1966
DOI: 10.1037/h0022827
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Incubation and inhibition.

Abstract: The hypothesis was tested that the increase in conditioned emotionality following a delay is related to the dissipation of inhibition developed during acquisition. The GSR was conditioned using a J-min. intertrial interval for 1 group, a 2-rain. interval for another group, and a 4-min. interval for a 3rd group. The i-min. group showed an increase after a delay, the 2-min. group, no change, and the 4-min. group, a decrease. When differences in base level among the groups were statistically controlled, the diffe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1968
1968
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An interesting aspect of the fear incubation effect is that it appears not to be a result of fear gradually increasing above the level normally produced by limited tone-shock pairings, but rather, it is an initial inhibition of fear behavior that gradually dissipates over time [33, 55, 56]. This is not unlike the clinical phenomenon of dissociation, in which the emotional response to a salient event is often suppressed or dis-integrated from the explicit memory of the event, a symptom also known as “emotional numbing” [14, 57].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An interesting aspect of the fear incubation effect is that it appears not to be a result of fear gradually increasing above the level normally produced by limited tone-shock pairings, but rather, it is an initial inhibition of fear behavior that gradually dissipates over time [33, 55, 56]. This is not unlike the clinical phenomenon of dissociation, in which the emotional response to a salient event is often suppressed or dis-integrated from the explicit memory of the event, a symptom also known as “emotional numbing” [14, 57].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, Golin and colleagues (8; 26) and Mednick (27) suggested that the emergence of fear incubation is due to time-dependent recovery from adaptation to repeated exposure to aversive stimuli. It is likely that adaptation to shock exposure during training occurred in our experiments, because responding to the tone cue gradually decreased during training days 4 to 10 (Fig 1B).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The increase in fear is assumed to be spontaneous, in the sense that the time interval is free of further exposure to the aversive stimulus" (McAllister and McAllister 1967, p. 180). Many studies of this phenomenon have been reported in the literature since Diven's (1937) original paper; the work of Bindra and Cameron (1953), Breznitz (1967), Brush (1964) and Brush and Levine (1966), Denny and Ditchman (1962), Desiderato and Wassarman (1967), Desiderato, Butler, and Meyer (1966), Golin (1961) and Golin and Golin (1966), Kamin (1957Kamin ( , 1963, McAllister (1963, 1965), McMichael (1966), Mednick (1957), Saltz and Asdourian (1963), and Tarpy (1966) being perhaps best known. McAllister and McAllister (1967) conclude a review of this field by saying that "although the incubation-of-fear hypothesis has been tested in a wide variety of situations, the phenomenon has yet to be convincingly demonstrated" (p. 189).…”
Section: The Incubation Of Anxiety/fear Responsesmentioning
confidence: 99%