Comparing three extinction methods to reduce fear expression and generalization

Chen, Yu; Lin, Xiao; Ai, Sizhi; Sun, Yan; Shi, Le; Meng, Shi-Qiu; Lü, Lin; Shi, Jie

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113714

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, their results suggested that this novel treatment, along with response prevention, tends to enhance subjective fear evaluations. Two other studies (Chen et al, 2022; Jozefowiez et al, 2022) published during the completion of the present experiment, have also failed to find a benefit from CC or NFE over SE on return of fear prevention, finding similar levels of spontaneous recovery, reinstatement, or renewal, measured as SCR or considering expectancy and valence ratings, respectively. Taken together, all these studies, along with van Dis et al’s (2019) results, support the idea that CC or NFE may not be more effective than the traditional treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 43%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the effects of counterconditioning, novelty-facilitated, and standard extinction on the spontaneous recovery of threat expectancy and conditioned stimulus valence

Quintero

Morís

López

2023

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extinction training has proved effective to diminish the expectancy of the aversive US. However, the negative valence of the CS may still stay intact. In fact, several studies have suggested that the CS negative valence may be a factor that promotes the return of fear. Our study focuses on the role of changes in the CS valence as a potential mechanism to reduce the spontaneous recovery of threat expectancies. To do that, we evaluated counterconditioning, a technique aimed to reduce the CS negative valence by paring it with a positive stimulus and compared its efficacy to that of a novelty-facilitated and a standard extinction interventions. Using a two-day protocol, participants first learned the relationship between a figure and an aversive sound, using a differential conditioning paradigm, and were then randomly assigned to one of three different groups. For the CC group, CS+ or cue A was paired with a positive US. The standard extinction group was exposed to cue A alone. For a third NFE group, cue A was followed by a neutral US. Finally, on the second day, spontaneous recovery was tested. Our findings did not provide evidence to suggest that counterconditioning could be more effective to prevent or reduce the return of threat expectancies or influence valence ratings when compared to novelty-facilitated and standard extinction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 43%

“…However, it is still unclear why it should be easier to find an effect of CC or NFE on this type of measures. In fact, other studies have found no reduction in the return of fear as measured by SCR, startle response or expectancy judgements (see Chen et al, 2022, or van Dis et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%