To provide insight into individual differences in fear learning, we examined the emotional and cognitive expressions of discriminative fear conditioning in direct relation to its neural substrates. Contrary to previous behavioral–neural (fMRI) research on fear learning—in which the emotional expression of fear was generally indexed by skin conductance—we used fear-potentiated startle, a more reliable and specific index of fear. While we obtained concurrent fear-potentiated startle, neuroimaging (fMRI), and US-expectancy data, healthy participants underwent a fear-conditioning paradigm in which one of two conditioned stimuli (CS + but not CS – ) was paired with a shock (unconditioned stimulus [US]). Fear learning was evident from the differential expressions of fear (CS + > CS – ) at both the behavioral level (startle potentiation and US expectancy) and the neural level (in amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus, and insula). We examined individual differences in discriminative fear conditioning by classifying participants (as conditionable vs. unconditionable) according to whether they showed successful differential startle potentiation. This revealed that the individual differences in the emotional expression of discriminative fear learning (startle potentiation) were reflected in differential amygdala activation, regardless of the cognitive expression of fear learning (CS–US contingency or hippocampal activation). Our study provides the first evidence for the potential of examining startle potentiation in concurrent fMRI research on fear learning.

The objective was to examine the usefulness of Dutch versions of the Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987) Scale and the Feminine Gender Role Stress (Gillespie & Eisler, 1992) Scale in The Netherlands. Undergraduate students (N = 2,239) completed both gender role stress scales. A subgroup (n = 508) also completed questionnaires about masculinity-femininity and daily hassles. With regard to both gender role stress scales, results of confirmatory factor analyses supported the original 5-factor structures and revealed no cross-sex differences on the factor models. Reliability and homogeneity indexes were all well within acceptable to satisfactory limits. Further evidence of construct validity was found in (a) medium to large correlations with daily hassles, (b) sex differences on the FGRS scale, and (c) small to medium correlations with masculinity-femininity. The major discrepancy with previous studies was that for Dutch female and male students, the MGRS scale was not sex specific. Taken together, this study sustained the utility of both gender role stress scales for use in The Netherlands.

The authors tested the hypothesis that a match between the gender relevance of a stressor and one's sex or gender role identification would elicit higher cardiovascular responses. Healthy female and male undergraduates (n = 108) were exposed to two stressors: the Cold Pressor Test (CPT) and the n-back task. Stressor relevance was manipulated to be masculine or feminine relevant or gender neutral. Data were analyzed using a Bayesian model selection procedure. The results showed stronger cardiovascular responses for the CPT in the case of a gender match effect. In contrast, results for the n-back task revealed stronger cardiovascular responses for sex and gender mismatch effects. These discrepant match and mismatch effects are discussed in terms of differential task appraisal (i.e., threat vs. challenge). Additional results (a) support the success of measuring gender role identification indirectly by means of the Gender Implicit Association Test, (b) do not show that the effect of stressor relevance is more pronounced on those hemodynamic parameters typically increased by the stressor, and (c) reveal differential effects of stressor relevance for subjective and cardiovascular stress responses. Taken together, it can be concluded that the process of the cognitive appraisal of stressor relevance outlines individual variability in cardiovascular responding to acute stress.

Even though human fear-conditioning involves affective learning as well as expectancy learning, most studies assess only one of the two distinct processes. Commonly used read-outs of associative fear learning are the fear-potentiated startle reflex (FPS), pupil dilation and US-expectancy ratings. FPS is thought to reflect the affective aspect of fear learning, while pupil dilation reflects a general arousal response. However, in order to measure FPS, aversively loud acoustic probes are presented during conditioning, which might in itself exert an effect on fear learning. Here we tested the effect of startle probes on fear learning by comparing brain activation (fMRI), pupil dilation and US-expectancy ratings with and without acoustic startle probes within subjects. Regardless of startle probes, fear conditioning resulted in enhanced dACC, insula and ventral striatum activation. Interaction analyses showed that startle probes diminished differential pupil dilation between CS+ and CS− due to increased pupil responses to CS−. A trend significant interaction effect was observed for US-expectancy and amygdala activation. Startle probes affect differential fear learning by impeding safety learning, as measured with pupil dilation, a read-out of the cognitive component of fear learning. However, we observed no significant effect of acoustic startle probes on other measures of fear learning.

No abstract