Verbal threat learning does not spare loved ones

Abstract

Significant others provide individuals with a sense of safety and security. However, the mechanisms that underlie attachment-induced safety are hardly understood. Recent research has shown beneficial effects when viewing pictures of the romantic partner, leading to reduced pain experience and defensive responding. Building upon this, we examined the inhibitory capacity of loved face pictures on fear learning in an instructed threat paradigm. Pictures of loved familiar or unknown individuals served as signals for either threat of electric shocks or safety, while a broad set of psychophysiological measures was recorded. We assumed that a long-term learning history of beneficial relations interferes with social threat learning. Nevertheless, results yielded a typical pattern of physiological defense activation towards threat cues, regardless of whether threat was signaled by an unknown or a loved face. These findings call into question the notion that pictures of loved individuals are shielded against becoming threat cues, with implications for attachment and trauma research.

The Mere Sight of Loved Ones Does Not Inhibit Psychophysiological Defense Mechanisms When Threatened

“…Moreover, this non-interactive pattern between face category and threat/safety learning goes in line with several recent studies. For instance, using personalized stimulus materials as explicitly instructed threat cues did not show an inhibition of somatic and autonomic responding towards loved faces (i.e., pictures of the spouse; Morato et al, 2021), and this was further replicated with pictures displaying smiling or angry-looking loved ones (Guerra et al, in prep. ).…”

“…Indeed, this would be in line with the notion that the human face (compared to pictures of snakes or spiders; e.g., Lipp & Edwards, 2002;Öhman & Mineka, 2001) appears to be a less reliable source of implicit or inherited threat or safety information. For example, social acquisition of threat and safety associations appears to function equally well when linked to facial expressions (e.g., happy or angry faces as cues to threat; Bublatzky et al, 2018 and facial identity information, even for beloved familiar faces (Bublatzky et al, 2020;Morato et al, 2021). Thus, psychophysiological responding re ects a exible defense activation to the threatening contextual situation (i.e., colored background), disregarding and potentially overshadowing foreground pictures of loved ones or unknown persons that are non-diagnostic with respect to shock threat.…”

“…Thus, pictures of loved people may signal safety leading to certain bene cial effects during times of distress. It is unknown, however, whether these ndings extend to the inhibitory capacity of loved ones during social threat learning (Morato et al, 2021).…”

The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened

“…The knowledge that a particular person or situation is potentially dangerous triggers caution, aversive anticipation, and prepares avoidance or defense behavior 6 , 8 , 25 , 34 , 35 . Threat-related psychophysiological responding here involves preparatory activation of the somatic and autonomic nervous systems, and is adaptive in that potential harm to the organism can be avoided or reduced.…”

“…Thus, pictures of loved people may signal safety leading to certain beneficial effects during times of distress. It is unknown, however, whether these findings extend to the inhibitory capacity of loved ones during social threat learning 25 .…”