From threat to safety: Instructed reversal of defensive reactions

Abstract

Cues that signal the possibility of receiving an electric shock reliably induce defensive activation. To determine whether cues can also easily reverse defensive reactions, a threat reversal paradigm was developed in which a cue signaling threat of shock reversed its meaning across the course of the study. This allowed us to contrast defensive reactions to threat cues that became safe cues, with responses to cues that continued to signal threat or safety. Results showed that, when participants were instructed that a previously threatening cue now signaled safety, there was an immediate and complete attenuation of defensive reactions compared to threat cues that maintained their meaning. These findings highlight the role that language can play both in instantiating and attenuating defensive reactions, with implications for understanding emotion regulation, social communication, and clinical phenomena.

Can prepared fear conditioning result from verbal instructions?

“…This is supported by a number of studies that show that verbal instructions can result in the acquisition of defensive responses (Cameron et al, 2016;Costa, Bradley, & Lang, 2015;Grillon, Ameli, Woods, Merikangas, & Davis, 1991) and subjective feelings of fear and distress (Raes, De Houwer, De Schryver, Brass, & Kalisch, 2014;Soeter & Kindt, 2012), which are considered to be affective measures of fear (Hamm & Weike, 2005;Soeter & Kindt, 2012). Such results call into question whether distinctions should be made between the processes underlying learning via verbal instructions and other types of learning.…”

Potentiation of the startle reflex is in line with contingency reversal instructions rather than the conditioning history

“…This adapted reversal procedure allowed them to compare reversed and non-reversed CSs after the reversal instructions and thus controlled for time-related changes (e.g., habituation, sensitization) that could explain the reversal effect. Costa et al (2015) found that fear reactions, including FPS, completely reversed on the basis of verbal contingency instructions, which demonstrates that FPS is very sensitive to cognitive information (see also : Grillon, Ameli, Woods, Merikangas, & Davis, 1991). However, conditioned responses in their study were instantiated only via verbal threat instructions and not by direct conditioning.…”

“…However, conditioned responses in their study were instantiated only via verbal threat instructions and not by direct conditioning. Therefore, pairings of the CS in close proximity to the US were absent in the study of Costa et al (2015), possibly excluding simple associative learning as the result of actual stimulus pairings (Blair, Schafe, Bauer, Rodrigues, & LeDoux, 2001). Hence, it is possible that affective learning did not take place in the study of Costa et al (2015) due to the absence of CS-US pairings (see also : Olsson & Phelps, 2007, 2004.…”

“…Therefore, pairings of the CS in close proximity to the US were absent in the study of Costa et al (2015), possibly excluding simple associative learning as the result of actual stimulus pairings (Blair, Schafe, Bauer, Rodrigues, & LeDoux, 2001). Hence, it is possible that affective learning did not take place in the study of Costa et al (2015) due to the absence of CS-US pairings (see also : Olsson & Phelps, 2007, 2004. Therefore, in the current study, we set out to investigate whether FPS to a threatened CS can be reversed on the basis of verbal instructions, even when this CS has actually been paired CONTINGENCY REVERSAL 6 with the US.…”

“…In a recent study by Costa, Bradley, and Lang (2015), fear was installed in a first phase by providing threat information to participants. In a second phase, one of the threatened CSs was instructed to be safe, while the other threatened CS remained a threatening stimulus.…”