TY - JOUR
T1 - Reducing negative stimulus valence does not attenuate the return of fear
T2 - Two counterconditioning experiments
AU - van Dis, E.A.M.
AU - Hagenaars, M.A.
AU - Bockting, C.L.H.
AU - Engelhard, I.M.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Exposure-based treatment for anxiety disorders is effective for many patients, but relapse is not uncommon. One predictor of the return of fear is the negative valence of fear-relevant stimuli. The aim of the current experiments was to examine whether counterconditioning with positive film clips reduces this negative stimulus valence as well as the return of fear, compared to standard extinction training and to an extinction training with non-contingent exposure to the positive film clips. Participants were 87 students in Experiment 1 (three-day paradigm), and 90 students in Experiment 2 (one-day paradigm). They first underwent a differential acquisition phase, in which one of three pictures was paired with an electric shock. They were then randomly allocated to one of the three intervention groups. Afterwards, they underwent a test phase in which pictures were presented without shock (to measure spontaneous recovery of fear), which was followed by unsignaled shocks to induce reinstatement of extinguished fear. Outcome variables were self-reported stimulus valence, shock expectancy, skin conductance, and fear-potentiated startle. In both experiments, counterconditioning decreased negative stimulus valence, relative to the other interventions, but it did not reduce spontaneous fear recovery or fear reinstatement. Overall, our findings do not support the notion that counterconditioning reduces return of fear.
AB - Exposure-based treatment for anxiety disorders is effective for many patients, but relapse is not uncommon. One predictor of the return of fear is the negative valence of fear-relevant stimuli. The aim of the current experiments was to examine whether counterconditioning with positive film clips reduces this negative stimulus valence as well as the return of fear, compared to standard extinction training and to an extinction training with non-contingent exposure to the positive film clips. Participants were 87 students in Experiment 1 (three-day paradigm), and 90 students in Experiment 2 (one-day paradigm). They first underwent a differential acquisition phase, in which one of three pictures was paired with an electric shock. They were then randomly allocated to one of the three intervention groups. Afterwards, they underwent a test phase in which pictures were presented without shock (to measure spontaneous recovery of fear), which was followed by unsignaled shocks to induce reinstatement of extinguished fear. Outcome variables were self-reported stimulus valence, shock expectancy, skin conductance, and fear-potentiated startle. In both experiments, counterconditioning decreased negative stimulus valence, relative to the other interventions, but it did not reduce spontaneous fear recovery or fear reinstatement. Overall, our findings do not support the notion that counterconditioning reduces return of fear.
KW - Counterconditioning
KW - Evaluative conditioning
KW - Fear extinction
KW - Positive valence training
KW - Return of fear
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067895561&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.brat.2019.103416
DO - 10.1016/j.brat.2019.103416
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85067895561
SN - 0005-7967
VL - 120
JO - Behaviour Research and Therapy
JF - Behaviour Research and Therapy
M1 - 103416
ER -