1 / 11

Counterconditioning as a Treatment for Conditioned Fear?

Counterconditioning as a Treatment for Conditioned Fear?. Marlo Cutler Baldwin-Wallace College. Human Phobias. Human Phobias are frequently the result of simple Pavlovian conditioning Animal (NS)  bite (US)  pain (UR) Animal (CS)  anticipatory fear (CR). Fear Conditioning.

cecily
Download Presentation

Counterconditioning as a Treatment for Conditioned Fear?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Counterconditioning as a Treatment for Conditioned Fear? Marlo Cutler Baldwin-Wallace College

  2. Human Phobias • Human Phobias are frequently the result of simple Pavlovian conditioning • Animal (NS)  bite (US)  pain (UR) • Animal (CS)  anticipatory fear (CR)

  3. Fear Conditioning • Conditioned Suppression Procedure (Estes & Skinner, 1941) • Counterconditioning • CS (tone)  US (shock) [aversive] • CS (tone)  US (food) [appetitive]

  4. Systematic Desensitization (Wolpe, 1958) • Based on Pavlovian counterconditioning • Patient develops a hierarchy of fear • Learn techniques of relaxation • Use relaxation during presentations of feared stimulus to countercondition fear

  5. Systematic Desensitization cont. • Although SD is successful in reducing anxiety in humans during therapy long term outcome data for its efficacy is limited. • Also, in animal analogues of SD, there is frequently a relapse of fear outside the context where counterconditioning takes place (Peck & Bouton, 1990; Bouton & Peck, 1992).

  6. Counterconditioning • Purpose: To compare two different animal models of SD on the basis of fear reduction and degree of relapse. • Hypothesis: Counterconditioning that involves instrumental contingencies in addition to Pavlovian relationships will more closely resemble SD and may thwart renewal.

  7. Procedure

  8. Results • Extinction rate was slower in AAA than ABA (F(1,13)=7.14) • ABA slower than CC/P (F(4,52)=2.86) • CC/P slower than CC/I (F(4,48)=17.44)

  9. Results cont. • All treatments yielded savings greater than Group FC (smallest F(1,13= 4.92) • Group CC/I greater savings than CC/P, (F(1,13)=5.22) • All groups less savings than AAA except Group CC/I (F(1,13)=2.93, p > .11)

  10. Implications • One key component of SD appears to be the instrumental contingency between achieving relaxation. The patient must directly face their fear and work willfully to oppose the normal fear response during treatment.

  11. References • Bouton, M.E. & Peck, C.A. (1992). Spontaneous recovery in cross-motivational transfer (counterconditioning). Animal Learning & Behavior, 20(4), 313-321. • Estes, W.K., & Skinner, B.F. (1941). Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 390-400. • Peck, C.A. & Bouton, M.E. (1990). Context and performance in aversive-to-appetitive and appetitive-to-aversive transfer. Learning and Motivation, 21, 1-31. • Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

More Related