Fear conditioning is one of the prime paradigms of behavioural neuroscience and a source of tremendous insight in the fundamentals of learning and memory and the psychology and neurobiology of emotion. It is also widely regarded as a model for the pathogenesis of anxiety disorders in a diathesis-stress model of psychopathology. Starting from the apparent paradox between the adaptive nature of fear conditioning and the dysfunctional nature of pathological anxiety, we present a critique of the human fear conditioning paradigm as an experimental model for psychopathology. We discuss the potential benefits of expanding the human fear conditioning paradigm by (1) including action tendencies as an important index of fear and (2) paying more attention to "weak" (i.e., ambiguous) rather than "strong" fear learning situations (Lissek et al., 2006), such as contained in selective learning procedures. We present preliminary data that illustrate these ideas and discuss the importance of response systems divergence in understanding individual differences in vulnerability for the development of pathological anxiety.

Standard dual-process models in the action domain postulate that stimulus-driven processes are responsible for suboptimal behavior because they take them to be rigid and automatic and therefore the default. We propose an alternative dual-process model in which goal-directed processes are the default instead. We then transfer the dual- process logic from the action domain to the emotion domain. This reveals that emotional behavior is often attributed to stimulus-driven processes. Our alternative model submits that goal-directed processes could be the primary determinant of emotional behavior instead. We evaluate the type of empirical evidence required for validating our model and we consider implications of our model for behavior change, encouraging strategies focused on the expectancies and values of action outcomes.

No abstract

With the discovery of the blocking effect, learning theory took a huge leap forward, because blocking provided a crucial clue that surprise is what drives learning. This in turn stimulated the development of novel association-formation theories of learning. Eventually, the ability to explain blocking became nothing short of a touchstone for the validity of any theory of learning, including propositional and other nonassociative theories. The abundance of publications reporting a blocking effect and the importance attributed to it suggest that it is a robust phenomenon. Yet, in the current article we report 15 failures to observe a blocking effect despite the use of procedures that are highly similar or identical to those used in published studies. Those failures raise doubts regarding the canonical nature of the blocking effect and call for a reevaluation of the central status of blocking in theories of learning. They may also illustrate how publication bias influences our perspective toward the robustness and reliability of seemingly established effects in the psychological literature.

Fear learning reflects the adaptive ability to learn to anticipate aversive events and to display preparatory fear reactions based on prior experiences. Usually, these learning experiences are modeled in the lab with pairings between a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) and an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) (i.e., fear conditioning via CS-US pairings). Nevertheless, for humans, fear learning can also be based on verbal instructions. In this review, we consider the role of verbal instructions in laboratory fear learning. Specifically, we consider both the effects of verbal instructions on fear responses in the absence of CS-US pairings as well as the way in which verbal instructions moderate fear established via CS-US pairings. We first focus on the available empirical findings about both types of effects. More specifically, we consider how these effects are moderated by elements of the fear conditioning procedure (i.e., the stimuli, the outcome measures, the relationship between the stimuli, the participants, and the broader context). Thereafter, we discuss how well different mental-process models of fear learning account for these empirical findings. Finally, we conclude the review with a discussion of open questions and opportunities for future research.

A major objective of experimental psychopathology research is to improve clinical practice via the experimental study of treatment mechanisms. The success of this endeavor depends on the external validity of the procedures used to model the treatment component in the laboratory. We propose a general framework and a set of specific criteria that will allow evaluating whether a certain laboratory procedure is a valid model for a certain clinical treatment. We illustrate this framework by evaluating the validity of extinction as a laboratory model for clinical exposure therapy. Although we acknowledge the merits of the extinction model, we argue that its validity might not be as firmly established as the research community assumes. We also use extinction as an example to demonstrate how considerations of the proposed criteria can stimulate further improvements to existing models of treatment. We conclude that the systematic assessment of external validity of treatment models is an important step towards bridging the gap between science and practice in the field of experimental psychopathology.

The identification of premorbid markers of risk for psychopathology is one of the most important challenges for present-day psychiatric research. This study focuses on behavioral vulnerability factors that contribute to the development of anxiety. Little is known about the role of aversive learning and generalization in the development of pathological anxiety. In this study, a large student sample (N = 375) completed a differential aversive learning task followed by a test of generalization. Anxiety was assessed at that moment and after a six-month follow-up. Results showed that both predictors (discrimination learning and generalization) added significantly to the explained variance in anxiety symptomatology at follow-up. These results highlight the importance of longitudinal designs and indicate that screening for individual differences in aversive learning and generalization may foster prediction of anxiety disorders, paving the way for targeted prevention.

In chronic musculoskeletal pain, avoidance behavior is a prominent behavioral characteristic that can manifest itself in various ways. It is also considered a crucial component in the development and maintenance of chronic pain-related disability, supposedly fueled by pain-related fear and catastrophic beliefs. Despite the frequent occurrence of avoidance behavior and its potential impact on quality of life, relatively little research has been dedicated to the nature of avoidance in chronic pain and its assessment, leaving its underlying mechanisms poorly understood. In the current paper, we stipulate some of the existing parallels between chronic pain research and more basic fear and anxiety research inspired by modern learning theories. After a brief introduction, we discuss avoidance theories that are likely apt to be applied to chronic pain, including avoidance as a response that can affect fear responding, and the role of avoidant decision making and motivational context. Finally, we will outline how these theories may impact clinical treatment.