"Prepared" fear or socio-cultural learning? Fear conditioned to guns, snakes, and spiders is eliminated by instructed extinction in a within-participant differential fear conditioning paradigm

Independence Threat or Interdependence Threat? The Focusing Effect on Social or Physical Threat Modulates Brain Activity

OBJECTIVE

The neural basis of threat perception has mostly been examined separately for social or physical threats. However, most of the threats encountered in everyday life are complex. The features of interactions between social and physiological threats under different attentional conditions are unclear.

METHOD

The present study explores this issue using an attention-guided paradigm based on ERP techniques. The screen displays social threats (face threats) and physical threats (action threats), instructing participants to concentrate on only one type of threat, thereby exploring brain activation characteristics.

RESULTS

It was found that action threats did not affect the processing of face threats in the face-attention condition, and electrophysiological evidence from the brain suggests a comparable situation to that when processing face threats alone, with higher amplitudes of the N170 and EPN (Early Posterior Negativity) components of anger than neutral emotions. However, when focusing on the action-attention condition, the brain was affected by face threats, as evidenced by a greater N190 elicited by stimuli containing threatening emotions, regardless of whether the action was threatening or not. This trend was also reflected in EPN.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study reveals important similarities and differences between physical and social threats, suggesting that the brain has a greater processing advantage for social threats.

Spider vs. guns: expectancy and attention biases to phylogenetic threat do not extend to ontogenetic threat

Introduction

Attention bias plays an important role in specific fears and phobias. Previous studies revealed that a-priori expectancies affect attention toward neutral stimuli but not threatening stimuli. The aim of the current study was to test whether this selective influence of expectancies on attention is specific to phylogenetic threat (i.e., spiders) or whether it can be generalized to ontogenetic threat (i.e., guns). Correspondingly, we directly compared expectancy effects on attentional allocation to phylogenetically vs. ontogenetically threatening stimuli.

Method

Expectancies were manipulated by presenting a cue indicating the likelihood of the appearance of a deviant picture in a visual search array. The array included eight distractors and one neutral (phone/bird) or threatening (gun/spider) deviant picture. In a comprehensive design, we examined the effects of stimulus type (phylogenetic/ontogenetic) and visual background (white and sterile/complex and ecological). Individual differences such as intolerance of uncertainty and spider fear were also measured.

Results

Results showed that attention bias toward spiders does not extend to threatening ontogenetic stimuli (i.e., guns). Our previous findings on attention bias toward spiders were replicated and a small to medium positive correlation was found between reaction time to bird targets and pre-existing fear of spider levels. Cues were used to detect threatening as well as neutral targets on both background types, except for spider targets on a complex background, replicating previous results. A small to medium positive correlation was also found between fear of spiders and intolerance of uncertainty.

Discussion

Together, these results suggest that expectancy and attentional processes may differ between ontogenetic and phylogenetic threat. Importantly, the effects of expectancy on attentional allocation depend on an interaction between the type of threat (ontogenetic/phylogenetic), visual factors, and individual differences.

Differences in cognitive processing between snakes and guns: Evidence from electroencephalography

The aim of the study is to explore differences in cognitive processing of phylogenetic and ontogenetic stimulus using the electroencephalography (EEG) technology. The researcher chose snakes and guns as representatives of phylogenetic stimulus and ontogenetic stimulus, respectively, and used the Oddball paradigm to present the experimental stimuli and explore the cognitive processing differences between them through time-domain analysis and time-frequency analysis. The results of time-domain analysis showed that snakes elicited larger N1, P2, and P3 amplitudes and a shorter P3 latency than guns and neutral stimuli, and that guns elicited greater P2 and P3 amplitudes than neutral stimuli. The findings of time-frequency analysis showed that the beta-band (320 - 420 ms, 25 - 35 Hz) power elicited by snakes was significantly greater than by guns and neutral stimuli, and that the beta-band power elicited by guns was significantly greater than by neutral stimuli. The results indicated that the brain has a cognitive processing advantage for both snakes and guns, which is more obvious for snakes than for guns, and that the brain is more sensitive to snakes.

Angry and fearful compared to happy or neutral faces as conditional stimuli in human fear conditioning: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Some previous research has shown stronger acquisition and impaired extinction of fear conditioned to angry or fearful compared to happy or neutral face conditional stimuli (CS) - a difference attributed to biological 'preparedness'. A systematic review and meta-analysis of fear conditioning studies comparing face CSs of differing expressions identified thirty studies, eighteen of which were eligible for meta-analysis. Skin conductance responses were larger to angry or fearful faces compared to happy or neutral faces during habituation, acquisition and extinction. Significant differences in differential conditioning between angry, fearful, neutral, and happy face CSs were also found, but differences were more prominent between angry and neutral faces compared to angry/fearful and happy faces. This is likely due to lower arousal elicited by neutral compared to happy faces, which may be more salient as CSs. The findings suggest there are small to moderate differences in differential conditioning when angry or fearful compared to happy or neutral faces are used as CSs. These findings have implications for fear conditioning study design and the preparedness theory.

Conditional stimulus choices affect fear learning: Comparing fear conditioning with neutral faces and shapes or angry faces

Past fear conditioning studies have used different types of conditional stimuli (CSs). Whether this choice affects learning outcomes in particular when neutral stimuli (e.g., neutral faces vs. shapes) are used is unclear. Data were aggregated across nine studies using an electric shock unconditional stimulus to test for differences in acquisition and extinction of electrodermal responses and self‐reported CS pleasantness when CSs were neutral faces or shapes (Experiment 1, N = 594) and when CSs were angry or neutral faces (Experiment 2, N = 157). Reliable electrodermal conditioning was observed in all stimulus conditions. We found stronger differential conditioning in electrodermal second interval responses and CS pleasantness and more pronounced extinction in CS pleasantness for neutral shape than neutral face CSs, but no differences in electrodermal first interval responses, the most frequently reported index of fear conditioning. For angry and neutral face CSs, there were no differences during acquisition, but the extinction of first and second interval electrodermal conditioning to angry faces was retarded relative to neutral faces. Acquisition of differential CS pleasantness, which was reliably observed for neutral face CSs, was absent for angry face CSs. The current results suggest that fear conditioning with a neutral face and shape CSs yields broadly similar results with differences limited to second interval electrodermal responses and CS pleasantness ratings. Using angry face CSs resulted in impaired extinction of electrodermal indices and no differential CS pleasantness ratings and should only be considered in studies designed to address questions about these specific CS materials.

Methodological choices like the nature of the conditional stimulus (CS) may affect fear learning. Here, we document in a very well powered analysis, that differences in fear conditioned to neutral face or shape CSs are limited to anticipatory electrodermal responses and self‐reported CS pleasantness but are not apparent in the more frequently reported electrodermal responses to CS onset. In contrast, differences in fear conditioned to angry and neutral face CSs emerge across indices of fear, in particular during extinction.

Specificity of spiders among fear- and disgust-eliciting arthropods: Spiders are special, but phobics not so much

To investigate a specificity of spiders as a prototypical fear- and disgust-eliciting stimuli, we conducted an online experiment. The respondents rated images of 25 spiders, 12 non-spider chelicerates, and 10 other arthropods on a fear and disgust 7-point scale. The evaluation of 968 Central European respondents confirmed the specificity of spiders among fear- and disgust-eliciting arthropods and supported the notion of spiders as a cognitive category. We delineated this category as covering extant spider species as well as some other chelicerates bearing a physical resemblance to spiders, mainly whip spiders and camel spiders. We suggested calling this category the spider-like cognitive category. We discussed evolutionary roots of the spider-like category and concluded that its roots should be sought in fear, with disgust being secondary of the two emotions. We suggested other chelicerates, e.g., scorpions, might have been important in formation and fixation of the spider-like category. Further, we investigated an effect of respondent's sensitivity to a specific fear of spiders on evaluation of the stimuli. We found that suspected phobic respondents were in their rating nearly identical to those with only high fear of spiders and similar to those with only moderate fear of spiders. We concluded that results based on healthy respondents with elevated fear should also be considered relevant for arachnophobia research.