Shock Expectancy Ratings Research Articles

Fear extinction in humans: Effects of acquisition–extinction delay and masked stimulus presentations

Fear extinction can be viewed as an inhibitory learning process. This is supported by post-extinction phenomena demonstrating the return of fear, such as reinstatement. Recent work has questioned this account, claiming that extinction initiated immediately after fear acquisition can abolish the return of fear. In the current study, participants were fear conditioned to four different conditioned stimuli (CS) and underwent extinction either immediately or after a 24h delay. During extinction, we manipulated CS contingency awareness by presenting two of the CSs (one CS+, one CS−) under non-masked conditions and the other two CSs under masked conditions. Compared to delayed extinction, immediate extinction of non-masked CSs promoted less extinction of fear-potentiated startle and shock expectancy ratings and less reinstatement of fear-potentiated startle without affecting shock expectancy ratings. Critically, future research should clarify how the differences between immediate and delayed extinction in within-session extinction modulate the recovery of fear.

Preexposure to (un)predictable shock modulates discriminative fear learning between cue and context: An investigation of the interaction between fear and anxiety

It has been suggested that prior experiences with unpredictable/uncontrollable stressors facilitate subsequent fear learning and the development of anxiety disorders. However, animal research documents that preexposure to unpredictable stressors (USs) impede later fear conditioning with that US. These differential predictions were tested in a human experimental model of clinical anxiety. One (US-only) group was preexposed to unpredictable shocks, a second (Unpaired) group received explicitly unpaired presentations of a neutral shape and the shock, and a third (Paired) group received paired shape-shock presentations. Next, all groups received training with a novel shape, using the same shock (50% reinforcement). Fear responding was assessed through startle modulation and online shock-expectancy ratings. Results showed retarded fear learning in the unpredictable groups compared to the predictable group. We argue that prior experiences of unpredictability may still contribute to the development of clinical anxiety, by impeding adaptive fear learning and perpetuating the perception of unpredictability/uncontrollability.

Expectancy bias in a selective conditioning procedure: Trait anxiety increases the threat value of a blocked stimulus

Background and ObjectivesIn a blocking procedure, a single conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US), such as electric shock, in the first stage. During the subsequent stage, the CS is presented together with a second CS and this compound is followed by the same US. Fear conditioning studies in non-human animals have demonstrated that fear responding to the added second CS typically remains low, despite its being paired with the US. Accordingly, the blocking procedure is well suited as a laboratory model for studying (deficits in) selective threat appraisal. The present study tested the relation between trait anxiety and blocking in human aversive conditioning. MethodsHealthy participants filled in a trait anxiety questionnaire and underwent blocking treatment in the human aversive conditioning paradigm. Threat appraisal was measured through shock expectancy ratings and skin conductance. ResultsAs hypothesized, trait anxiety was positively associated with shock expectancy ratings to the blocked stimulus. LimitationsIn skin conductance responding, no significant effects of stimulus type could be detected during blocking training or testing. The current study does not allow strong claims to be made regarding the theoretical process underlying the expectancy bias we observed. ConclusionsThe observed shock expectancy bias might be one of the mechanisms leading to non-specific fear in individuals at risk for developing anxiety disorders. A deficit in blocking, or a deficit in selective threat appraisal at the more general level, indeed results in fear becoming non-specific and disconnected from the most likely causes or predictors of danger.

Safety behaviours preserve threat beliefs: Protection from extinction of human fear conditioning by an avoidance response

A laboratory autonomic conditioning procedure was used to establish fear conditioning in human participants by pairing neutral stimuli with electric shock. Participants were also trained to make a button-press response to avoid shock. A target fear stimulus was then extinguished by presenting it without shock. The experimental group was given the opportunity to make the avoidance response during extinction whereas the control group was not. When the fear stimulus was tested without the response available, the control group showed normal extinction of both shock expectancy ratings and skin conductance responses, but the experimental group showed “protection from extinction”: they continued to give high expectancy ratings and strong skin conductance responses. We interpret this effect as analogous to the role of within-situation safety behaviours in preserving threat beliefs during exposure therapy for anxiety disorders. The results support a cognitive account of learning and anxiety. The procedure provides a potential laboratory model for further examination of the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying anxiety and its reduction.

Contextual control of human fear associations in a renewal paradigm

The original model of behavior change suggests that extinction is context dependent whereas fear acquisition is context independent [Bouton, M. E. & Ricker, S. T. (1994). Renewal of extinguished responding in a second context. Animal Learning and Behavior, 22, 317–324]. Supportive evidence stems mainly from animal studies, showing that after acquisition (conditioned stimulus–unconditioned stimulus (CS–US)) in Context A and extinction in Context B, fear is renewed by presenting the CS in acquisition Context A (ABA renewal) or in a novel Context C (ABC renewal). By implication, the model predicts equal ABA and ABC renewal. However, there is also evidence to suggest that the context dependency of extinction and the context independency of acquisition may be less stringent than originally proposed. The present study investigated renewal in humans using a differential fear conditioning paradigm with a shock US and online shock expectancy ratings and electrodermal responses as dependent variables. Experiment 1 compared an ABA condition with an AAA condition. Experiment 2 compared three conditions: ABA, ABC, and AAA. Both experiments demonstrated ABA renewal. Most importantly, Experiment 2 showed larger ABA than ABC renewal. Overall, results for expectancy ratings were more convincing than for electrodermal responses. In line with the extinction model, the present findings support the context dependency of extinction in humans. In contrast to the model, the findings suggest that in humans not only extinction learning, but also fear acquisition is controlled by its current context.

Dissociations between Covariation Bias and Expectancy Bias for Fear-relevant Stimuli

The illusory correlation paradigm of Tomarken, Mineka, and Cook (1989) was used to examine bias in threat appraisal for biological (snake, spider) and technological (gun, knife) fear-relevant stimuli. Subjects showed bias in terms of higher on-line shock expectancy ratings and skin conductance responses, and higher post-experimental judgements of shock covariation, for fear-relevant stimuli. However, there were multiple dissociations between the measures: (1) expectancy bias was observed for both biological and technological stimuli, whereas covariation bias was restricted to biological stimuli; (2) prior fear of the target stimulus had no effect on expectancy bias, but covariation bias was restricted to high fear subjects; and (3) covariation bias was observed at the end of the experiment, by which time expectancy bias had disappeared. These results suggest that covariation bias is not simply a continuation of a pre-experimental expectancy bias.

Electrodermal and subjective reactions to fear-relevant stimuli under threat of shock

Three experiments investigated normal subjects' reactions to pictures of fear‐relevant stimuli (snakes, spiders, guns) and control stimuli (e.g., flowers, rabbits) under threat of electric shock. First‐interval electrodermal responses (FTRs) and shock expectancy ratings were recorded. Experiment 1 demonstrated larger FTRs and expectancy ratings to fear‐relevant stimuli, with and without threat of electric shock. In Experiment 2, trait anxious subjects showed elevated expectancy ratings that were additive with the bias associated with fear‐relevant stimuli. Experiment 3 demonstrated that reactions to fear‐relevant stimuli were not an artefact of the expectancy rating task. There were no substantial differences between biological and technological fear‐relevant stimuli. Overall, the experiments confirm that fear‐relevant stimuli elicit larger reactions in the absence of any specific manipulation, such as conditioning. The results are most consistent with cognitive models that emphasise learning rather than genetic factors, and that attribute electrodermal reactions to elevated expectancy of aversive events.