonia (items 4, 12, 15, 21). However, results for the models with and without the interaction term and for within and between group changes were only marginally different, when this reduced version of the BDI was used. Observed and estimated marginals means based on the multilevel models, as well as contrasts and between-group effect sizes are presented in Table 1. Note that the confidence interval of Cohen's d includes zero for all between-group effect sizes. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations/Standard Errors for Observed and Estimated Data, Contrasts and Cohen’s d for the Full Sample Outcome Observed Estimated Contrast [95% CI] d M (SD) M (SE) T-REx GW T-REx GW SHAPS t1 24.4 (5.97) 24.7 (8.46) 24.4 (1.07) 24.7 (1.05) -0.32 [-3.28, 2.65] -0.07 t2 24.9 (6.39) 23.9 (6.58) 24.9 (1.07) 23.9 (1.05) 0.93 [-1.99, 3.94] 0.23 t3 24.1 (5.28) 23.1 (7.00) 23.8 (1.10) 22.9 (1.15) 0.87 [-2.28, 4.02] 0.20 t4 23.5 (5.06) 22.8 (7.65) 23.2 (1.13) 23.0 (1.22) 0.14 [-3.14, 3.43] 0.03 BDI-II t1 11.2 (8.06) 13.8 (13.7) 11.18 (1.74) 13.82 (1.72) -2.65 [-7.50, 2.21] -0.65 t2 11.0 (7.89) 14.0 (13.0) 11.03 (1.74) 14.03 (1.72) -3.00 [-7.85, 1.85] -0.74 t3 8.57 (6.77) 10.7 (11.7) 8.06 (1.76) 10.98 (1.78) -2.92 [-7.88, 2.04] -0.72 t4 7.19 (5.98) 11.5 (14.0) 7.22 (1.78) 12.15 (1.82) -4.93 [-9.97, 0.12] -1.21 BADS t1 30.8 (8.71) 30.1 (11.0) 30.8 (1.56) 30.1 (1.54) 0.67 [-3.66, 5.00] 0.13 t2 31.6 (8.72) 30.0 (10.6) 31.6 (1.56) 30.0 (1.54) 1.59 [-2.74, 5.92] 0.31 t3 34.1 (8.24) 33.2 (10.6) 34.8 (1.59) 32.9 (1.64) 1.91 [-2.61, 6.42] 0.37 t4 35.7 (6.86) 33.4 (11.9) 36.4 (1.62) 32.8 (1.71) 3.65 [-1.00, 8.31] 0.71 Note. T-REx = Training to Enhance Reward Experience; GW = Gratitude Writing; SHAPS = Snaith-Hamilton- Pleasure-Scale; BDI-II = Beck’s Depression Inventory II; BADS = Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale; t1 = baseline (n = 79); t2 = pre-intervention (n = 79); t3 = post-intervention (n = 65); t4 = two-week follow-up (n = 57). Exploratory Analysis in Anhedonic Sub-Sample The participants from this study were recruited from the general population. However, since we focused on including patients with self-reported depressive symptoms, some individuals in the sample exhibited stronger anhedonic symptoms. To see whether the interventions would be effective if anhedonia is more severe, we carried out the Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 9 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ same analyses for an anhedonic sub-sample. Subjects with a cut-off score ≥ 2 in the SHAPS original coding at baseline, were classified as anhedonic. We decided to use a slightly more liberal cut-off score than recommended by Snaith et al. (1995) to ensure an adequate sample size for analysis. Given the complexity and multifaceted nature of anhedonia, a stringent cut-off could have led to the exclusion of individuals who still exhibit clinically relevant symptoms, albeit to a lesser extent. This criterion applied to n = 17 (44%) subjects in the T-REx group and n = 18 (45%) in the GW group. The following analyses were based on the anhedonic sub-sample (n = 35, 28 females, Mage[SD] = 26.09[8.25]). Neither for SHAPS, BDI-II, nor BADS the models with the interaction term (time x group) explained significantly more variance than the reduced models (all ps > .05). Therefore, there was no significant difference in the average slope between the two groups. Since the interaction of time and group did not yield significance, we focus on the main effects of time and group in subsequent analyses. Regarding SHAPS, in the anhedonic sub-sample, the main effect of time was not significant at post-training (β = -2.69, SE = 1.73, p = .124) but significant at follow-up (β = -5.51, SE = 1.77, p = .002). We found significant effects of time on BDI-II at post-training (β = -6.41, SE = 1.67, p < .001) and follow-up (β = -5.99, SE = 1.71, p < .001). Likewise, we found a main effect of time on BADS at post-intervention (β = 8.75, SE = 1.78, p < .001) and follow-up (β = 9.08, SE = 1.82, p < .001). Figure 1 shows the mean values of all measures for baseline, pre-intervention, post-intervention, and follow-up for the full sample and the anhedonic sub-sample respectively. Observed and estimated marginals means based on the multilevel models, as well as contrasts and between-group effect sizes for the anhedonic sub-sample are presented in Table 2. We found large between-group effect sizes for BDI-II and BADS scores at post-intervention and at follow-up (all ds > .80). Note that the CI includes zero for all contrasts and ds presented in Table 2. Within-group effect sizes for the full sample and the anhedonic sub-sample are depicted in Table 3. Discussion This is the first study investigating the effects of T-REx, a new self-help intervention targeting anhedonia. In an online randomized controlled trial, we used GW, hence an em­ pirically tested intervention, as comparison. We examined the interventions’ feasibility, acceptability, and treatment effects on anhedonia, depression, and behavioral activation – both in the full sample as well as in an anhedonic sub-sample. Training to Enhance Reward Experience 10 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Figure 1 Mean Values of BDI-II, SHAPS and BADS for Each Assessment in Both Groups (T-REx, GW) for the Total Sample (N = 79) and Anhedonic Sub-Sample (n = 36) Note. T-REx = Training to Enhance Reward Experience; GW = Gratitude Writing; SHAPS = Snaith-Hamilton- Pleasure-Scale; BDI-II = Beck’s Depression Inventory II; BADS = Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale; cut-off scores for BDI-II (total score of > 13 = mild depression, Beck et al., 1996) included as dotted line. Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 11 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations/Standard Errors for Observed and Estimated Data, Contrasts and Cohen’s d for the Anhedonic Sub-Sample Outcome Observed Estimated Contrast [95% CI] d M (SD) M (SE) T-REx GW T-REx GW SHAPS t1 29.1 (4.30) 30.1 (9.05) 29.1 (1.54) 30.1 (1.49) -0.94 [-5.19, 3.31] -0.19 t2 29.5 (4.76) 26.6 (5.37) 29.5 (1.54) 26.6 (1.49) 2.92 [-1.33, 7.16] 0.59 t3 26.3 (5.76) 27 (6.80) 26.4 (1.58) 27.0 (1.57) -0.56 [-4.97, 3.85] -0.11 t4 23.5 (5.34) 26.8 (8.07) 23.6 (1.62) 26.8 (1.71) -3.21 [-7.87, 1.45] -0.65 BDI-II t1 14.7 (7.58) 17 (13.2) 14.71 (2.60) 17.00 (2.53) -2.29 [-9.57, 4.98] -0.48 t2 14.5 (7.26) 16.8 (12.5) 14.47 (2.60) 16.78 (2.53) -2.31 [-9.58, 4.97] -0.49 t3 8.25 (5.79) 13.9 (13.8) 8.30 (2.62) 13.34 (2.57) -5.04 [-12.41, 2.33] -1.06 t4 8.27 (6.37) 15.5 (16.2) 8.72 (2.65) 15.22 (2.66) -6.50 [-14.01, 1.02] -1.37 BADS t1 26.8 (7.78) 26.9 (11.2) 26.8 (2.20) 26.9 (2.14) -0.12 [-6.24, 6.00] -0.02 t2 29.2 (5.23) 27.8 (10.7) 29.2 (2.20) 27.8 (2.14) 1.34 [-4.78, 7.47] 0.26 t3 35.9 (6.5) 29.8 (11.8) 35.6 (2.23) 30.2 (2.20) 5.34 [-0.91, 11.59] 1.05 t4 36.2 (5.05) 31.7 (12.0) 35.9 (2.26) 31.4 (2.31) 4.49 [-1.95, 10.94] 0.89 Note. T-REx = Training to Enhance Reward Experience; GW = Gratitude Writing; SHAPS = Snaith-Hamilton- Pleasure-Scale; BDI-II = Beck’s Depression Inventory II; BADS = Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale; t1 = baseline (n = 35); t2 = pre-intervention (n = 35); t3 = post-intervention (n = 32); t4 = 2-weeks follow-up (n = 28). Table 3 Within-Effect Sizes (Cohen’s d) and 95% CIs for the Full Sample and the Anhedonic Sub-Sample Outcome Condition Within-group ds [95% CI] Full Sample Within-group ds [95% CI] Anhedonic sub-sample Baseline to post-intervention Baseline to follow-up Baseline to post-intervention Baseline to follow-up SHAPS T-REx 0.13 [-0.34, 0.59] 0.28 [-0.21, 0.76] 0.54 [-0.17, 1.26] 1.11 [0.38, 1.84] GW 0.40 [-0.09, 0.90] 0.38 [-0.15, 0.92] 0.62 [-0.09, 1.33] 0.65 [-0.11, 1.41] BDI T-REx 0.77 [0.29, 1.24] 0.97 [0.48, 1.46] 1.35 [0.62, 2.07] 1.26 [0.51, 2.00] GW 0.70 [0.19, 1.20] 0.41 [-0.12, 0.95] 0.77 [0.05, 1.49] 0.37 [-0.40, 1.15] BADS T-REx -0.78 [-1.26, -0.31] -1.09 [-1.58, -0.61] -1.72 [-2.45, -1.00] -1.79 [-2.53, -1.05] GW -0.54 [-1.04, -0.04] -0.52 [-1.05, 0.02] -0.65 [-1.37, 0.07] -0.88 [-1.65, -0.11] Note. T-REx = Training to Enhance Reward Experience; GW = Gratitude Writing; SHAPS = Snaith-Hamilton- Pleasure-Scale; BDI-II = Beck’s Depression Inventory II; BADS = Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale; d is printed in bold if the CI does not contain 0. Training to Enhance Reward Experience 12 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Both interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms and increased behavioral activation from baseline measurement to post intervention. The observed favorable ef­ fect persisted until the follow-up measurement and appeared to become subsequently amplified. We found medium to high between-group effect sizes in favor of T-REx for depressive symptoms and active behavior at post-intervention and at follow-up, but the main effect of intervention was not statistically significant. In the full, as well as in the anhedonic subsample, within-arm changes in the T-REx group from baseline to post-intervention and to follow-up were consistently larger than in the GW group (especially for BDI-II and BADS). The observed effects had a greater magnitude within the anhedonic sub-sample, suggesting that individuals with more pronounced anhedonic symptoms derived greater benefit from the interventions. Relatively higher retention and thus lower attrition rates in T-REx as well as a favorable adherence rate, suggests a great­ er preference for T-REx. Participants’ feedback on the interventions was predominantly good to excellent. Further, the dropout rates can also be interpreted in terms of accepta­ bility (Feeley et al., 2009), thereby supporting the acceptability of both interventions. Subsequently, a more detailed examination is conducted to explore the effects of the interventions on depression symptoms, behavioral activation, and anhedonia, respective­ ly. After participating in the interventions, the estimated means for both groups were below the cut-off score for mild depression (BDI-II < 13, Beck et al., 1996). We found medium to large effect sizes in diminishing depressive symptoms from baseline to post- intervention and sustained through follow-up for T-REx, while only small to medium effect sizes were noted for GW. Our findings indicate that a brief 5-day intervention combining reward sensitivity training, savoring exercises, and mental imagery effectively mitigates depressive symptoms. These data corroborate findings of previous studies that showed that savoring is a protective factor for depression as higher savoring was associated with lower depressive symptoms (Chiu et al., 2020; Ford et al., 2017). Future studies are needed to observe which temporal savoring domain is likely to reduce depres­ sion symptoms most. Research so far indicates that momentary savoring has stronger negative association with depressive symptoms than do reminiscing and anticipating (Bryant, 2003; Kahrilas et al., 2020). Behavioral activation was effectively increased even though T-REx did not include activity planning, a core element of BA (Kanter et al., 2009). This is consistent with other studies suggesting that mental imagery of activities serves as a “motivational amplifier” for engaging in activities (Ji et al., 2021; Renner et al., 2019). Hence, it is likely that T-REx, especially reward anticipation, may prompt a more active behavior, i.e., increases the motivation to engage in pleasurable activities, and that T-REx therefore has the potential to be optimally combined with BA interventions. Our results are in line with the pattern of co-occurrence of increased behavioral activation and decreased depressive symptoms previously found in response to behavioral activation interventions (Hoyer & Vogel, 2018; Limpächer et al., 2023; Melicherova et al., 2024). Albeit we did not gather Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 13 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ data regarding the implementation of imagined activities for the subsequent day; this aspect could be explored in a future study. Such an investigation would yield an objective measure of behavioral activation, surpassing mere reliance on self-reported data. Surprisingly, despite T-REx being specifically designed to alleviate anhedonia, the SHAPS was the sole outcome measure where no significant effect of time was observed. One potential explanation for the missing effect in the full sample, could be attributed to the low baseline scores, suggesting little room for improvement. Moreover, it is conceiva­ ble that anhedonia may require a longer time to repair, gradually resolving as depressed mood recovers and individuals consistently engage in potentially rewarding activities. The validity of this assumption is supported by the results of the anhedonic sub-sample, where a significant improvement in anhedonic symptoms was observed in both groups at follow-up. These findings align with the results reported by Alsayednasser et al. (2022), who conducted a comparison of cognitive-behavioral-therapy and BA treatments for individuals with depression: across all measurement points and for both conditions anhedonia was repaired to a lesser extent than depression. Limitations and Future Research A number of methodological limitations need to be considered. First, due to the pilot nature of this study, our sample size was rather small. Thus, the design was likely underpowered, especially for the confirmation of interactions between group and time, leading to a decreased chance of detecting treatment differences. Moreover, generaliza­ bility of our findings is limited given the sociodemographic profile of our sample that is of young age and mostly female. We note that the sample was a healthy or rather subclinical sample, as, for example, no cut-off regarding anhedonia or depression was set for participation, and, because the study took place online, a detailed clinical assessment was not possible. Hence, our results provide a proof of concept and call for further replications with larger (clinical) samples. Second, we acknowledge that the positive changes observed may be attributed to other factors than the online interventions, which include the attention of the study team, the neutral course of symptoms related to depression, or other variables that may impact symptom burden but are unrelated to T-REx or GW (e.g., stress associated with school/work, additional coping attempts). Third, although we countered systematic bias by randomly assigning interventions, our research on primary and secondary outcomes relies on self-report measures, which are known to be prone to several types of bias, including confirmation bias, retrospective recall bias, and social desirability bias. Naturally, new research questions arise from these limitations. Given the encouraging results, the next step should be to proceed from this pilot study to a large-scale trial. Future studies are essential to examine how well the observed effects translate to, or even increase in clinical samples and other settings (i.e., offline). Furthermore, it would Training to Enhance Reward Experience 14 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://www.psychopen.eu/ be valuable to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the dose-response relationship of savored moments. This analysis would explore whether the effects of T-Rex intensify as more positive events are collected, reminisced upon, and imagined for the next day. Moreover, given that sharing positive experiences with others is considered a savoring strategy associated with greater well-being (Gable et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2013), it seems plausible to assume that group therapies could be a particularly potent setting for implementing T-REx. In conclusion, this study offers encouraging evidence supporting the feasibility and acceptance of T-REx as an intervention to alleviate depression symptoms and enhance behavioral activation over a brief intervention period. Nevertheless, the findings once again emphasize the challenging nature of treating anhedonia through psychotherapeu­ tic interventions. Funding: The authors have no funding to report that is related to this article. Acknowledgments: The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report. Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to report. Ethics Statement: All participants gave informed consent, and the procedure was approved by the local Ethics Committee (EK 152032021). Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, CL, upon reasonable request. Supplementary Materials The Supplementary Materials include the following items: • The preregistration for this study (see Limpächer et al., 2021S) • Additional information (see Limpächer et al., 2024S): ◦ A CONSORT flow chart of participants ◦ A table with pretreatment and demographic characteristics of the intent-to-treat sample Index of Supplementary Materials Limpächer, C., Kindt, T., & Hoyer, J. (2021S). Supplementary materials to "Counteract anhedonia! Introducing an online-training to enhance reward experiencing – A pilot study" [Preregistration]. German Clinical Trials Register. https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00025758 Limpächer, C., Kindt, T., & Hoyer, J. (2024S). Supplementary materials to "Counteract anhedonia! Introducing an online-training to enhance reward experiencing – A pilot study" [Additional information]. PsychOpen GOLD. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14656 Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 15 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00025758 https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14656 https://www.psychopen.eu/ References Alsayednasser, B., Widnall, E., O’Mahen, H., Wright, K., Warren, F., Ladwa, A., Khazanov, G. K., Byford, S., Kuyken, W., Watkins, E., Ekers, D., Reed, N., Fletcher, E., McMillan, D., Farrand, P., Richards, D., & Dunn, B. D. (2022). How well do Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Behavioural Activation for depression repair anhedonia? A secondary analysis of the COBRA randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 159, Article 104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2022.104185 Auerbach, R. P., Pagliaccio, D., & Kirshenbaum, J. S. (2022). Anhedonia and suicide. In D. A. Pizzagalli (Ed.), Anhedonia: Preclinical, translational, and clinical integration (pp. 443–464). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2022_358 Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd ed. Manual. The Psychological Corporation. Boumparis, N., Karyotaki, E., Kleiboer, A., Hofmann, S. G., & Cuijpers, P. (2016). The effect of psychotherapeutic interventions on positive and negative affect in depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 202, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.019 Bryant, F. B. (1989). A four-factor model of perceived control: Avoiding, coping, obtaining, and savoring. Journal of Personality, 57(4), 773–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00494.x Bryant, F. B. (2003). Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about savouring. Journal of Mental Health, 12(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963823031000103489 Chiu, H. T., Yee, L. T. S., Kwan, J. L. Y., Cheung, R. Y. M., & Hou, W. K. (2020). Interactive association between negative emotion regulation and savoring is linked to anxiety symptoms among college students. Journal of American College Health, 68(5), 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1580712 Cogan, A. B., Persons, J. B., & Kring, A. M. (2024). Using the Beck Depression Inventory to assess anhedonia: A scale validation study. Assessment, 31(2), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231164628 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Craske, M. G., Meuret, A. E., Ritz, T., Treanor, M., Dour, H., & Rosenfield, D. (2019). Positive affect treatment for depression and anxiety: A randomized clinical trial for a core feature of anhedonia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(5), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000396 Demyttenaere, K., Donneau, A.-F., Albert, A., Ansseau, M., Constant, E., & van Heeringen, K. (2015). What is important in being cured from depression? Discordance between physicians Training to Enhance Reward Experience 16 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2022.104185 https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2022_358 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.019 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00494.x https://doi.org/10.1080/0963823031000103489 https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1580712 https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231164628 https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000396 https://www.psychopen.eu/ and patients (1). Journal of Affective Disorders, 174, 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.004 Ducasse, D., Loas, G., Dassa, D., Gramaglia, C., Zeppegno, P., Guillaume, S., Olié, E., & Courtet, P. (2018). Anhedonia is associated with suicidal ideation independently of depression: A meta- analysis. Depression and Anxiety, 35(5), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22709 Dumville, J. C., Torgerson, D. J., & Hewitt, C. E. (2006). Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 332(7547), 969–971. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7547.969 Dunn, B. D., German, R. E., Khazanov, G., Xu, C., Hollon, S. D., & DeRubeis, R. J. (2020). Changes in positive and negative affect during pharmacological treatment and cognitive therapy for major depressive disorder: A secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619863427 Feeley, N., Cossette, S., Côté, J., Héon, M., Stremler, R., Martorella, G., & Purden, M. (2009). Best practices for research: The importance of piloting an RCT intervention. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 41(2), 84–99. Forbes, C. N. (2020). New directions in behavioral activation: Using findings from basic science and translational neuroscience to inform the exploration of potential mechanisms of change. Clinical Psychology Review, 79, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101860 Ford, J., Klibert, J. J., Tarantino, N., & Lamis, D. A. (2017). Savouring and self-compassion as protective factors for depression. Stress and Health, 33(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2687 Franken, I. H. A., Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2007). The assessment of anhedonia in clinical and non- clinical populations: Further validation of the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS). Journal of Affective Disorders, 99(1-3), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2006.08.020 Franz, M., Lemke, M. R., Meyer, T., Ulferts, J., Puhl, P., & Snaith, R. P. (1998). Deutsche Version der Snaith-Hamilton-Pleasure-Scale (SHAPS-D). Erfassung von Anhedonie bei schizophrenen und depressiven Patienten [German version of the Snaith-Hamilton-Pleasure Scale (SHAPS-D): Assessing anhedonia in schizophrenic and depressive patients]. Fortschritte der Neurologie- Psychiatrie, 66(9), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-995279 Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228 GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. (2018). Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet, 392(10159), 1789–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 Hautzinger, M., Keller, F., & Kühner, C. (2006). Das Beck Depressionsinventar II. Deutsche Bearbeitung und Handbuch zum BDI II [The Beck Depression Inventory II: German version of the BDI II]. Harcourt Test Services. Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 17 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22709 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7547.969 https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619863427 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101860 https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2687 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2006.08.020 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-995279 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Heise, M., Werthmann, J., Murphy, F., Tuschen-Caffier, B., & Renner, F. (2022). Imagine how good that feels: The impact of anticipated positive emotions on motivation for reward activities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 46(4), 704–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-022-10306-z Herzberg, P. Y., Goldschmidt, S., & Heinrichs, N. (2008). Beck Depressions-Inventar (BDI-II). Revision. Report Psychologie, 33, 301–302. Hoyer, J., & Vogel, D. (2018). Verhaltensaktivierung [Behavioural activation]. Beltz. Jans-Beken, L., Jacobs, N., Janssens, M., Peeters, S., Reijnders, J., Lechner, L., & Lataster, J. (2020). Gratitude and health: An updated review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(6), 743–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651888 Ji, J. L., Geiles, D., & Saulsman, L. M. (2021). Mental imagery-based episodic simulation amplifies motivation and behavioural engagement in planned reward activities. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 145, Article 103947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103947 Kahrilas, I. J., Smith, J. L., Silton, R. L., & Bryant, F. B. (2020). Savoring the moment: A link between affectivity and depression. International Journal of Wellbeing, 10(2), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v10i2.779 Kanter, J. W., Busch, A. M., & Rusch, L. C. (2009). Behavioral activation: Distinctive features. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876060 Kanter, J. W., Mulick, P. S., Busch, A. M., Berlin, K. S., & Martell, C. R. (2007). The Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale (BADS): Psychometric properties and factor structure. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9038-5 Kessler, R. C., van Loo, H. M., Wardenaar, K. J., Bossarte, R. M., Brenner, L. A., Ebert, D. D., de Jonge, P., Nierenberg, A. A., Rosellini, A. J., Sampson, N. A., Schoevers, R. A., Wilcox, M. A., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2017). Using patient self-reports to study heterogeneity of treatment effects in major depressive disorder. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 26(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796016000020 Kühner, C., Bürger, C., Keller, F., & Hautzinger, M. (2007). Reliabilität und Validität des revidierten Beck-Depressionsinventars (BDI-II). Befunde aus deutschsprachigen Stichproben [Reliability and validity of the Revised Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II): Results from German samples]. Der Nervenarzt, 78(6), 651–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-006-2098-7 Lambert, N. M., Gwinn, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., Strachman, A., Washburn, I. J., Gable, S. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). A boost of positive affect: The perks of sharing positive experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512449400 Leiner, D. J. (2021). SoSci Survey (Version 3.2.31) [Computer software]. https://www.soscisurvey.de Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P., & Herve, M. (2022). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans Training to Enhance Reward Experience 18 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-022-10306-z https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651888 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103947 https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v10i2.779 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876060 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9038-5 https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796016000020 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-006-2098-7 https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512449400 https://www.soscisurvey.de https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans https://www.psychopen.eu/ Limpächer, C., Ziem, M., & Hoyer, J. (2023). Effects of behavioral activation group treatment prior to individual therapy for depression. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 52(3), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000707 Magyar-Moe, J. L. (2009). Therapist's guide to positive psychological interventions. Academic Press. Manos, R. C., Kanter, J. W., & Luo, W. (2011). The Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale–Short Form: Development and validation. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 726–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.04.004 Melicherova, U., Schott, T., Köllner, V., & Hoyer, J. (2024). Behavioral activation for depression in groups embedded in psychosomatic rehabilitation inpatient treatment: A quasi-randomized controlled study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, Article 12229380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1229380 Nagy, G. A., Cernasov, P., Pisoni, A., Walsh, E., Dichter, G. S., & Smoski, M. J. (2020). Reward network modulation as a mechanism of change in behavioral activation. Behavior Modification, 44(2), 186–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518805682 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2022). Depression in adults: Treatment and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng222 Nierenberg, A. A. (2015). Residual symptoms in depression: Prevalence and impact. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(11), Article e1480. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.13097TX1C Pelizza, L., & Ferrari, A. (2009). Anhedonia in schizophrenia and major depression: State or trait? Annals of General Psychiatry, 8, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-8-22 R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org Renner, F., Murphy, F. C., Ji, J. L., Manly, T., & Holmes, E. A. (2019). Mental imagery as a “motivational amplifier” to promote activities. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 114, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.02.002 Robichaud, M., Talbot, F., Titov, N., Dear, B. F., Hadjistavropoulos, H. D., Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Jbilou, J. (2020). Facilitating access to iCBT: A randomized controlled trial assessing a translated version of an empirically validated program using a minimally monitored delivery model. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 48(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246581900047X Rømer Thomsen, K., Whybrow, P. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). Reconceptualizing anhedonia: Novel perspectives on balancing the pleasure networks in the human brain. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, Article 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00049 Rupp, C., Linten, J., & Gräfe, C. (2018). Übungen, mit denen man Lebenskunst verbessern kann [Exercises to improve the art of living]. In B. Schmitz, J. Lang, & J. Linten (Eds.), Psychologie der Lebenskunst [Psychology of the art of living] (pp. 181–195). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55251-3_13 Sandman, C. F., & Craske, M. G. (2022). Psychological treatments for anhedonia. In D. A. Pizzagalli (Ed.), Current Topics in Behavioral Neuroscience: Vol. 58. Anhedonia: Preclinical, translational, and clinical integration (pp. 491–513). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2021_291 Limpächer, Kindt, & Hoyer 19 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000707 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.04.004 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1229380 https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518805682 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng222 https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.13097TX1C https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-8-22 https://www.R-project.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.02.002 https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246581900047X https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00049 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55251-3_13 https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2021_291 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. The American Psychologist, 61(8), 774–788. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.774 Snaith, R. P., Hamilton, M., Morley, S., Humayan, A., Hargreaves, D., & Trigwell, P. (1995). A scale for the assessment of hedonic tone: The Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 167(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.167.1.99 Steinert, C., Hofmann, M., Kruse, J., & Leichsenring, F. (2014). Relapse rates after psychotherapy for depression – Stable long-term effects? A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 168, 107– 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.06.043 Teismann, T., Ertle, A., Furka, N., Willutzki, U., & Hoyer, J. (2016). The German version of the Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale (BADS): A psychometric and clinical investigation. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 23(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1948 Wang, S., Leri, F., & Rizvi, S. J. (2021). Anhedonia as a central factor in depression: Neural mechanisms revealed from preclinical to clinical evidence. Progress in Neuro- Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 110, Article 110289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110289 Clinical Psychology in Europe (CPE) is the official journal of the European Association of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Treatment (EACLIPT). PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Germany. Training to Enhance Reward Experience 20 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(2), Article e13751 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13751 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.774 https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.167.1.99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.06.043 https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1948 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110289 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Training to Enhance Reward Experience (Introduction) Training to Enhance Reward Experience Purpose of the Present Study Method Sample Procedure Material Statistical Analysis Results Participant Flow and Characteristics Feasibility and Acceptability Analysis Changes in Anhedonia, Depression, Behavioral Activation Exploratory Analysis in Anhedonic Sub-Sample Discussion Limitations and Future Research (Additional Information) Funding Acknowledgments Competing Interests Ethics Statement Data Availability Supplementary Materials References