To remove or not to remove? Removal of the unconditional stimulus electrode does not mediate instructed extinction effects
MetadataShow full item record
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Luck, C. and Lipp, O. 2015. To remove or not to remove? Removal of the unconditional stimulus electrode does not mediate instructed extinction effects. Psychophysiology. 52 (9): pp. 1248-1256., which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12452This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving at http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-820227.html#terms
Following differential fear conditioning, the instruction that the unconditional stimulus will no longer be presented (instructed extinction) reduces differential electrodermal responding to CS+ and CS-, but does not affect differential conditional stimulus valence evaluations. Reductions in differential electrodermal responding have been attributed to the provision of verbal instructions; however, during instructed extinction the unconditional stimulus electrode is often removed as well. This removal could reduce the participants' general arousal levels rendering the detection of differential electrodermal responding difficult. The current study examined this alternative interpretation by comparing the electrodermal responses and conditional stimulus valence evaluations of an instruction/electrode-on group, an instruction/electrode-off group, and a control group who were not instructed. Following instructed extinction, differential electrodermal responding was eliminated in both instruction groups, an effect that was not influenced by the attachment/removal of the electrode. Replicating previous findings, conditional stimulus valence was not affected by instructed extinction. The results suggest that verbal instructions, not unconditional stimulus electrode removal, reduce differential electrodermal responding during instructed extinction manipulations.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The influence of contingency reversal instructions on electrodermal responding and conditional stimulus valence evaluations during differential fear conditioningLuck, C.; Lipp, Ottmar (2016)In differential fear conditioning, the instruction that the conditional stimulus (CS) will no longer be followed by the unconditional stimulus (US; instructed extinction) reduces differential physiological responding ...
A potential pathway to the relapse of fear? Conditioned negative stimulus evaluation (but not physiological responding) resists instructed extinctionLuck, C.; Lipp, Ottmar (2015)Relapse of fear after successful intervention is a major problem in clinical practice. However, little is known about how it is mediated. The current study investigated the effects of instructed extinction and removal of ...
Verbal instructions targeting valence alter negative conditional stimulus evaluations (but do not affect reinstatement rates)Luck, Camilla; Lipp, Ottmar (2017)Negative conditional stimulus (CS) valence acquired during fear conditioning may enhance fear relapse and is difficult to remove as it extinguishes slowly and does not respond to the instruction that unconditional stimulus ...