Persistence of fear-reducing behavior: Relevance for the conditioning theory of neurosis.

Abstract

The present study provided experimental support for Mowrer's conditioning theory of neurosis. Naive hooded rats were given fear-conditioning (CS-shock) trials in one side of a two-compartment apparatus. Then, in the absence of shock, they were allowed to escape fear by jumping a hurdle to a safe compartment. The hurdle-jumping response was considered to be analogous to anxiety-based symptomatic behavior indicative of psychopathology in that the performance of the response was unrelated to the receipt of further shock. All subjects learned the hurdle-jumping response, and then performance gradually declined until an extinction criterion was reached. Thus, a response instrumental in reducing fear was learned and was maintained over many trials. A subsequent single fear-conditioning trial led immediately to a high level of performance followed by gradual extinction. These findings imply that, when fear is extinguished, instrumental responding can cease even though some response strength remains; they suggest the importance for therapy of focusing on the extinction of both instrumental (symptomatic) behavior and fear. Evidence was also provided for the spontaneous recovery of fear. Some human behavior is paradoxical in the sense that it persists even though, from the viewpoint of an observer, the net effect of the behavior appears to be maladaptive because it does not protect the individual from any objective danger. However, the persistence of such behavior suggests that it has some functional significance for the individual, and its explanation is clearly demanded of any theory that purports to have general relevance. One of the historical attempts at such an explanation is based primarily upon research on learning conducted in the laboratory with infrahuman subjects. Eysenck (1979) calls it the "conditioning theory of neurosis," and its basic tenets can be traced from Mowrer (1939) and Miller (1948,1951, through Wynne (1954) andBrown (1961), to Stampfl and Levis (1967) and Levis and Boyd (1979).According to this theory, when a noxious or aversive event occurs, the neutral stimuli accompanying it acquire the capacity to elicit an emotional response, typically called fear or anxiety. These events constitute a classical conditioning procedure. The neutral stimuli, both discrete and situational stimuli, constitute the conditioned stimulus complex (CS); the noxious This research was supported in part by Grants MH-29232 and MH-36610 from the National Institute of Mental Health. Portions of these data were reported at the 1980 meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association.The authors are indebted to Edward J. Callen for aid in the analysis of the data and for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Converging evidence for one-trial context fear conditioning with an immediate shock: Importance of shock potency.

“…The dominant reaction of the rat to a feared context is freezing (Fanselow & Lester, 1988), even when the rat has been given ample time to learn that escape routes are available. When escape speeds are used to measure context fear, those speeds are often very slow at fi rst, and they reach their maximum only after about 50 escapes (McAllister, McAllister, Scoles, & Hampton, 1986). Our frightened rats failed to escape rapidly because they were freezing.…”

Two-factor theory, the actor--critic model, and conditioned avoidance

“…Avoidance to Extinction As was noted above, many studies have shown remarkable persistence of the avoidance response (Levis, 1966;Levis et al, 1970;Levis & Boyd, 1979;Logan, 1951;Malloy & Levis, 1988;McAllister et al, 1986;Seligman & Campbell, 1965;Wahlsten & Cole, 1972; R. W. Williams & Levis, 1991). For example, reported that with 200 extinction trials none of the dogs in their experiment extinguished the response.…”

“…Neither of these predictions corresponds to the empirical findings. Instead, once the avoidance response is well learned, animals often continue to perform it in every trial, during both acquisition and extinction (Levis, 1966;Levis, Bouska, Eron, & McIlhon, 1970;Levis & Boyd, 1979;Logan, 1951;Malloy & Levis, 1988;McAllister, McAllister, Scoles, & Hampton, 1986;Seligman & Campbell, 1965;Wahlsten & Cole, 1972; R. W. Williams & Levis, 1991). Furthermore, avoidance responding persists, and even gets stronger, after fear of the CS is drastically reduced or even nearly extinguished Mineka, 1979;Rachman, 1976;Riccio & Silvestri, 1973).…”

Recovery of conditioned fear by a single postextinction shock: Effect of similarity of shock contexts and of time following extinction

“…This finding may be attributable to some modification's having occurred in the subject during original conditioning. Rapid reconditioning has been found not only with the fear response in rats (e.g., D. E. McAllister & W. R. McAllister, 1994;W. R. McAllister et al, 1986), but also with the nictitating membrane response in rabbits (e.g., Macrae & Kehoe, 1999;Napier, Macrae, & Kehoe, 1992;Weidemann & Kehoe, 2003), the heart rate response in rabbits (e.g., Weidemann & Kehoe, 2003), and the eyelid response in rabbits (e.g., Medina, Garcia, & Mauk, 2001).…”

“…First, if some time elapses after a behavior has ceased, an extinguished conditioned fear response may recover spontaneously, so that the behavior is again supported (e.g., W. R. McAllister, D. E. McAllister, Scoles, & Hampton, 1986). Second, if fear is conditioned separately to two stimuli and then fear to each stimulus is extinguished to a level that does not support a behavior, presenting the two stimuli together can lead to the restoration of that behavior (Hendry, 1982;Reberg, 1972).…”