Advanced search
1 file | 470.12 KB Add to list

Do CS-US pairings actually matter? A within-subject comparison of instructed fear conditioning with and without actual CS-US pairings

An Raes (UGent) , Jan De Houwer (UGent) , Maarten De Schryver (UGent) , Marcel Brass (UGent) and R Kalisch
(2014) PLOS ONE. 9(1).
Author
Organization
Abstract
Previous research showed that instructions about CS-US pairings can lead to fear of the CS even when the pairings are never presented. In the present study, we examined whether the experience of CS-US pairings adds to the effect of instructions by comparing instructed conditioning with and without actual CS-US pairings in a within-subject design. Thirty-two participants saw three fractals as CSs (CS(+)1, CS(+)2, CS-) and received electric shocks as USs. Before the start of a so-called training phase, participants were instructed that both CS(+)1 and CS(+)2 would be followed by the US, but only CS(+)1 was actually paired with the US. The absence of the US after CS(+)2 was explained in such a way that participants would not doubt the instructions about the CS(+)2-US relation. After the training phase, a test phase was carried out. In this phase, participants expected the US after both CS+s but none of the CS(+)s was actually paired with the US. During test, self-reported fear was initially higher for CS(+)1 than for CS(+)2, which indicates that the experience of actual CS-US pairings adds to instructions about these pairings. On the other hand, the CS(+)s elicited similar skin conductance responses and US expectancies. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.
Keywords
PHOBIAS, ORIGINS, CHILDREN, VERBAL INFORMATION PATHWAY, SKIN-CONDUCTANCE, ACQUISITION, CHILDHOOD FEARS, PARADIGM, ANXIETY, ETIOLOGY

Downloads

  • Raes DeHouwer PLOSONE.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 470.12 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Raes, An et al. “Do CS-US Pairings Actually Matter? A Within-subject Comparison of Instructed Fear Conditioning with and Without Actual CS-US Pairings.” PLOS ONE 9.1 (2014): n. pag. Print.
APA
Raes, An, De Houwer, J., De Schryver, M., Brass, M., & Kalisch, R. (2014). Do CS-US pairings actually matter? A within-subject comparison of instructed fear conditioning with and without actual CS-US pairings. PLOS ONE, 9(1).
Chicago author-date
Raes, An, Jan De Houwer, Maarten De Schryver, Marcel Brass, and R Kalisch. 2014. “Do CS-US Pairings Actually Matter? A Within-subject Comparison of Instructed Fear Conditioning with and Without Actual CS-US Pairings.” Plos One 9 (1).
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Raes, An, Jan De Houwer, Maarten De Schryver, Marcel Brass, and R Kalisch. 2014. “Do CS-US Pairings Actually Matter? A Within-subject Comparison of Instructed Fear Conditioning with and Without Actual CS-US Pairings.” Plos One 9 (1).
Vancouver
1.
Raes A, De Houwer J, De Schryver M, Brass M, Kalisch R. Do CS-US pairings actually matter? A within-subject comparison of instructed fear conditioning with and without actual CS-US pairings. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(1).
IEEE
[1]
A. Raes, J. De Houwer, M. De Schryver, M. Brass, and R. Kalisch, “Do CS-US pairings actually matter? A within-subject comparison of instructed fear conditioning with and without actual CS-US pairings,” PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 1, 2014.
@article{4213449,
  abstract     = {Previous research showed that instructions about CS-US pairings can lead to fear of the CS even when the pairings are never presented. In the present study, we examined whether the experience of CS-US pairings adds to the effect of instructions by comparing instructed conditioning with and without actual CS-US pairings in a within-subject design. Thirty-two participants saw three fractals as CSs (CS(+)1, CS(+)2, CS-) and received electric shocks as USs. Before the start of a so-called training phase, participants were instructed that both CS(+)1 and CS(+)2 would be followed by the US, but only CS(+)1 was actually paired with the US. The absence of the US after CS(+)2 was explained in such a way that participants would not doubt the instructions about the CS(+)2-US relation. After the training phase, a test phase was carried out. In this phase, participants expected the US after both CS+s but none of the CS(+)s was actually paired with the US. During test, self-reported fear was initially higher for CS(+)1 than for CS(+)2, which indicates that the experience of actual CS-US pairings adds to instructions about these pairings. On the other hand, the CS(+)s elicited similar skin conductance responses and US expectancies. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.},
  articleno    = {e84888},
  author       = {Raes, An and De Houwer, Jan and De Schryver, Maarten and Brass, Marcel and Kalisch, R},
  issn         = {1932-6203},
  journal      = {PLOS ONE},
  keywords     = {PHOBIAS,ORIGINS,CHILDREN,VERBAL INFORMATION PATHWAY,SKIN-CONDUCTANCE,ACQUISITION,CHILDHOOD FEARS,PARADIGM,ANXIETY,ETIOLOGY},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {33},
  title        = {Do CS-US pairings actually matter? A within-subject comparison of instructed fear conditioning with and without actual CS-US pairings},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084888},
  volume       = {9},
  year         = {2014},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: