ELECTRODERMAL CONDITIONING TO POTENTIALLY

PHOBIC STIMULI: EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTED

EXTINCTION*
KENNETH HUGDAHL?
University of Uppsala. Sweden
(Rewired 23 J arwar), 1978)
Summary-11 was hypothesized that electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli condi-
tioned through verbal threats about an aversive UCS should be equally resistant lo instructed
extinction as the responses obtained by actual CS-UCS pairings. Two groups of human subjects
were exposed to pictures ol either snakes and spiders (phobic CSs). or circles and triangles
(neutral CSs) in a differential Pavlovian conditioning paradigm. Changes in skin conductance
were recorded. Half of the subjects in each group were threatened with a shock-UCS while
the other half were given shock-reinforced CS presentations. At the onset of extinction. all
subjects in each of the four groups were informed that no more UCSs were to be delivered.
and the shock electrodes were removed. All groups showed evidence of conditioning during
acquisition. During extinction there was an immediate drop in responding in the two neutral
groups. whereas the two phobic groups showed reliable evidence of resistance to extinction.
with no differences between the threatened- and the CS-UCS-group. The observed resistance
to extinction found in the phobic groups implies a similarity to the irrationality of real-life
phobias. Furthermore. the data are in accordance with analysis of electrodermal fear-condition-
ing as a case of prepared learning.
Conditioned electrodermai responses are usually attenuated during an extinction test
when the subject is supplied with explicit instructions about the omission of the uncondi-
tioned stimulus (UCS) (Grings and Dawson, 1973).
On the other hand, information about the occurrence of an aversive UCS, following
presentation of a conditioned stimulus (CS), prior to any conditioning experience, is
sufficient for the elicitation of an electrodermal conditioned response (Mandel and
Bridger, 1973). Theoretically, these data seem pertinent to an analysis of human autono-
mic conditioning as influenced by cognitive p_rocessing (Grings, 1973).
Data from our laboratory (Hugdahl and Ohman, 1977) have shown that when the
CS has fear-relevant properties (e.g. consists of pictures of snakes or spiders), instructions
are completely inefficient in attenuating responding during extinction. In contrast, such
a procedure completely abolished any signs of remaining conditioning in the groups
ha;ing fear-irrelevant CSs (circles and triangles). These findings were followed up in
a second experiment, with the same classes of conditioned stimuli, but where the subjects
were only threatened about the occurrence of a shock-UCS without actual experience.
The results showed significantly greater response acquisition effects in the fear-relevant
group. Thus, assymetrical effects of instructions on acquisition and extinction were
obtained in the potentially phobic, or fear-relevant, groups as compared to the symmetri-
cal effects that were found in the neutral, or fear-irrelevant, groups (cf. Grings, 1973).
Since autonomic activity is an important component in human phobic fears (Lader
and Mathews, 1968; Klorman, Weissberg and Wiesenfeld, 1977), these findings have
interesting implications for the possibility of a laboratory simulation of learning par-
ameters thought to be important in phobias. It is a common clinical finding that phobias
are usually insensitive to rational arguments about the real nature of the situation
*The research reported in the present paper was supported by a grant lo the author from the Faculty
of Social Sciences, University of Uppsala, Sweden, and by a grant to Arne 6hman from the Swedish Council
for Social Science Research. The author wants to express his appreciation to Arne ijhman who has been
most helpful in all parts of the research.
t Address communications lo: Kenneth Hugdahl. University of Uppsala, Department of Psychology,
BOX 227, S-751 04 Uppsala, Sweden.
AHT IfI-*
315
314 KENNETH HUGDAHL
(Leitenberg. 1976; Marks, 1969). While cognitive control seems insufficient for the extinc-
tion of phobic fears (Rachman and Teasdale. 1969). it is evident that phobias are often
acquired by exposure to the phobic stimulus without any accompanying physically aver-
sive experience (Bandura, 1969). Threats and verbal admonitions from significant others
may be sufficient for the instigation af a conditioned fear-response. Therefore. if verbal
information about the occurrence of an aversive UCS. prior to any conditioning experi-
ence, is suf$cient for the elicitation of an autonomic fear-response. then this could be
a laboratory analogue to the clinical observation that phobias sometimes are acquired
on a non-traumatic basis. (cf, Mandef and Bridger, i973).
In conclusion. the data reported by Hugdahl and Uhman (1977) have important simi-
larities to those found in real-life phobias. viz the persistence of the fear despite any
objective reason (Leitenberg, 1976), and the learning of fear in the absence of traumatic
reinforcement (Lazarus, 1971; Rimm et al., 1977).
An important question, however, is whether responses obtained to fear-relevant CSs
solely through verbal instructions are identical to those obtained through contingent
pairings of the CS with a shock-UCS. A possible hypothesis is that threat-induced
CRs differ from those acquired by CS-UCS pairings, because the former category reflects
onIy an expectancy- about the UCS. while the latter category includes true condition-
ing, independent of expectancy (Mandel and Bridger, $973; Razran, 1955). If on the
other hand, the parametrical resemblance between phobic fears and electrodermaf condi-
tioning found in our laboratory (Ghman. Fred&son and Wugdahl. 1977 for review)
is an actual resemblance and not a superficial coincidence. then responses to fear-relevant
CSs should be equally resistent to instructed extinction regardless of whether they are
established by verbal or physical means. In the present experiment, neutral and poten-
tially phobic CSs were compared in resistence to instructed extinction when half of
the subjects in each group were threatened about a shock-UCS, whereas the other
half were given conventional UCS-reinforcements.
METHOD
The subjects were 40 psychology students at the University of Uppsala. There were
18 males and 22 females between the ages of I9 and 23, all of whom were paid for
participating,
Skin conductance was registered by a constant voltage circuit with two 1.35 V mercury
cells (Venables and Christie, 1973). The 8 mm diameter Ag/AgCl-electrodes, were filled
with Beckman paste as the electrolyte. A strain-gauge attached to the subjects chest
recorded respiration in order to detect irregularities that might influence the conductance
measurements. A digital display showed the skin conductance values which were aiso
continuously recorded on a Hewlett-Packard 7700 polygraph.
Electric shocks, which served as UCSs, were delivered through Giver electrodes from
a capacitor charged by a manipulable, stabitized dc current.
Color slides serving as CSs, were projected by two Sawyer projectors into a Tegn&
2.5 x 2.0 x 1.8 M sound isoiated cubicle in which the subject was seated in a comfortabie
armchair. All apparatus were located outside the cubicle. The visible picture was about
60 x 95 cm, approximately 2 m in front of the subject.
The exposure time was controlled by two electronic timers activated by relay-detectors
which were controlled by signals recorded on a Tandberg tape-recorder. Thus, the CS-
duration and the interstimulus interval (ISI) were controlled by the timers, and the
intertrial interval (ITI) was controlled by the preprogrammed signals on &he tape-
recorder.
The stimuli to be conditioned consisted of one set of potent~aily phobic, or fear-rele-
vant pictures and one set of neutral, or fear-irrelevant pictures. Each subject saw two
instructions and fear-conditioning 317
pictures; either a snake and a spider (potentially phobic CSs) or a black circle and
a black triangle (neutral CSs). The circles and triangles appeared against brown or
green backgrounds. In order to obtain equal illuminations in the backgrounds of the
two classes of stimuli the backgrounds were photographed through colored filters. To
randomize irrelevant background features, different subjects within a group saw different
snakes, spiders etc. In the fear-irrelevant conditions the subjects discriminated both
between shape and color, i.e. if a CS+ circle appeared against green background, the
CS - triangle was shown against brown background, and vice versa. Which picture served
as CS + and CS - was counterbalanced across subjects.
Design
The design was a split-plot factorial (Kirk, 1968) 2 x 2 x 2. with type of CS (fear-
relevant versus fear-irrelevant), type of UCS (threat versus shock), and conditioning
(i.e. differences between CS+ and CS - ). The first two factors were randomized while
the third factor involved a repeated measurement. In the statistical analysis a fourth
trial-factor. with repeated measurement, was added.
Procedure
The subjects were randomly divided among the four groups, depending on their order
of appearance in the laboratory, and each subject was. upon entrance, asked to sit
down in the armchair in the cubicle and await further instructions.
Electrode sites were washed with distilled water, and the skin conductance electrodes
were applied with the help of adhesive collars to the palmar side of the media1 phalanx
of the first and second fingers of the subjects left hand. The electric shock electrodes
were placed on the tips of the first and second fingers of his right hand. The respiration
strain-gauge was attached around the subjects chest.
The intensity of the shock-UCS was determined individually for each subject. The
experimenter gradually increased the shock level until the subject reported that the
shock was uncomfortable but not painful.
The subjects in the two shock-groups were told that they would be shown two pictures
on the screen in front of them and on some occasions an electric shock, of the strength
previously determined, would be delivered through the shock electrodes. Thus, no expli-
cit information about the stimulus contingencies was given. Each picture was shown
8 set and the shock, during the acquisition phase. followed immediately at the offset
of the CS +. whereas the CS - was never followed by shock. Thus, a differential classical
conditioning paradigm was used (cf. Prokasy and Kumpfer. 1973) where the ISI was
8 sec. and the ITI was varied in steps of 5 set between 30 and 40 set with a mean
of 35 sec.
There were 12 presentations of each picture during the acquisition phase, and 20
presentations during the extinction phase. The pictures were presented in randomized
order with the restriction that the occurrence of more than two successive presentations
of the same stimulus was prevented.
After the acquisition phase, the experimenter entered the cubicle and assured each
subject in the shock-groups that she!he would not receive any further shocks. He also
removed the shock electrodes and told the subject that the rest of the experiment was
concerned with her/his reactions to the pictures only. After the completion of the experi-
ment all subjects were interviewed about their suspicions regarding the instructions
at the onset of extinction. However, no subject reported any disbelief in the instructions.
The number of stimulus presentations, the length of the ITI and the duration of
the picture presentations were identical for both threat-and shock-groups.
The threat-groups were told that after the CS+ went off on an unspecified trial
they would receive one shock at the previously determined strength; however, no shocks
were presented. After 12 pseudo-acquisition trials the experimenter entered the cubicle
and removed the shock-electrodes. The subjects were told that the threat no longer
was present, and that the rest of the experiment was concerned with their responses
318
KENNETH HUGDAHL
to the pictures (without the risk of being shocked). After the completion of the experi-
ment these subjects were also interviewed about suspicions regarding the instructions,
but no such reports were obtained.
Response definitions
Multiple skin conductance responses were directly recorded in micromho and were
measured according to the criteria proposed by Lockhart (1966). The responses were
labelled according to the suggestions by Prokasy and Kumpfer (1973). First-interval
anticipatory responses (FARs) were defined as the onset to peak difference for responses
initiated l-4 set after CS onset. Second-interval anticipatory responses (SARs) were
measured during the interval 4-9 set after onset. During acquisition. a third-interval
unconditioned response was measured 14 set after CS offset, and during extinction
a third-interval omission respone (TOR) was measured in the same interval. All trials
being accompanied by respiratory irregularities were excluded from further analysis.
They were replaced by the mean of the immediately preceding and following trials.
RESULTS
A rejection region of 0.05 was adopted for all tests. In order to reduce the error
variances, the data were range-corrected according to the proposals of Lykken (1972).
Acquisition
All acquisition data were subjected to a 6 x 2 x 2 x 2, trial blocks x condition-
ing x type of CS x UCS manipulation, analysis of variance. Effects of conditioning
were evaluated by a priori t-tests, and measured as differences between CS + and CS -.
FAR
The acquisition data for the FAR component are shown in the left panels of Fig. 1.
FEAR-RELEVANT
SHOCK THREAT
Or
1.0
6[
.8
LL 6C 6
I\
cs+ -
cs- -
:I?& feI2czdlb
acquisition
llllll-
acquisition extmctlon
FEAR-IRRELEVANT
SHOCK THREAT
acqulsitlon extlnctlon acquisition
BLOCKS OF TWO TRIALS
extmction
Fig. I. Mean range-corrected first-interval anticipatory responses (FARs) to the reinforced and
the unremforced conditioned stimulus (CS+ and CS-) as a function of trialblocks for the
four groups.
Instructions and fear-eonditionin~
319
The results showed a reliable differentiation between CS+ and CS-, thus indicating
conditioning, F(1.36) = 37.18, MS, = 0.08. Follow up tests with a priori I showed signifi-
cant acquisition effects in all four groups, t (36) = 3.29 and 2.35 for the fear-relevant
and fear-irrelevant shock-groups respectively. The corresponding values for the two
threat-groups were 4.10 and 2.45. Furthermore, the responses decreased over trials. F
(5.180) = 6.64, MS, = 0.05. No other effects were significant.
SAR
The results for the SAR were almost identical to those of the FAR. Significant effects
of conditioning were obtained F (1.36) = 30.38, MS, = 0.05. Follow up tests revealed
significant differentiation in all groups, except for the fear-relevant threat-group. t
(36) = 2.69 and 2.27 for the fear-relevant and fear-irrelevant shock-groups, whereas the
corresponding values for the threat-groups were 1.29 and 4.79 respectively. The mean
differentiation between CS+ and CS - were 0.110 for the fear-relevant shock-group,
and 0.093 for the fear-irrelevant shock-group. The corresponding values for the two
threat-groups were 0.053 and 0.196, The difference between CS+ and CS- increased
over trials, as indicated by the significant trials x conditioning interaction, F
(5.180) = 2.68, MS, = 0.02.
The extinction data were subjected to the same type of analysis of variance as that
performed on the acquisition data, except that there were 10 trial blocks during this
phase.
FAR
The FAR data are shown in the right panels of Fig. 1. Responses were generally
greater to the CS + as compared to the CS -, F (1.36) = 8.46, MS, = 0.05, but the
significant interaction, conditioning x type of CS, 1: (1.36) = 14.70, MS, = 0.05, indi-
cated a differential effect of the instructions delivered at the onset of extinction. Follow-
up tests revealed that remaining effects of the acquisition process were obvious only
for the two fear-relevant groups, t (36) = 3.04 for the fear-refevant shock-group, and
3.68 for the corresponding threat-group. Whereas these instructions completely abolished
the responses to the fear-irrelevant stimuii, this was not apparent in the fear-relevant
groups (see Fig. 1). In order to detect any differences between the two fear-relevant
groups, a separate t-test was computed. where the mean differentiation was compared
between the two groups. This test showed no difference, t (36) = 0.14.
Furthermore, there was a general decrease in response magnitude over trials, F
(9.324) = 2.56, MS, = 0.02, but this decrease was more obvious for the CS+, as indi-
cated by the significant interaction between trial-blocks x conditioning, F (9.324) = 2.24,
MS, = 0.01.
SAR
For the SAR component, there were remaining effects of the acquisition process only
in the fear-relevant groups. This was evident from the significant interaction between
conditioning and type of CS, F (1.36) = 6.05, MS, = 0.02. A priori t-tests revealed that
this effect pertained to a significant differentiation between CS+ and CS- only in
the fear-relevant threat-group, t (36) = 2.13. The mean values in the four groups were;
0.022 and 0.041 in the two fear-relevant groups, and -0.005 and -0.025 in the corre-
sponding fear-irrelevant groups. Finally, there was a significant three-way interaction
including trial blocks, conditioning and type of CS, F (9.324) = 2.63, MS, = 0.01. This
interaction indicated a more rapid decrease over trials for the CS + in the fear-irrelevant
groups as compared to the fear-relevant groups.
320
KENNETH HUGDAHL
No significant effects were found for the TOR component. There was. however. a
tendency to larger differences between the CS+ and CS - in the two shock-groups
as compared to the threat-groups, but this effect was not statistically reliable. The means
for the differentiation between CS+ and CS- were: 0.025 and 0.008 in the fear-relevant
and fear-irrelevant shock-groups. and -0.003 and -0.057 for the two threat-groups.
DISCUSSION
The results from the present experiment indicate that instructional parameters have
a differential effect on the extinction of conditioned skin conductance responses when
the CS consists of fear-relevant objects as compared to neutral ones. This effect (cf.
Hugdahl and ohman, 1977) is obviously independent of how the CR is established
during acquisition, since both the threatened and the shock-reinforced phobic groups
showed greater differentiation as compared to the corresponding neutral groups. This
implies that the question of levels of conditioning (Mandel and Bridger. 1973: Razran.
1955) in human conditioning is dependent upon the stimulus class used. The phobic
CS may acquire the capacity to substitute for the UCS during acquisition. i.e. it would
acquire the property to act as an aversive UCS in itself (cf. Grant. 1964: Kalat and
Rozin, 1972). The neutral CSs on the other hand, only acquires signal-value with regard
to the occurrence of the UCS. such that an expectancy is aroused in these groups
(cf. Mandel and Bridger. 1973). Such a process could explain the differences in effect
of resistance to extinction between the phobic and the neutral groups. Furthermore.
if verbal information is sufficient to establish the process of substitution. then no diffet-
ences would be expected between the phobic shock and threat groups.
In accordance with previous data (ohman er al.. 1976; ijhman, Fredrikson and Hug-
dahl, 1978). the.present results are most clearcut for the FAR component. It has recently
been argued (Ohman. 1975) that the FAR reflects orienting activity (Sokolov. 1963)
to the conditioned stimulus. If the effect of fear-relevant CSs pertains to a change in
meaning of the stimulus through substitution, the differences between the groups would
be expected to show up most clearly in the FAR component (cf. Hugdahl and Ghman.
1977: ijhman et al., 1978).
It seems obvious, therefore. that the same type of CR is established when potentially
phobic CSs are used, regardless of whether the acquisition process is mediated solely
through verbal information or by actual UCS-reinforcements.
The data also support a learning-interpretation of phobic fears, since the present
results show that the irrationality of phobias (Leitenberg. 1976; Marks, 1969; Rachman,
1974). once learning has taken place, could be simulated in a laboratory setting. This
question has long been a problem for learning theorists, since human autonomic condi-
tioning to conventional laboratory stimuli is usually very sensitive to the kinds of cogni-
tive manipulations used in the experiment (Chatterje and Ericsson, 1962; Grings, 1973).
Finally. the results in the present experiment are in accordance with a preparedness
view of phobic fears (Seligman, 1970: Seligman, 1971; Seligman and Hager. 1972) has
argued that the selectivity of phobic fears with regard to situations and objects is due
to evolutionary constraints on the parameters of learning, such that certain contingencies
are more easily learned than others. The present results have shown that the conditioning
of potentially phobic CSs is insensitive to cognitive processing. This notion is easily
put into the proposed non-cognitive nature of prepared associations (Seligman and
Hager, 1972).
In summary. the results have shown that (i) electrodermal responses conditioned
to potentially phobic stimuli are uneffected by instructions during extinction: (ii)
the remaining effects of conditioning persists even when the process of acquisition
is mediated solely through verbal information, thus the threat-induced CR seems to
equalize the shock-reinforced CR in resistance to instructions about the omission
of the UCS; (iii) this points to an analogy to the irrationality of phobic fears, since the
Instructions and fear-conditionmg 321
resistance to intellectual arguments about the innocuous aspects of the feared situation is
present even when the phobic person is unable to relate the acquisition of the phobia
to any traumatic experience.
REFERENCES
BANDURA A. (1969) Principles o/ hehnoior modifcarion. Holt. Rinehart and Winston. New York.
CHATTERJE B. W. and ERIKSEN C. H. (1962) Cognitive factors in heart rate conditioning. J. rxp. Psychoi.
64, 272-279.
GRANT D. A. (1964) Classical and operant conditioning. In Cu~e~ori~.~ of ~~~u~ ~~ur~in~. (Edited by A.
W. MELTON). Academic. New York.
Gat~c;s W. W. (19731 Coenitive factors in electrodermal conditioning. Psvchot. Buli. 79. 200-10. -. -.
GHINGS W. W. and DEVON M. E. (1973) Complex variables in ccmditioning. In Efecrrodtwnal Acticiry in
Psvcholoaicnl Research. (Edited by W. F. PRO~CASY and D. C. RASKIN). Academic. New York.
HUGD~HL KY and &MAN A. (1977)Effects of instruction on acquisition and extinction of electrodermal
responses to fear-relevant stimuli. J. exp. Psychol.: Human Leurning and Memory 3. 608-618.
KALAT J. W. and ROZIN P. (1973) You can lead a rat to poison but you cant make him think. In Biological
boundaries of learning. (Edited by M. E. P. SELIGMAN and J. L. HAGER). Appelton-Century-Crofts. New
York.
KIRK R. E. (1968) Experimenral design: Procedures for fhe Behavioral Sciences. Brooks-Cole, Belmont. Cali-
fornia.
KLORMAN R., WEISSBERG R. P. and W~SENFELD A. R. (1977) Individual differences in fear and autonomic
reactions to affective stimulation. Psychophysioi. 14, 45-52.
LADER M. H. and MA-~~EWS A. M. (1968) A physiological model for phobic anxiety and desensitization.
Behar. Res. Ther. 6, 41 l-21.
LAZARUS A. A. (1971) Behu~ior Therapy und Beyond. McGraw-Hill. New York.
LEITENBERG H. (1976) Behavioral approaches to treatment of neuroses. In ~undboo~ of Behacior ~odi~~a?io~
and Beharior Therapy. (Edited by H. LEITENBERG). Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
LOCKHART R. A. (1966) Comments regarding multiple response phenomena in long interstimulus interval
conditioning. Psychophysiol. 3, 108-14.
LYKKEN D. T. (1972) Range correction applied to heart rate and to GSR data. Psychophysiol. 9. 373-79.
MANDEL I. J. and BRIDGER W. H. (1973) Is there classical conditioning without cognitive expectancy? Psycho-
phgsiol. 10, 87-90.
MARKS 1. M. (1969) Fears and Phobias. Heineman. London.
PROKASY W. F. and KUMPFER K. L. (1973) Classical conditioning. In Elecrrodermal Acririry in Psychological
Research. (Edited by W. F. PROKASY and D. C. RASKIN). Academic. New York.
RACHUAN S. (1974) The-Meanings of Fear. Penguin. Harmondsworth.
RACUMAN S. and TEASDALE J. D. (1969) Aversion therapy: an appraisal. in Behavior Therupv: Aplmkcll
and Sratus. (Edited by C. M. FRANKS). McGraw-Hill.New York.
RAZRAN G. (1955) conditioning and perception. Psychot. Rer. 62, 83-95.
RIMM D. C., JANDA L. H.. LANCASTER I?. W., NAHL M. and DI~MAR K. (1977) An exploratory investigation
of the origin and maintenance of phobias. Behar. Res. Ther. 15, 231-238.
SELICMAN M. E. P. (1970) On the generality of the laws of learning. Pswhol. Rec. 77. 406-418.
SELIGUAN M. E. P. (1971) Phobias and preparedness. Behar. Ther. 2. 307-21.
SEL~GMAN M. E. P. and HAGER J. L. (Eds.) (1972) Bio/ogrca/ Boundaries of Learning. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
New York.
SOKOLOV Y. N. (1963) Perception ant/ the Conditioned Reflex. Pergamon. New York.
VENABLES P. H. and CRISTIE h. J. (1973) Mechanisms. instrumentation, recording techniques and quantification
of responses. In Elecfrodermal Actirrri in Pswholocqical Research. (Edited bv W. F. PROKASY and
D. C. RASKIN). Academic. New York.
ORMAN A. (1975) The orienting reaction and multiple electrodermal responses: implications for an orienting-
expectancy theory of classical conditioning. Reporr 1X0. Depr. Psycho/. Univ. oj Uppsulu.
&MAN A.. FREDRIKSON M.. HUGDAHL K. and RIMM~ P. A. (1976) The premise of equipotentiality in human
classical conditioning: conditioned electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli. J. exp. Pqchol.:
General. 105. 3 13-37.
&MAN A., FREDRIKSON M. and HUC~AHL K. (1978) Towards an experimental model for simple phobic
reactions. Behac. Anal. Mod$ 2. 97-114.