The persistence of socially instructed threat: Two threat‐of‐shock studies

Abstract

Learning to anticipate threat is crucial in guiding protective behavior. In classical conditioning, single trial learning can result in long-lasting fear associations. To examine whether threat learned through social communication is equally stable, an instructed fear paradigm was used with two repeated sessions on 1 day (Study 1; N = 43) and with separate sessions on 3 consecutive days (Study 2; N = 30). Startle EMG, skin conductance level (SCL), and self-report data were recorded during alternating periods of instructed threat and safety. Within 1 day, threat-potentiated startle was present across sessions but threat-enhanced SCL decreased (Study 1). Across days, threat effects subsided with different timing for startle EMG, SCL, and self-report (Study 2). The present findings are a laboratory analog for the persistence of socially transmitted fear, which can be amazingly resistant to extinction (e.g., in specific phobias) even in the absence of aversive experiences.

Anxious anticipation and pain: the influence of instructedvsconditioned threat on pain

“…In the IT group instead, threat persist over time and even might increase in the course of the experiment. In support for this hypothesis, Bublatzky et al (2014) found that a verbal threat instruction persists over multiple experimental sessions and even longer periods (up to 3 days) without any actual experience of the UCS. On the neural level, the interaction of threat and pain revealed a stronger activation of the amygdala (and to a lesser degree of neighboring hippocampal areas) for the CT group (see Table 3, Figures 4 and 5).…”

Emotional pictures and sounds: a review of multimodal interactions of emotion cues in multiple domains

“…Specifically, research on influences of emotional sounds on (subsequent) visual processing is pending. To account for physical differences of emotional picture and sounds, investigations with well controlled and (physically) comparable stimuli (e.g., with instructed fear or conditioning procedures) are urgently needed (see, e.g., Bröckelmann et al, 2011 ; Bublatzky et al, 2014a ).…”

From threat to safety: Instructed reversal of defensive reactions

“…On the other hand, though, threat cues elicit equivalent electrodermal reactions whether fear is instantiated through instructions or actual conditioning (Bridger & Mandel, 1964;Raes, De Houwer, De Schryver, Brass, & Kalisch, 2014), and instructions are also quite effective in quickly reversing explictly conditioned electrodermal responses (Grings et al, 1973;McNally, 1981;Wilson, 1968). Moreover, startle reflex potentiation remains elevated for up to 3 days to cues signaling threat of shock, even though threat cues were not followed by an actual shock reinforcer (Bublatzky, Gerdes, & Alpers, 2014). Finally, vividly imagining an aversive reinforcer during conditioning, without actually reexperiencing it, prolongs conditioned skin conductance responses (Jones & Davey, 1990).…”