nucleation

QUESTION-333: Does how far fear falls within or across exposure or extinction sessions predict fear at follow-up once initial fear is controlled, in the studies Craske et al. 2014 cite or a later meta-analysis, and in well-powered clinical samples?

1 min read

Properties4
StatusOpen
Tagspsychopathology-and-treatment, learning-and-conditioning
Linewill-organization
Cited as “bears on” byTHEORY-1193 — How far fear falls during an extinction or exposure session, or across sessions, does not predict how much fear is expressed at follow-up, in animals, human laboratory samples and fearful human samples, THEORY-921 — As Craske et al.'s 2014 review reports it, citing six studies and reporting no data of its own, how far fear falls during an extinction or exposure session, or across sessions, does not predict how much fear is expressed at follow-up, in animals, human laboratory samples and fearful, mostly analog, human samples

Graph View

Why it is a question

THEORY-921 holds what Craske et al. (LIT-1500, read in NOTE-1137) report: that fear reduction during extinction or exposure does not predict fear at follow-up, in animals, human laboratory samples and fearful human samples. The review reports no data of its own, its reference list was not read here, and the cited exposure studies are of fearful, mostly analog, samples (acrophobia, contamination fear, public speaking). Habituation models hold that within-session fear reduction must predict outcome.

What would answer it

THEORY-921’s former promote_when, unchanged.

A reading of the studies the paper cites (Baker et al. 2010; Culver et al. 2012; Kircanski et al. 2012; Prenoveau et al. 2013; Plendl & Wolfgang 2010; Rescorla 2006), or of a later meta-analysis, finding that within- and between-session fear reduction during exposure or extinction does not predict fear at follow-up. It is refuted by a well-powered clinical sample in which fear reduction during exposure reliably predicts follow-up outcome after initial fear is controlled.

Backlinks