Monti P M, Smith N F
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1976 Jun;105(2):148-62. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.105.2.148.
Studies employing response prevention (RP) are reviewed. Considering assessment difficulties and conflicting findings, it is questionable whether RP actually reduces fear to a conditioned stimulus (CS). This study measured fear after RP via a conditioned emotional response (CER) paradigm. Hypotheses were that fear of an auditory CS (conditioned in an avoidance paradigm) is reduced during RP, and that fear conditioning would occur to aspects of the conditioning environment per se. Also evaluated was the effectiveness of RP when fear had been learned under two different conditions: (a) avoidance or (b) classical defensive conditioning. Seven groups of 10 experimentally naive female rats were run. Animals were initially trained to bar press for food pellets on a variable interval (VI) 2 schedule. Three groups were then avoidance trained in a two-way shuttle box to a criterion of 10 successive avoidances. Immediately following acquisition, one group received RP (blocking) in the shuttle box (Condition A-B). This consisted of placing a door between the two sides of the box and presenting the 85 dB (A) white noise CS for 15 20-sec periods with a variable 1-min interstimulus interval. One group did not receive RP (nonblocked) and was instead immediately returned to its home cage (Condition A-NBHC). The third group was treated as was A-B except the CS was not presented (Condition A-NBSB). Two other groups were trained in a classical defensive paradigm. These animals were matched to A-B animals in terms of number, order, and duration of CSs and USs. Following conditioning, one group received the same treatment as A-B (Condition CD-B), and the other received the same treatment as A-NBHC (Condition CD-NBHC). Two groups served as controls. A backward control (Condition BC-NBHC) was matched to A-NBHC in terms of number, order, and duration of CSs and USs. A sensitization control (Condition SC-NBHC) was matched to A-NBHC in terms of number, order, and duration of CS presentations. Immediately following conditioning trials, control animals received the same treatment as A-NBHC animals. After differential treatments all animals were immediately returned to the lever box in which they had learned to bar press, a VI 2 schedule was reinstated, and the CER was measured. A-B showed significant suppression initially but significantly less than A-NBHC, suggesting that although RP was effective in reducing fear to the CS, some fear remained. Controls showed essentially no suppression and did not differ. A-B did not differ from A-NBSB, suggesting that conditioning of fear did occur to the environment and that this fear was subsequently reduced in A-NBSB. A-B suppressed significantly more than CD-B, suggesting that RP was more effective when fear was learned in a classical as compared to an avoidance paradigm. Theoretical implications and generalizations to implosive therapy are discussed.
对采用反应阻止法（RP）的研究进行了综述。考虑到评估困难和相互矛盾的研究结果，反应阻止法是否真的能降低对条件刺激（CS）的恐惧值得怀疑。本研究通过条件性情绪反应（CER）范式测量了反应阻止法后的恐惧。研究假设为，在反应阻止法期间，对听觉条件刺激（在回避范式中形成条件反射）的恐惧会降低，并且对条件化环境本身的各个方面会发生恐惧条件反射。还评估了在两种不同条件下习得恐惧后反应阻止法的有效性：（a）回避或（b）经典防御性条件反射。对七组每组10只未经过实验训练的雌性大鼠进行了实验。动物最初在可变间隔（VI）为2的时间表上接受训练，通过按压杠杆获取食物颗粒。然后，三组在双向穿梭箱中接受回避训练，达到连续10次回避的标准。习得后，一组在穿梭箱中接受反应阻止法（阻断）（条件A - B）。这包括在箱子两侧之间放置一扇门，并以可变的1分钟刺激间隔呈现85分贝（A）的白噪声条件刺激15个20秒时段。一组未接受反应阻止法（未阻断），而是立即返回其饲养笼（条件A - NBHC）。第三组的处理方式与A - B组相同，只是未呈现条件刺激（条件A - NBSB）。另外两组在经典防御范式下进行训练。这些动物在条件刺激和非条件刺激的数量、顺序和持续时间方面与A - B组动物匹配。条件化后，一组接受与A - B组相同的处理（条件CD - B），另一组接受与A - NBHC组相同的处理（条件CD - NBHC）。两组作为对照。反向对照组（条件BC - NBHC）在条件刺激和非条件刺激的数量、顺序和持续时间方面与A - NBHC组匹配。致敏对照组（条件SC - NBHC）在条件刺激呈现的数量、顺序和持续时间方面与A - NBHC组匹配。条件化试验后，对照动物接受与A - NBHC组动物相同的处理。经过不同处理后，所有动物立即返回它们学会按压杠杆的杠杆箱，恢复可变间隔为2的时间表，并测量条件性情绪反应。A - B组最初表现出显著的抑制，但显著低于A - NBHC组，这表明尽管反应阻止法在降低对条件刺激的恐惧方面有效，但仍有一些恐惧残留。对照组基本没有抑制，且无差异。A - B组与A - NBSB组无差异，这表明对环境确实发生了恐惧条件反射，并且这种恐惧在A - NBSB组中随后有所降低。A - B组的抑制显著多于CD - B组，这表明与回避范式相比，当在经典范式中习得恐惧时，反应阻止法更有效。讨论了理论意义以及对内爆疗法的推广。
