The effects of cued UCS rehearsal on the retention of differential ‘fear’ conditioning: An experimental analogue of the ‘worry’ process
Abstract
This study describes a human electrodermal conditioning experiment in which subjects were asked to mentally rehearse the UCS in a period following initial fear conditioning and prior to a test period involving nonreinforced presentations of the CS. Subjects who were asked to rehearse the UCS retained a differential fear CR during subsequent unreinforced presentations of the CS, but control subjects who were asked to rehearse either a nonaversive event or an aversive event unrelated to the UCS failed to retain the differential CR they had acquired during conditioning. These results suggest that rehearsal of the UCS during periods when CS and UCS are absent can aid the persistence of a fear CR in the absence of further pairings of the CS and UCS. It is argued that these effects can be explained in terms of the effect of UCS rehearsal on the strength and evaluation of the UCS representation. It is also suggested that cued UCS rehearsal might provide a useful procedure for understanding clinical incubation effects and for understanding how the 'worry' process contributes to the maintenance and incubation of fear.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Rehearsing an aversive unconditioned stimulus in thought keeps a conditioned fear response alive over repeated nonreinforced presentations of a neutral conditioned stimulus.
“Moreover, in a series of studies, Jones, Davey, and colleagues have shown that cognitive rehearsal of an aversive unconditioned stimulus (which is similar to repetitive negative thought found in worry) maintains a conditioned fear response over successive nonreinforced presentations of a neutral conditioned stimulus (Davey & Matchett, 1994; Jones & Davey, 1990).”
From A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry (2011) · cites this paper as Jones & Davey, 1990
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 19 · Cited by 46
- Authors
- Jones, T., & Davey, G. C. L.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- City, University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Davey, Graham C.L.
- ORCID
- Davey, Graham C.L.
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1990
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 159-164
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083483106
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- fear conditioning, mental practice, worry, electrodermal activity, differential conditioning
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Arousal, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Fear, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Memory, Retention, Psychology, Thinking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review