Comparing three extinction methods to reduce fear expression and generalization

Evaluating the effects of counterconditioning, novelty-facilitated, and standard extinction on the spontaneous recovery of threat expectancy and conditioned stimulus valence

Extinction training has proved effective to diminish the expectancy of the aversive unconditioned stimulus (US). However, the negative valence of the conditioned stimulus (CS) may still stay intact. In fact, several studies have suggested that the CS negative valence may be a factor that promotes the return of fear. Our study focuses on the role of changes in the CS valence as a potential mechanism to reduce the spontaneous recovery of threat expectancies. To do that, we evaluated counterconditioning (CC), a technique aimed to reduce the CS negative valence by paring it with a positive stimulus and compared its efficacy to that of a novelty-facilitated extinction (NFE) and a standard extinction interventions. Using a 2-day protocol, participants first learned the relationship between a figure and an aversive sound, using a differential conditioning paradigm, and were then randomly assigned to one of three different groups. For the CC group, CS+ or cue A was paired with a positive US. The standard extinction group was exposed to cue A alone. For a third NFE group, cue A was followed by a neutral US. Finally, on the second day, spontaneous recovery was tested. Our findings did not provide evidence to suggest that CC could be more effective to prevent or reduce the return of threat expectancies or influence valence ratings when compared with NFE and standard extinction.