2014
DOI: 10.1177/2167702614535914
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Personality Predicts Individual Variation in Fear Learning

Abstract: Research into mental processes has generally focused on the average response and treated individual variability as noise (cf. Plomin & Kosslyn, 2001). The application of this method to fear learning has yielded general principles that indicate fear conditioning in most people when a stimulus is followed by an aversive event as well as fear extinction over time when this threat ceases (e.g., Mineka & Oehlberg, 2008). However, researchers have recognized that such a mean learning pattern can reflect an artifact … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
20
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
3
20
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Note that instead of fear generalization, the unpredictable US may have prompted stress sensitization in the high trait anxious individuals, given that we did not control for fear responding to other unrelated stimuli. Furthermore, other candidate traits (e.g., stress reactivity; Tellegen & Waller, 2008) for which future uncertainty is typically more aversive may also come to expression in the overgeneralization of fear (Gazendam et al, 2014).…”
Section: (Un)predictability Individual Differences and Fear Generalimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that instead of fear generalization, the unpredictable US may have prompted stress sensitization in the high trait anxious individuals, given that we did not control for fear responding to other unrelated stimuli. Furthermore, other candidate traits (e.g., stress reactivity; Tellegen & Waller, 2008) for which future uncertainty is typically more aversive may also come to expression in the overgeneralization of fear (Gazendam et al, 2014).…”
Section: (Un)predictability Individual Differences and Fear Generalimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Optimal reactivation conditions are likely to vary according to individual temperament and learning history. For example, longer reactivations or clearer violations of expectations have been found to be necessary for extinction to occur in high trait anxious individuals (Gazendam et al 2013(Gazendam et al , 2015, and this might also be the case for triggering reconsolidation (Soeter and Kindt 2013). These potential difficulties are far from decisive impasses, however, and point to the vast range of open questions and research opportunities regarding the translation of experimental research on reconsolidation into clinical interventions.…”
Section: Multiple Treatment Sessionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, at the phenotypic level, personality has a clear relation to fear memory formation and its modification. For example, individuals characterized by high harm avoidance and stress reactivity are poorer at differentiating threat from safety during both initial learning and extinction training than those scoring low on these traits (Gazendam et al 2015). Individuals with high trait anxiety may also show resistance to extinction (Gazendam et al 2013) and to the disruption of fear memory reconsolidation (Soeter and Kindt 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the third percent‐change potentiation approach, startle potentiation is calculated from the raw startle response as a percent change from the no‐threat to the threat condition: ([raw startle in threat − raw startle in no‐threat]/raw startle in no‐threat)*100. Following this, analysis of percent‐change potentiation proceeds as with the analysis of raw and standardized potentiation described earlier (for examples of the percent‐change potentiation approaches, see Gazendam et al, ; Jovanovic et al, ; Rich et al, ; Vanman, Mejia, Dawson, Schell, & Raine, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%