Fear reduction and "safety-test" behavior following response prevention: A multivariate analysis.

Abstract

Theoretical formulations of avoidance behavior and response prevention are presented. Inherently problematic methodologies are reviewed. The first purpose of this study was to improve a fear assessment methodology and to reassess the effectiveness of response prevention. A multivariate analysis of several topographically different behaviors was employed. This allowed comparison between approach and avoidance measures of fear. A second purpose was to formally examine "safetytest" behavior. Opportunity to engage in safety-test behavior was manipulated by varying the height of a one-way platform-avoidance apparatus relative to the grids.The subjects were 120 experimentally naive male rats randomly assigned to a 3x4 factorial design. The procedure included avoidance training, response prevention (blocking), and finally, fear assessment. Eighty avoidance-trained subjects were assigned to blocked or nonblocked treatments, and the remaining nonshocked subjects served as controls. Ten subjects from each treatment were assigned to one of four platform heights.The results showed that response prevention leads to only partial fear elimination. Differential sensitivities of various fear-assessment variables were found. A principal-components analysis allowed examination of the relationship between the variables. The hypothesis that safety-test behavior was indicative of fear was confirmed. Platform height had an effect on the durability of response prevention. The results are discussed within a cognitive interpretation of avoidance behavior. Implications of these methods and findings to implosive-therapy theory and research are discussed.Avoidance behavior is operationally de-component consists of the instrumental refined as a learned response that terminates inforcement of the avoidance response via a previously neutral stimulus. Among sev-fear reduction. As seen from the animal anaeral theoretical approaches used to explain logue paradigm, the animal first learns to the acquisition of avoidance behavior, a dual-fear a stimulus, and whatever the animal process explanation appears to be the most does to terminate that stimulus is operantly popular (Monti & Smith, 1976; Testa, reinforced. 1976). One of these explanations, Mowrer'sThe definition of an avoidance response (1950) two-factor theory, postulates that requires that an organism escape a warning there are two components or processes stimulus that would otherwise terminate in thought to be involved in the learning of the presentation of a noxious stimulus. In avoidance behavior. The first factor involves the laboratory, the classical extinction proa classically conditioned fear response ac-cedure is to discontinue the presentation of quired by pairing a previously neutral stim-shock while the CSs continue to be preulus, the conditioned stimulus (CS), with a sented. Consequently, since the organism is primary noxious or aversive stimulus, the already avoiding consistently, the extinction unconditioned stimulus (UCS). The second procedure does not introduce a discriminate

Comparison of various flooding procedures in reducing fear and in extinguishing jump-up avoidance responding

“…In addition, the NB treatment was found to be superior to the B treatment on six measures and superior to the FL treatment on four measures. Unlike Corriveau and Smith !1978), we did not find number of safety tests, either before the first approach or overall, to be sensitive measures of fear (see also Mineka et al, 1981).…”

“…Therefore, for all measures the data were analyzed with nonparametric statistics. All of the nine fear measures were intercorrelated, as was done by Corriveau and Smith (1978) and Mineka et al, (1981). The Kendall rank correlations collapsing across all four groups are reported in Table 1.…”

“…In Experiment 2, however, instead of assessing avoidance response strength following treatment, the treatment phase was followed by a I-h assessment of the subjects' fear of the grid floor using the observational techniques developed by Corriveau and Smith (1978). Following the l-min retention interval, the subjects were placed on the safety ledge and allowed to remain there for 30 sec before being pushed off onto the grid floor.…”

“…Such research may be helpful in determining the mechanism underlying the effectiveness of these techniques and in determining how useful their human analogues may be in reducing different aspects of the fear response. Therefore, in the present experiments, we compared the effectiveness of three different flooding treatments not only in hastening jump-up avoidance extinction (Experiment I), but also in reducing fear of the grid floor, using Corriveau and Smith's (1978) multivariate fear assessment techniques for the jump-up box (Experiment 2).…”

The effect of number and minimum duration of post-response-prevention escapes on the resistance to extinction of an avoidance response

“…However, the basis for the effectiveness of avoidance-response-prevention procedures is controversial (Baum, 1970;Mineka, 1979). Although several theoretical accounts have been proposed, the effect of avoidance-response prevention in reducing the subsequent resistance to extinction of avoidance behavior is commonly ascribed to the development of competing behavior (Coulter et al, 1969;Linton, Riccio, Rohrbaugh, & Page, 1970;Page, 1955) and/or to a reduction in the aversiveness of the warning signal resulting from its presentation without shock during response prevention, that is, Pavlovian extinction (Bersh & Paynter, 1972;Corriveau & Smith, 1978;Monti & Smith, 1976). Empirical evidence favoring the competing response theories has largely been…”