Reduced return of threat expectancy after counterconditioning versus extinction

S. Kang, Bram Vervliet, I.M. Engelhard, E.A.M. van Dis, M.A. Hagenaars

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Exposure-based therapies are effective for anxiety disorders, but relapse remains a problem. One explanation might be that exposure therapy reduces threat expectancy but not related feelings of unpleasantness (negative valence of the conditioned stimulus; CS+), which may promote return of threat expectancy and associated fear. Laboratory research has indeed shown that fear extinction leaves negative valence of the conditioned stimulus (CS+) intact. Here, we tested whether adding positive consequences to the CS+ during extinction, a procedure known as counterconditioning, would change the valence of the CS+ and thereby prevent return of threat expectancy. Participants underwent Acquisition (day 1), Intervention (counterconditioning or extinction; day 2), and Spontaneous recovery and Reinstatement (day 3). As expected, threat expectancy ratings during the Spontaneous recovery and Reinstatement tests were lower after counterconditioning than after extinction, but counterconditioning did not reduce CS + negative valence more than extinction. Alternative mechanisms and clinical implications are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)78-84
JournalBehaviour Research and Therapy
Volume108
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Anxiety disorders
  • Exposure therapy
  • Counterconditioning
  • Extinction
  • Evaluative learning
  • Return of fear

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reduced return of threat expectancy after counterconditioning versus extinction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this