Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Living in fear: Low-cost avoidance maintains low-level threat.

Xia, Weike, Eyolfson, Eric, Lloyd, Keith, Vervliet, Bram, Dymond, Simon·2019·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives Excessive avoidance of potential threat is a hallmark of anxiety and is thought to maintain fear by preserving the perceived high-threat value of avoided situations. Previous research has shown that the availability of avoidance maintains low-level threat. Here, we investigated whether an opportunity to engage in avoidance in the presence of a low-threat value safety cue would maintain its perceived threat value when avoidance was unavailable. Methods In a threat conditioning procedure, one conditional danger stimulus (CS+; A+) was followed by an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US; electric shock), and two safety stimuli (CS-; B- and C-) were never followed by the US. Next, clicking a button present during A+ avoided the scheduled US. Avoidance was then made available during C- for participants in the Experimental group but not in the Control group. In the test, all stimuli were presented without the opportunity to avoid. Threat expectancy, eyeblink startle electromyography (EMG), and skin conductance responses (SCRs) were measured. Results Findings showed an increase in threat expectancy for only C- in the Experimental group during the test phase following avoidance learning to similar levels as during threat conditioning. Compared to the Control group, threat expectancy for both B- and C- remained higher in Experimental group. SCR and startle EMG data did not corroborate these findings. Limitations Further research is needed to test the commonly h…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.09.001

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Xia, W., Eyolfson, E., Lloyd, K., Vervliet, B., & Dymond, S.
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
62
Pages
57-64
ISSN
0005-7916
Cited by
14
References
37
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.