This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.

Past studies of backward evaluative conditioning (EC) have found an assimilation effect, in that neutral conditional stimuli (CS) were found to acquire the valence of co-occurring unconditional stimuli (US). Recent studies employing a concurrent forward and backward conditioning paradigm with instructions suggesting a contrastive relation between the US and the backward CS have resulted in contrast effects, in that backward CSs acquired valence opposite to the US. The current research investigated whether these effects were in fact due to the instructions highlighting the contrastive relation between the US and CS, or whether affective relief/disappointment experienced at US offset could account for this result. Consistent with the hypothesized role of instructions, backward CS contrast effects occurred only when instructions highlighted the valence of the US and attributed control of that US to the CSs. In contrast to the affective relief/disappointment hypothesis, no backward CS contrast effects were found without such instructions.

No abstract

Valence refers to how pleasant or unpleasant a given stimulus is and can be acquired and changed via fear and evaluative conditioning (Hofmann, De Houwer, Perugini, Baeyens, & Crombez, 2010; Lipp, 2006). In these procedures, neutral stimuli are paired with valenced unconditional stimuli (USs) resulting in the valence of the now conditional stimulus (CS) changing. The direction in which valence changes (i.e., toward pleasant or unpleasant) can depend on the temporal relationship between CSs and USs (forward vs. backward conditioning), the propositional relationship between CSs and USs (i.e., are CSs and USs "friends" or "enemies" or does the CS "start" or "stop" the US), and the measures used to assess valence change (Andreatta, Mühlberger, Yarali,

In associative learning, if stimulus A is presented in the same temporal context as the conditional stimulus (CS) - outcome association (but not in a way that allows an A-CS association to form) it becomes a temporal context cue, acquiring the ability to activate this context and retrieve the CS-outcome association. We examined whether a CS- presented during acquisition or extinction that predicted the absence of the unconditional stimulus (US) could act as a temporal context cue, reducing or enhancing responding, in differential fear conditioning. Two groups received acquisition (CSx-US, CSa-noUS) in phase 1 and extinction (CSx-noUS; CSe-noUS) in phase 2 (AE groups), and two groups received extinction in phase 1 and acquisition in phase 2 (EA groups). After a delay, participants were presented with either CSa (AEa and EAa groups) or CSe (AEe and EAe groups). Responding to CSx was enhanced after presentation of CSa but reduced after presentation of CSe, suggesting that training was segmented into two learning episodes and that the unreinforced CS present during an episode retrieved the CSx-US or CSx-noUS association. These findings suggest that temporal context cues may enhance or reduce fear responding, providing an exciting new avenue for relapse prevention research.