Predictable and unpredictable aversive events: Evidence for the safety-signal hypothesis

Price, Kenneth P.; Geer, James H.

doi:10.3758/bf03328598

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Session 1, ITI startles were significantly greater in the unpaired compared to the paired group in the conditioning phase~during shock administration!, but not in the preconditioning phase. These results, which suggest greater startle sensitization by the context in the unpaired group, are consistent with the view that unpredictable aversive events are more stressful than predictable ones~Averill & Rosenn, 1972;Geer & Maisel, 1972;Price & Geer, 1972!. According to Seligman's safety signal hypothesis, aversive events induce a state of fear~Seligman, 1968;Seligman & Binik, 1977!.…”

Section: Predictability Versus Unpredictabilitysupporting

confidence: 80%

Contextual fear‐potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Replication and extension

Ameli

Grillon

2001

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextual fear conditioning was examined using the startle reflex in two groups of participants over two sessions separated by 1/2 h. The conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired (paired group) or not (unpaired group) with an unpleasant shock during conditioning. The paired group showed conditioning to the CS that was well retained over the retention interval. Session I intertrial interval startles--a measure of contextual conditioning--were greater in the unpaired compared to the paired group. Context conditioning was retained in Session 2 and was present before the shock electrodes were attached. Self-rating of state anxiety, arousal, and pleasure indicated differential changes in mood from Session 1 to Session 2 in the two groups, with the unpaired group showing relatively greater negative affects compared to the paired group. These results indicate that unpredictable shocks lead to greater context conditioning as measured by startle and self-reports.

show abstract

Section: Predictability Versus Unpredictabilitysupporting

confidence: 80%

Contextual fear‐potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Replication and extension

Ameli

Grillon

2001

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is entirely possible that SFs in the ITIs were reliably greater in the aperiodic treatment. Such an expectation is consistent with the findings of Price and Geer (1972).…”

supporting

confidence: 93%

“…Seligman (e.g., Seligman, Maier, & Solomon, 1971) reports a number of animal studies in support of this hypothesis. Price and Geer (1972) have shown that human Ss exposed to unpredictable stress exhibit nearly twice as many spontaneous skin conductance t1uctuations (SFs) during ITIs as do Ss exposed to predictable stress.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Periodic and aperiodic noise: The safety-signal hypothesis and noise aftereffects

1973

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These results suggest that some physiological measures are more sensitive to fluctuations in anxiety caused by unpredictability than others. Price and Geer (1972) found twice as many NS-SCRs in participants anticipating unpredictable shocks versus predictable shocks. In contrast, Baker and Stephenson (2000) did not report consistent differences in HR between anticipation of predictable versus unpredictable shocks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Anxious Responses to Predictable and Unpredictable Aversive Events.

Grillon

Baas

Lissek

et al. 2004

Behavioral Neuroscience

323

327

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anxiety induced by 2 types of predictable and unpredictable aversive stimuli, an unpleasant shock or a less aversive airblast to the larynx, were investigated in a between-group design. Participants anticipated predictable (signaled) or unpredictable (not signaled) aversive events, or no aversive event. Unpredictable, relative to predictable, contexts potentiated the startle reflex in the shock group but not in the airblast group. These data suggest that unpredictability can lead to a sustained level of anxiety only when the pending stimulus is sufficiently aversive. Because predictable and unpredictable danger may induce different types of aversive responses, the proposed design can serve as a useful tool for studying the neurobiology and psychopharmacology of fear and anxiety.

show abstract

Predictable and unpredictable aversive events: Evidence for the safety-signal hypothesis

Cited by 24 publications

References 12 publications

Contextual fear‐potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Replication and extension

Contextual fear‐potentiated startle conditioning in humans: Replication and extension

Periodic and aperiodic noise: The safety-signal hypothesis and noise aftereffects

Anxious Responses to Predictable and Unpredictable Aversive Events.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About