Safety behaviours are widely held to impede the beneficial effects of exposure, certainly in OCD.... more Safety behaviours are widely held to impede the beneficial effects of exposure, certainly in OCD. Recently, Rachman, Radomsky, Shafran, and Zysk (2011) challenged this view. Healthy volunteers repeatedly touched a contaminant in two sessions. Half of the participants did not engage in safety behaviours after touching (exposure + response prevention), while the other half did (exposure + safety behaviours, i.e., cleaning hands with a hygienic wipe). Scores of contamination, fear, danger, and disgust decreased in both sessions and the effects were not impeded by safety behaviours. Three potential artefacts were identified in the Rachman et al. study: a no-treatment control group was lacking, the stop rules for ending exposure differed between conditions, and positive expectations may have been induced in the safety behaviours group. We tried to critically replicate the main findings.The Rachman et al. (2011) study was replicated, with 44 volunteers but stop rules and expectations were similar between treatments, and effects were also assessed in a no-intervention control group.Relative to the control condition, both exposure interventions induced reliable decreases in feelings of contamination, fear, danger, and disgust. The decline followed an exponential curve with the largest gains at the first trials of each session.Findings were obtained from a non-clinical sample.The findings attest to the robustness of the Rachman et al. findings, and challenge the notion that safety behaviours should be dismissed categorically in exposure treatments.► Safety behaviors like cleaning are held to impede positive effects of exposure to contaminants. ► An analogue experiment (Rachman et al., 2011) suggested that this may be untrue. ► Some potential artifacts from that study were identified and it was critically replicated. ► We too observed that cleaning after contamination did not impede exposure effects. ► Findings challenge assumptions about the negative impact of safety behaviors on exposure.
Safety behavior involves precautions to prevent or minimize a feared outcome, and is involved in ... more Safety behavior involves precautions to prevent or minimize a feared outcome, and is involved in the maintenance of anxiety disorders. Earlier research has shown that safety behavior prevents the extinction of conditioned fear and maintains threat expectations. This study tested whether safety behavior directed towards an objectively safe stimulus increases the perceived threat of that stimulus when it is subsequently experienced in the absence of the safety measure. In a conditioning task, participants first learned that one "danger" cue (A) was followed by shock and two "safety" cues (B, C) were not. Then they learned to apply safety behavior during A trials, which prevented the shock. Next, the experimental group, and not the control group, was given the opportunity to display safety behavior to C trials, which had never been coupled with the shock. In a subsequent test phase, A, B, and C were presented without the opportunity for participants to engage in safety behavior. Results showed that safety behavior increased shock expectancy to C in the test phase and maintained a preexisting shock expectancy in the experimental group, but not in the control group. This is the first study to show that safety behavior can maintain threat appraisal to stimuli that only ever acquired threat indirectly. This may be a possible mechanism for the origin of biased threat beliefs, superstitious behaviors, and irrational fears. It is also practically relevant: safety behavior reduces actual danger, but in relatively safe situations, its potential costs may outweigh the benefits.
This study investigated whether checking behavior, the most common safety behavior in obsessive–c... more This study investigated whether checking behavior, the most common safety behavior in obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), contributes to the development of OCD symptoms. Ninety healthy undergraduates spent a week between a pre and posttest either actively engaging in clinically representative checking behavior on a daily basis (experimental group, n = 30), monitoring their normal checking behavior (monitor group, n = 30), or received no instructions on checking behavior (control group, n = 30). Cognitions about the severity of threat increased from pre- to posttest in the experimental group, but not in the monitor and control groups. Cognitions about the importance of checking decreased in the monitor group. The results indicate that checking behavior contributes directly to the exacerbation of OCD symptoms. Together with the findings of previous studies, this suggests that safety behavior may be involved in the development of anxiety disorders and OCD. Potential mechanisms of how engaging in safety behavior increases threat perception are discussed.
In exposure therapy, anxiety patients actively approach feared stimuli to violate their expectati... more In exposure therapy, anxiety patients actively approach feared stimuli to violate their expectations of danger and reduce fear. Prior research has shown that stimulus evaluation and behavior are reciprocally related. This suggests that approach behavior itself may decrease fear. This study tested whether approach behavior adds to the beneficial effects of exposure. Spider fearful women were randomly assigned to one of three groups: repeated exposure to a spider by pulling a cart with a jar containing the spider toward them (Exposure + approach) or by having the experimenter do this (Exposure only), or no exposure. Exposure decreased self-reported and behavioral spider fear, compared to no exposure. The decrease was similar for exposure with and without the approach manipulation. No effects were found on affective priming. Our results did not show an added effect of approach by pulling a feared stimulus toward you to exposure. However, the mere visual impression of approach, and/or the decision to approach may have reduced fear.
Earlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movements (EM) during retrieval of a negative memo... more Earlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movements (EM) during retrieval of a negative memory reduce its vividness and emotionality. This may be due to both tasks competing for working memory (WM) resources. This study examined whether playing the computer game “Tetris” also blurs memory. Participants recalled negative and positive memories in three conditions: recall only, recall with concurrent EM, and recall with playing Tetris. Before and after these conditions, vividness, emotionality, and physiological startle responses during recall were measured. A reaction time task showed that EM and Tetris both draw on WM, compared to no dual-task. Compared to recall only, EMand Tetris both decreased reported emotionality and startle responses. The effects of EM and Tetris did not differ, even though the tasks differed in the degree of taxing WM. This suggests that taxing WM and its effects on emotional memories may not be linearly related. Potential clinical implications are discussed.
BackgroundEarlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movement (EM) during retrieval of a nega... more BackgroundEarlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movement (EM) during retrieval of a negative memory reduces its vividness and emotionality. This may be due to both tasks competing for working memory (WM) resources. This study examined whether playing the computer game “Tetris” also blurs memory.MethodParticipants recalled negative and positive memories in three conditions: recall only, recall with concurrent EM, and recall with playing Tetris. Before and after these conditions, vividness, emotionality, and physiological startle responses during recall were measured.ResultsA reaction time task showed that EM and Tetris draw on WM, compared to no dual-task. Compared to recall only, EM and Tetris both decreased reported emotionality and startle responses.ConclusionsThe effects of EM and Tetris did not differ, even though the tasks differed in the degree of taxing WM. This suggests that taxing WM and its effects on emotional memories may not be linearly related. Potential clinical implications are discussed.
Safety behaviours are widely held to impede the beneficial effects of exposure, certainly in OCD.... more Safety behaviours are widely held to impede the beneficial effects of exposure, certainly in OCD. Recently, Rachman, Radomsky, Shafran, and Zysk (2011) challenged this view. Healthy volunteers repeatedly touched a contaminant in two sessions. Half of the participants did not engage in safety behaviours after touching (exposure + response prevention), while the other half did (exposure + safety behaviours, i.e., cleaning hands with a hygienic wipe). Scores of contamination, fear, danger, and disgust decreased in both sessions and the effects were not impeded by safety behaviours. Three potential artefacts were identified in the Rachman et al. study: a no-treatment control group was lacking, the stop rules for ending exposure differed between conditions, and positive expectations may have been induced in the safety behaviours group. We tried to critically replicate the main findings.The Rachman et al. (2011) study was replicated, with 44 volunteers but stop rules and expectations were similar between treatments, and effects were also assessed in a no-intervention control group.Relative to the control condition, both exposure interventions induced reliable decreases in feelings of contamination, fear, danger, and disgust. The decline followed an exponential curve with the largest gains at the first trials of each session.Findings were obtained from a non-clinical sample.The findings attest to the robustness of the Rachman et al. findings, and challenge the notion that safety behaviours should be dismissed categorically in exposure treatments.► Safety behaviors like cleaning are held to impede positive effects of exposure to contaminants. ► An analogue experiment (Rachman et al., 2011) suggested that this may be untrue. ► Some potential artifacts from that study were identified and it was critically replicated. ► We too observed that cleaning after contamination did not impede exposure effects. ► Findings challenge assumptions about the negative impact of safety behaviors on exposure.
Safety behavior involves precautions to prevent or minimize a feared outcome, and is involved in ... more Safety behavior involves precautions to prevent or minimize a feared outcome, and is involved in the maintenance of anxiety disorders. Earlier research has shown that safety behavior prevents the extinction of conditioned fear and maintains threat expectations. This study tested whether safety behavior directed towards an objectively safe stimulus increases the perceived threat of that stimulus when it is subsequently experienced in the absence of the safety measure. In a conditioning task, participants first learned that one "danger" cue (A) was followed by shock and two "safety" cues (B, C) were not. Then they learned to apply safety behavior during A trials, which prevented the shock. Next, the experimental group, and not the control group, was given the opportunity to display safety behavior to C trials, which had never been coupled with the shock. In a subsequent test phase, A, B, and C were presented without the opportunity for participants to engage in safety behavior. Results showed that safety behavior increased shock expectancy to C in the test phase and maintained a preexisting shock expectancy in the experimental group, but not in the control group. This is the first study to show that safety behavior can maintain threat appraisal to stimuli that only ever acquired threat indirectly. This may be a possible mechanism for the origin of biased threat beliefs, superstitious behaviors, and irrational fears. It is also practically relevant: safety behavior reduces actual danger, but in relatively safe situations, its potential costs may outweigh the benefits.
This study investigated whether checking behavior, the most common safety behavior in obsessive–c... more This study investigated whether checking behavior, the most common safety behavior in obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), contributes to the development of OCD symptoms. Ninety healthy undergraduates spent a week between a pre and posttest either actively engaging in clinically representative checking behavior on a daily basis (experimental group, n = 30), monitoring their normal checking behavior (monitor group, n = 30), or received no instructions on checking behavior (control group, n = 30). Cognitions about the severity of threat increased from pre- to posttest in the experimental group, but not in the monitor and control groups. Cognitions about the importance of checking decreased in the monitor group. The results indicate that checking behavior contributes directly to the exacerbation of OCD symptoms. Together with the findings of previous studies, this suggests that safety behavior may be involved in the development of anxiety disorders and OCD. Potential mechanisms of how engaging in safety behavior increases threat perception are discussed.
In exposure therapy, anxiety patients actively approach feared stimuli to violate their expectati... more In exposure therapy, anxiety patients actively approach feared stimuli to violate their expectations of danger and reduce fear. Prior research has shown that stimulus evaluation and behavior are reciprocally related. This suggests that approach behavior itself may decrease fear. This study tested whether approach behavior adds to the beneficial effects of exposure. Spider fearful women were randomly assigned to one of three groups: repeated exposure to a spider by pulling a cart with a jar containing the spider toward them (Exposure + approach) or by having the experimenter do this (Exposure only), or no exposure. Exposure decreased self-reported and behavioral spider fear, compared to no exposure. The decrease was similar for exposure with and without the approach manipulation. No effects were found on affective priming. Our results did not show an added effect of approach by pulling a feared stimulus toward you to exposure. However, the mere visual impression of approach, and/or the decision to approach may have reduced fear.
Earlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movements (EM) during retrieval of a negative memo... more Earlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movements (EM) during retrieval of a negative memory reduce its vividness and emotionality. This may be due to both tasks competing for working memory (WM) resources. This study examined whether playing the computer game “Tetris” also blurs memory. Participants recalled negative and positive memories in three conditions: recall only, recall with concurrent EM, and recall with playing Tetris. Before and after these conditions, vividness, emotionality, and physiological startle responses during recall were measured. A reaction time task showed that EM and Tetris both draw on WM, compared to no dual-task. Compared to recall only, EMand Tetris both decreased reported emotionality and startle responses. The effects of EM and Tetris did not differ, even though the tasks differed in the degree of taxing WM. This suggests that taxing WM and its effects on emotional memories may not be linearly related. Potential clinical implications are discussed.
BackgroundEarlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movement (EM) during retrieval of a nega... more BackgroundEarlier studies have shown that horizontal eye movement (EM) during retrieval of a negative memory reduces its vividness and emotionality. This may be due to both tasks competing for working memory (WM) resources. This study examined whether playing the computer game “Tetris” also blurs memory.MethodParticipants recalled negative and positive memories in three conditions: recall only, recall with concurrent EM, and recall with playing Tetris. Before and after these conditions, vividness, emotionality, and physiological startle responses during recall were measured.ResultsA reaction time task showed that EM and Tetris draw on WM, compared to no dual-task. Compared to recall only, EM and Tetris both decreased reported emotionality and startle responses.ConclusionsThe effects of EM and Tetris did not differ, even though the tasks differed in the degree of taxing WM. This suggests that taxing WM and its effects on emotional memories may not be linearly related. Potential clinical implications are discussed.
Uploads
Papers by Sophie van Uijen
increases the perceived threat of that stimulus when it is subsequently experienced in the absence of the safety measure. In a conditioning task, participants first learned that one "danger" cue (A) was followed by shock and two "safety" cues (B, C) were not. Then they learned to apply
safety behavior during A trials, which prevented the shock. Next, the experimental group, and not the control group, was given the opportunity to display safety behavior to C trials, which had never been coupled with the shock. In a subsequent test phase, A, B, and C were presented without the opportunity for participants to engage in safety behavior. Results showed that safety behavior increased shock expectancy to C in the test phase and maintained a preexisting shock expectancy in the experimental group, but not in the control group. This is the first study to show that safety behavior can maintain threat appraisal to stimuli that only ever acquired threat indirectly. This may be a possible mechanism for the origin of biased threat beliefs, superstitious behaviors, and irrational fears. It is also practically relevant: safety behavior reduces actual danger, but in relatively safe situations, its potential costs may outweigh the benefits.
increases the perceived threat of that stimulus when it is subsequently experienced in the absence of the safety measure. In a conditioning task, participants first learned that one "danger" cue (A) was followed by shock and two "safety" cues (B, C) were not. Then they learned to apply
safety behavior during A trials, which prevented the shock. Next, the experimental group, and not the control group, was given the opportunity to display safety behavior to C trials, which had never been coupled with the shock. In a subsequent test phase, A, B, and C were presented without the opportunity for participants to engage in safety behavior. Results showed that safety behavior increased shock expectancy to C in the test phase and maintained a preexisting shock expectancy in the experimental group, but not in the control group. This is the first study to show that safety behavior can maintain threat appraisal to stimuli that only ever acquired threat indirectly. This may be a possible mechanism for the origin of biased threat beliefs, superstitious behaviors, and irrational fears. It is also practically relevant: safety behavior reduces actual danger, but in relatively safe situations, its potential costs may outweigh the benefits.