Processes of fear reduction in systematic desensitization: Animal studies.

Abstract

Research with infrahumans on fear reduction is critically reviewed with respect to the theoretical and experimental underpinnings of systematic desensitization, and several tentative conclusions are suggested: (a) "Reciprocal inhibition" represents an unwarranted neurologization of a highly problematical theoretical system (Hull) ; (b) the belief that conditioned fear/avoidance is largely unsusceptible to extinction procedures is inconsistent with the firm findings of experimental extinction; (c) the concept of "counterconditioning" is in sore need of precise, agreed-upon definition; (d) graded exposure to the conditioned stimulus (CS), while not consistently superior in effectiveness to repeated exposure to the full (training) intensity CS vis-a-vis extinguishing fear/avoidance, may be inferior to graded exposure paired with anxiety-competing responses; (e) prolonged, forced exposure to the CS seems, on the whole, to facilitate extinction rather than to "resensitize" the subject; and (/) the use of anxiety-competing responses, such as relaxation in the standard desensitization procedure, may be important in maximizing nonreinforced exposure to the aversive stimulus.Recent years have witnessed an increasingly critical examination of theory and research in behavior modification (e.g., Franks, 1969), in marked contrast with the allegedly "defensive" polemics of earlier years (e.g., Eysenck, 1960;Eysenck & Rachman, 1965). Interest in behavior modification has been high among not only clinicians but also among experimental psychologists. The (over-) eagerness with which clinicians have embraced these "new" techniques is perhaps understandable in view of the inadequacy of those approaches and techniques that have held sway in most training and professional settings. Many experimentalists have been attracted to the field because, in our view, behavioral techniques seem to offer the oppor-1 Preparation of this paper was facilitated by support from Grant MH 14557-03 from the National Institute of Mental Health. We are grateful to Marius C. Smith for his thoughtful critique of earlier drafts.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to G.

Counterconditioning of shock by a water reinforcer in rabbits

“…By contrast, the counterconditioning of conditioned, as opposed to unconditioned, defensive responses has been somewhat more intensively studied (see Dickinson & Pearce, 1977;Wilson & Davison, 1971, for recent reviews). For example, Scavio (1974) initially conditioned a defensive nictitating membrane response to an auditory CS with a paraorbital These experiments are based on a Masters thesis submitted by M. F. Dearing to the University of Sussex.…”

“…The decline in defensive behavior was accompanied by the development of an alimentary conditioned response, salivation, to the shock, suggesting that appetitive conditioning may be an important causal factor underlying the successful counterconditioning of aversive stimuli. Subsequently, outside the Russian literature (e.g., Marukhanyan, 1954), little attention has been paid to the counterconditioning of the responses elicited by unconditioned aversive stimuli despite the theoretical importance of the phenomenon for understanding appetitive-aversive interac-By contrast, the counterconditioning of conditioned, as opposed to unconditioned, defensive responses has been somewhat more intensively studied (see Dickinson & Pearce, 1977;Wilson & Davison, 1971, for recent reviews). For example, Scavio (1974) initially conditioned a defensive nictitating membrane response to an auditory CS with a paraorbital These experiments are based on a Masters thesis submitted by M. F. Dearing to the University of Sussex.…”

Counterconditioning of memory in rats

“…At least three different explanations have been offered to account for the failures to observe a counterconditioning effect. For example, administration of the counterconditioning agent (e.g., food) during the forced exposure to the fear stimulus could alter the amount of attention subjects pay to that stimulus (see G. T. Wilson & Davison, 1971); that is, subjects in the counterconditioning group could pay more attention to the food stimuli (and eating) than to the fear stimulus. In an extreme example, subjects in the counterconditioning group could fail to attend to the fear stimulus to such an extent that they are functionally similar to subjects given the counterconditioning agent alone (i.e., not even exposed to the fear stimulus).…”

“…A recent study (Capaldi, Vivieros, & Campbell, 1983) even challenged whether counterconditioning can be considered as a bona fide phenomenon. Admittedly, there are, as pointed out by Capaldi et al (1983) and G. T. Wilson and Davison (1971), several potentially confounding characteristics of the typical counterconditioning procedure. These troublesome characteristics, however, could simply make it more difficult to observe counterconditioning and need not apply at all to the actual occurrence of this phenomenon.…”

Methods of deconditioning persisting avoidance: Response prevention and counterconditioning after extensive training

“…Cha nging th e affec tive state of th e anim al through the intro duction of a positive affec tive stim ulus duri ng respons e prevention (c ou ntercond itioning) attenua tes per sistent avoida nce even more (Wilson & Davison, 1971 ; Reid , 197 3). Posit ive in tracran ial stimulation (ICS) of th e lat eral hypotha lam us has been used in some of th e studies dem onstrati ng the effective ness o f cou nte rcondit ioning (Buss & Reid , 1973 ; G ordon & Baum , 1971 ;Hunsicker, Nelson , & Reid , 1973 ; Prad o-Alcala, Bush , Steele , & Reid , 197 3).…”