Advanced search
2 files | 558.54 KB Add to list

Fear expression and return of fear following threat instruction with or without direct contingency experience

(2016) COGNITION & EMOTION. 30(5). p.968-984
Author
Organization
Abstract
Prior research showed that mere instructions about the contingency between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can generate fear reactions to the CS. Little is known, however, about the extent to which actual CS US contingency experience adds anything beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Our results extend previous studies on this topic in that it included fear potentiated startle as an additional dependent variable and examined return of fear (ROF) following reinstatement. We observed that CS US pairings can enhance fear reactions beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Moreover, for all measures of fear, instructions elicited immediate fear reactions that could not be completely overridden by subsequent situational safety information. Finally, ROF following reinstatement for instructed CS+s was unaffected by actual experience. In summary, our results demonstrate the power of contingency instructions and reveal the additional impact of actual experience of CS US pairings.
Keywords
POTENTIATED STARTLE, ELECTRODERMAL RESPONSES, RELEVANT STIMULI, LEARNED FEAR, EXTINCTION, ANXIETY, HUMANS, ACQUISITION, PHOBIAS, REFLEX, Fear, Conditioning, Instructions, Skin conductance response, Fear potentiated startle

Downloads

  • Mertens Kuhn CE.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 553.52 KB
  • DSFS Mertens Kuhn C E threat instructions.txt
    • data factsheet
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • text/x-matlab
    • |
    • 5.03 KB

Citation

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

MLA
Mertens, Gaëtan et al. “Fear Expression and Return of Fear Following Threat Instruction with or Without Direct Contingency Experience.” COGNITION & EMOTION 30.5 (2016): 968–984. Print.
APA
Mertens, G., Kuhn, M., Raes, A., Kalisch, R., De Houwer, J., & Lonsdorf, T. (2016). Fear expression and return of fear following threat instruction with or without direct contingency experience. COGNITION & EMOTION, 30(5), 968–984.
Chicago author-date
Mertens, Gaëtan, M Kuhn, AK Raes, R Kalisch, Jan De Houwer, and TB Lonsdorf. 2016. “Fear Expression and Return of Fear Following Threat Instruction with or Without Direct Contingency Experience.” Cognition & Emotion 30 (5): 968–984.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Mertens, Gaëtan, M Kuhn, AK Raes, R Kalisch, Jan De Houwer, and TB Lonsdorf. 2016. “Fear Expression and Return of Fear Following Threat Instruction with or Without Direct Contingency Experience.” Cognition & Emotion 30 (5): 968–984.
Vancouver
1.
Mertens G, Kuhn M, Raes A, Kalisch R, De Houwer J, Lonsdorf T. Fear expression and return of fear following threat instruction with or without direct contingency experience. COGNITION & EMOTION. 2016;30(5):968–84.
IEEE
[1]
G. Mertens, M. Kuhn, A. Raes, R. Kalisch, J. De Houwer, and T. Lonsdorf, “Fear expression and return of fear following threat instruction with or without direct contingency experience,” COGNITION & EMOTION, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 968–984, 2016.
@article{5942210,
  abstract     = {Prior research showed that mere instructions about the contingency between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can generate fear reactions to the CS. Little is known, however, about the extent to which actual CS US contingency experience adds anything beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Our results extend previous studies on this topic in that it included fear potentiated startle as an additional dependent variable and examined return of fear (ROF) following reinstatement. We observed that CS US pairings can enhance fear reactions beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Moreover, for all measures of fear, instructions elicited immediate fear reactions that could not be completely overridden by subsequent situational safety information. Finally, ROF following reinstatement for instructed CS+s was unaffected by actual experience. In summary, our results demonstrate the power of contingency instructions and reveal the additional impact of actual experience of CS US pairings.},
  author       = {Mertens, Gaëtan and Kuhn, M and Raes, AK and Kalisch, R and De Houwer, Jan and Lonsdorf, TB},
  issn         = {0269-9931},
  journal      = {COGNITION & EMOTION},
  keywords     = {POTENTIATED STARTLE,ELECTRODERMAL RESPONSES,RELEVANT STIMULI,LEARNED FEAR,EXTINCTION,ANXIETY,HUMANS,ACQUISITION,PHOBIAS,REFLEX,Fear,Conditioning,Instructions,Skin conductance response,Fear potentiated startle},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {968--984},
  title        = {Fear expression and return of fear following threat instruction with or without direct contingency experience},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1038219},
  volume       = {30},
  year         = {2016},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: