The Extinction and Return of Fear of Public Speaking

Abstract

Prior studies indicate extinguished fear often partially returns when participants are later tested outside the extinction context. Cues carried from the extinction context to the test context sometimes reduce return of fear, but it is unclear whether such extinction cues (ECs) reduce return of fear of public speaking. Here we assessed return of fear of public speaking, and whether either of two types of ECs can attenuate it. Participants gave speeches of increasing difficulty during an exposure practice session and were tested 2 days later in a different context. Testing occurred in the presence of physical ECs, after mentally rehearsing the exposure session, or without either reminder. Practice reduced fear of public speaking, but fear partially returned at test. Neither physical nor mental ECs reduced partial return of fear of public speaking. The return of extinguished fear of public speaking, although small, was reliable, but not appreciably sensitive to presence of ECs.

Verbal retrieval cues prevent renewal and spontaneous recovery of predictive judgments in university students

“…In our study, testing was conducted two days (48 hours) after Phase 2, while Mystkowski et al (2006) carried out the test seven days after the Treatment Phase, suggesting a limitation for the mental retrieval cues (i.e., their effectiveness may be greater on shorter periods of time). In addition, our data from Experiment 2 is at odds with reports that showed a lack of effect of verbal retrieval cues on reducing fear of public speaking (Culver et al, 2011;Laborda et al, 2016). Although this inconsistency could suggest that the critical difference between each paradigm may depend on the emotional content involved (i.e., fear vs. fictional events), note that both studies summates physical and temporal contexts, thereby producing a larger recovery effect than either of these manipulations alone (Laborda et al, 2014).…”

“…Although most of the studies used physical retrieval cues, e.g., a pen with humans (Laborda et al, 2016) or lights with rats (Bernal-Gamboa et al, 2017), it has been argued that, given that retrieval objects are not always available, patients could use mental retrieval cues (Craske et al, 2008(Craske et al, , 2014. For example, if a patient is confronted with a fear-provoking stimulus, imagining what the clinician would have said could be very helpful to reduce the phobic behavior.…”

“…For example, if a patient is confronted with a fear-provoking stimulus, imagining what the clinician would have said could be very helpful to reduce the phobic behavior. This type of strategy has been used only in situations that involve aversive situations such as the fear of spiders (Mystkowsky, Craske, Echiverri, & Labus, 2006) or fear of public speaking (Culver, Stoyanova, & Craske, 2011;Laborda et al, 2016). Hence, the main goal of the present experiments was to explore the impact of mental retrieval cues (produced by verbal instructions) on the renewal (Experiment 1) and spontaneous recovery (Experiment 2) of predictive judgments in healthy humans.…”

Examining stimuli paired with alternative reinforcement to mitigate resurgence in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and pigeons

“…One approach developed in laboratory research has been to arrange stimuli presented specifically during extinction/treatment contingencies in order to mitigate relapse, or renewal, following changes to environmental contexts (e.g., Brooks & Bouton, 1994;Nieto, Uengoer, & Bernal-Gamboa, 2017;Willcocks & McNally, 2014; see Podlesnik, Kelley, Jimenez-Gomez, & Bouton, 2017, for a review). Clinical studies have found the continued presentation of stimuli paired with treatment of undesirable behavior decrease renewal of, for examples, problem behavior in children (Kelley, Jimenez-Gomez, Podlesnik, & Morgan, 2018), fear of public speaking (Laborda et al, 2016), and drug use (Collins & Brandon, 2002;Rosenthal & Kutlu, 2014). Clinical studies have found the continued presentation of stimuli paired with treatment of undesirable behavior decrease renewal of, for examples, problem behavior in children (Kelley, Jimenez-Gomez, Podlesnik, & Morgan, 2018), fear of public speaking (Laborda et al, 2016), and drug use (Collins & Brandon, 2002;Rosenthal & Kutlu, 2014).…”

“…When extinguishing a previously reinforced target response in one context, renewal occurs when the target response increases upon returning to the training context or transitioning to a novel context (e.g., Bouton, Todd, Vurbic, & Winterbauer, 2011). Clinical studies have found the continued presentation of stimuli paired with treatment of undesirable behavior decrease renewal of, for examples, problem behavior in children (Kelley, Jimenez-Gomez, Podlesnik, & Morgan, 2018), fear of public speaking (Laborda et al, 2016), and drug use (Collins & Brandon, 2002;Rosenthal & Kutlu, 2014). A common interpretation of these effects is that these stimuli, presented as antecedent stimuli paired exclusively with a context of behavioral treatment, generally serve to enhance generalization of treatment effects to nontreatment contexts (see Bouton, 2014; see also Stokes & Baer, 1977).…”