1 / 10

US HABITUATION DOES NOT CAUSE RETROACTIVE REVALUATION OF A CONDITIONED FEAR RESPONSE.

US HABITUATION DOES NOT CAUSE RETROACTIVE REVALUATION OF A CONDITIONED FEAR RESPONSE. Stephanie Damas, Cheryl Novak, & Dr. Brian L. Thomas Baldwin-Wallace College. Introduction. NS  No particular response bee NS + US  UR bee sting pain

palmer
Download Presentation

US HABITUATION DOES NOT CAUSE RETROACTIVE REVALUATION OF A CONDITIONED FEAR RESPONSE.

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. US HABITUATION DOES NOT CAUSE RETROACTIVE REVALUATION OF A CONDITIONED FEAR RESPONSE. Stephanie Damas, Cheryl Novak, & Dr. Brian L. Thomas Baldwin-Wallace College

  2. Introduction • NS  No particular response bee • NS + US  UR bee sting pain • CS  CR bee anticipatory fear/avoidance (Pavlov, 1927). • Fear conditioning (Estes & Skinner, 1941).

  3. Introduction • EU: CS not predict US / US not predict CS, (Rauhut, Thomas, & Ayres, 2001). • Fear for a CS is weakened by presenting US until habituation develops, (Rescorla, 1973). • Retroactive revaluation- informational value of CS is changed without actually experiencing it.

  4. Purpose • Is relapse prevented in the EU procedure because the rats become habituated to the US? • Does the intensity of the shock effect habituation directly and revaluation indirectly? • What, if any, importance does shock intensity have in the EU paradigm?

  5. Method

  6. Results: Renewal • Conditioning was stronger with a more intense shock. • Extinction was slower in Group EU .60 than other groups.

  7. Results: Savings Test • EU groups combined greater savings than E groups combined. • E Groups combined greater savings than U groups combined.

  8. Results: Revaluation/Habituation • Conditioning was faster in E groups combined than other groups. • Conditioning was faster in .60 mA groups combined than than .40 mA groups.

  9. Conclusions • The EU procedure is not dependant on US habituation. • US habituation was greater with a .40 mA shock than .60 mA shock, but savings did not depend on shock intensity. • US habituation did not cause retroactive revaluation.

  10. References • Estes, W.K. & Skinner, B.F. (1941). Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 390-400. • Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press. • Rauhut, A.S., Thomas, B.L., & Ayres, J.J.B. (2001). Treatments that weaken Pavlovian conditioned fear and thwart its renewal in rats: Implications for treating human phobias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Process, 27(2), 99-114. • Rescorla, R.A. (1973). Effect of US habituation following conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 82, 137-143.

More Related