The influence of extinction and counterconditioning procedures on operant evaluative conditioning and intersecting regularity effects

Online counterconditioning with COVID-19-relevant stimuli in lockdown: Impact on threat expectancy, fear, and persistent avoidance

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In counterconditioning, a conditioned aversive stimulus (CS) is paired with an appetitive stimulus to reduce fear and avoidance. Findings are, however, mixed on the relative impact of counterconditioning versus standard extinction, where the CS is presented in the absence of the aversive event. This analogue treatment study investigated the impact of counterconditioning relative to standard extinction on threat expectancy, fear, and persistent avoidance with an online fear-conditioning task conducted with COVID-19-relevant appetitive stimuli during the pandemic.

METHODS

Following habituation, in which two CSs (male faces wearing face-coverings) were presented in the absence of the unconditioned stimulus (US; a loud female scream), participants (n = 123) underwent threat-conditioning where one stimulus (CS+) was followed by the US and another (CS-) was not. In avoidance learning, the US could be prevented by making a simple response in the presence of the CS+. Next, participants received either counterconditioning in which trial-unique positively rated images of scenes from before the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions (e.g., hugging others and holding hands) were presented with the CS + or no-counterconditioning (i.e., extinction). In the final test phase, avoidance was available, and all US deliveries were withheld.

RESULTS

Counterconditioning led to diminished threat expectancy and reduced avoidance relative to no-counterconditioning. Fear ratings did not differ between groups.

LIMITATIONS

No physiological measures were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Implemented online during the pandemic with COVID-19-relevant appetitive stimuli, counterconditioning was effective at reducing persistent avoidance and threat expectancy.

The good and the bad: Are some attribute words better than others in the Implicit Association Test?

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is one of the most popular measures in psychological research. A lack of standardization across IATs has resulted in significant variability among stimuli used by researchers, including the positive and negative words used in evaluative IATs. Does the variability in attribute words in evaluative IATs produce unwanted variability in measurement quality across studies? The present work investigated the effect of evaluative stimuli across three studies using 13 IATs and over 60,000 participants. The 64 positive and negative words that we tested provided similar measurement quality. Further, measurement was satisfactory even in IATs that used only category labels as stimuli. These results suggest that common sense is probably a sufficient method for selection of evaluative stimuli in the IAT. For reasonable measurement quality, we recommend that researchers using evaluative IATs in English select words randomly from the set we tested in the present research.