Post-acquisition repetitive thought in fear conditioning: An experimental investigation of the effect of CS-US-rehearsal

Repeated Activation of a CS-US-Contingency Memory Results in Sustained Conditioned Responding

“…As conditioning relies on both learning and memory (Bouton and Moody, 2004), it seems obvious to study post-acquisition rehearsal processes in conditioning. In a first attempt to address this issue, we (Joos et al, 2012b) investigated the role of post-acquisition processing in fear learning, by examining the impact of rehearsing an aversive conditioned association (CS = picture; US = human scream) on subsequent fear responding. Fear responding to the picture-CS which was previously paired with the scream persisted in participants who rehearsed this contingency, but decreased in participants who had been asked to rehearse a different contingency.…”

Investigação dos efeitos do comportamento verbal durante a extinção pós-recuperação sobre o retorno do medo

“…However, one argument against this hypothesis is that our interview included questions about the CS-US contingency and about the US and their reactions to it. Whereas rehearsing only the CS could not prevent extinction in previous experiments (Joos et al, 2013), rehearsing the CS-US contingency or the US and reactions to it have been shown to maintain or even increase conditioned responses, as measured through US-expectancy rating (Joos et al, 2012a(Joos et al, , 2012b, suppression of operant responses (Joos et al, 2013), or skin conductance responses (Davey & Matchett, 1994;Jones & Davey, 1990). In fact, most of the interview utilized in the present experiment addressed questions that supposedly strengthen conditioning, as four out of seven questions pertained to the US and the CS-US contingencies.…”

“…First, why would PRE be only partially effective when subjects engage in verbal behavior related to experimental contingencies during the interval between a retrieval cue and extinction training? The interview conducted after the retrieval cue is comparable to procedures utilized in studies on the effects of repetitive thought on Pavlovian conditioning and extinction (Arntz, Spit, & Merckelbach, 1997;Jones & Davey, 1990;Joos, Vansteenwegen, & Hermans, 2012aJoos et al, 2013). In these studies, participants were instructed to imagine or actively repeat at a covert level some part of the conditioning experience after its occurrence.…”

“…Latter, the effects of this intervention were tested by exposing participants to extinction. In a series of experiments, Joos and colleagues have demonstrated that US-expectancy and conditioned suppression take longer to reduce during extinction after the covert repetition of the CS-US contingency (Joos et al, 2012a(Joos et al, , 2012b(Joos et al, , 2013. In other experiments, instructing participants to think about the US and their reactions to it resulted in maintenance or even larger SCR in extinction tests, as compared with rehearsing a non-aversive event or a non-related aversive event (Davey & Matchett, 1994;Jones & Davey, 1990).…”

“…In this case, the main difference between standard extinction and this PRE is the interval between the first and subsequent presentations of the CS. During this interval, participants might engage in covert verbal behaviors, such as "remembering" the CS, the US, or the CS-US contingency, a behavior which could strengthen conditioned fear responses, as shown by studies in which participants are required to imagine or actively repeat at a covert level some part of the conditioning experience after its occurrence (Joos et al, 2012a(Joos et al, , 2012b(Joos et al, , 2013. This question prompted an experimental test in which participants' verbal behavior was directed either towards or away from the experimental contingencies during the interval between retrieval and extinction.…”