Cited by 272Memory and Neural MechanismsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

What's wrong with fear conditioning?

Open access
Beckers, Tom, Krypotos, Angelos-Miltiadis, Boddez, Yannick, Effting, Marieke, Kindt, Merel·2013·Biological Psychology

Abstract

Fear conditioning is one of the prime paradigms of behavioural neuroscience and a source of tremendous insight in the fundamentals of learning and memory and the psychology and neurobiology of emotion. It is also widely regarded as a model for the pathogenesis of anxiety disorders in a diathesis-stress model of psychopathology. Starting from the apparent paradox between the adaptive nature of fear conditioning and the dysfunctional nature of pathological anxiety, we present a critique of the human fear conditioning paradigm as an experimental model for psychopathology. We discuss the potential benefits of expanding the human fear conditioning paradigm by (1) including action tendencies as an important index of fear and (2) paying more attention to "weak" (i.e., ambiguous) rather than "strong" fear learning situations (Lissek et al., 2006), such as contained in selective learning procedures. We present preliminary data that illustrate these ideas and discuss the importance of response systems divergence in understanding individual differences in vulnerability for the development of pathological anxiety.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.12.015

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is relatively little evidence that known vulnerability factors for PTSD are related to dysfunctional fear-learning patterns in non-clinical populations.

    “There is also relatively little evidence that known vulnerability factors for PTSD are related to dysfunctional fear-learning patterns in non-clinical populations [35].”

    From Memory and Forgetting (2018) · cites this paper as [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beckers, T., Krypotos, A.-M., Boddez, Y., Effting, M., & Kindt, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Beckers, Tom
Venue
Biological Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
90-96
ISSN
0301-0511 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149193362
Cited by
272
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation
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 › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
fear conditioning, anxiety disorders, diathesis-stress model, action tendencies, learning and memory
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Anxiety Disorders, Catechol O-Methyltransferase, Conditioning, Psychological, Fear, Humans, Research

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