Reality Cheque: Different Methods of Eliciting Fear-Related Beliefs Reveal Multiple Representations of Threat.

IF 1.9 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
James W B Elsey, Vivian N Metselaar, Elias Geiser, Donna F Knoop, Suraya M Gangadien, Nella A Schrijver, Lena M van den Nieuwenhof, Véra M Spiekman, Marta J Jakschik, Casper M Enkelaar, Esperanza S J Visbeek, Marieke Effting, Merel Kindt
{"title":"Reality Cheque: Different Methods of Eliciting Fear-Related Beliefs Reveal Multiple Representations of Threat.","authors":"James W B Elsey, Vivian N Metselaar, Elias Geiser, Donna F Knoop, Suraya M Gangadien, Nella A Schrijver, Lena M van den Nieuwenhof, Véra M Spiekman, Marta J Jakschik, Casper M Enkelaar, Esperanza S J Visbeek, Marieke Effting, Merel Kindt","doi":"10.1080/00221309.2024.2405876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Influential models of fears and phobias suggest that irrational threat beliefs underpin excessive fear. Yet, many fearful individuals recognize their fear is not justified. Drawing on memory competition/multiple representations theory, we developed a novel, fear-relevant procedure, which reveals conflicting representations of threat. In three experiments (Experiment 1, <i>N</i> = 49, Experiment 2, <i>N</i> = 47, Experiment 3, <i>N</i> = 75), fearful and non-fearful participants not only provided Probability Ratings for fear-related outcomes in a fear-relevant exposure task, but placed Bets, with payoffs depending on what happened in reality. Fearful participants displayed much higher Probability Ratings than Low fear participants. However, Bets revealed far less consistent group differences, even when proximal to threat (Experiments 1 and 2), and differences between High and Low fear participants' Bets disappeared when they could not be anchored to previous Probability Ratings (Experiment 3). A Neutral Betting task also showed that general betting strategies were comparable between groups. We suggest that these findings may reflect the multi-representational nature of belief, in which both adaptive and maladaptive representations of a feared object may exist in parallel, with personal and contextual factors determining which form of representation is retrieved or expressed. This perspective can provide insights into the complex interplay of adaptive and maladaptive beliefs that is a central focus of currently dominant therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":47581,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2024.2405876","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Influential models of fears and phobias suggest that irrational threat beliefs underpin excessive fear. Yet, many fearful individuals recognize their fear is not justified. Drawing on memory competition/multiple representations theory, we developed a novel, fear-relevant procedure, which reveals conflicting representations of threat. In three experiments (Experiment 1, N = 49, Experiment 2, N = 47, Experiment 3, N = 75), fearful and non-fearful participants not only provided Probability Ratings for fear-related outcomes in a fear-relevant exposure task, but placed Bets, with payoffs depending on what happened in reality. Fearful participants displayed much higher Probability Ratings than Low fear participants. However, Bets revealed far less consistent group differences, even when proximal to threat (Experiments 1 and 2), and differences between High and Low fear participants' Bets disappeared when they could not be anchored to previous Probability Ratings (Experiment 3). A Neutral Betting task also showed that general betting strategies were comparable between groups. We suggest that these findings may reflect the multi-representational nature of belief, in which both adaptive and maladaptive representations of a feared object may exist in parallel, with personal and contextual factors determining which form of representation is retrieved or expressed. This perspective can provide insights into the complex interplay of adaptive and maladaptive beliefs that is a central focus of currently dominant therapies.

现实支票:激发恐惧相关信念的不同方法揭示了威胁的多重表征。
具有影响力的恐惧和恐惧症模型表明,非理性的威胁信念是过度恐惧的基础。然而,许多恐惧者认识到他们的恐惧是不合理的。借鉴记忆竞争/多重表征理论,我们开发了一种新颖的、与恐惧相关的程序,它能揭示相互冲突的威胁表征。在三项实验中(实验 1,49 人;实验 2,47 人;实验 3,75 人),恐惧和非恐惧参与者不仅为恐惧相关暴露任务中的恐惧相关结果提供了概率评级,而且还下了赌注,赌注的回报取决于现实中发生的事情。恐惧参与者的概率评级远高于低恐惧参与者。然而,即使是在接近威胁的情况下,投注所显示的群体差异也不那么一致(实验 1 和 2),而且当高恐惧参与者和低恐惧参与者的投注不能锚定于之前的概率评级时,他们之间的差异就消失了(实验 3)。中性下注任务也表明,不同组之间的一般下注策略具有可比性。我们认为,这些发现可能反映了信念的多重表征性质,其中恐惧对象的适应性和不适应性表征可能同时存在,个人和环境因素决定了哪种表征形式被检索或表达。这种观点可以让我们深入了解适应性信念和适应不良信念之间复杂的相互作用,而这正是目前主流疗法的核心重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of General Psychology
Journal of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Psychology publishes human and animal research reflecting various methodological approaches in all areas of experimental psychology. It covers traditional topics such as physiological and comparative psychology, sensation, perception, learning, and motivation, as well as more diverse topics such as cognition, memory, language, aging, and substance abuse, or mathematical, statistical, methodological, and other theoretical investigations. The journal especially features studies that establish functional relationships, involve a series of integrated experiments, or contribute to the development of new theoretical insights or practical applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信