Department of Psychology (Biological Psychology, Clinical Psychology, and Psychotherapy), University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Center of Mental Health, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Psychol Res. 2022 Feb;86(1):312-330. doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01490-w. Epub 2021 Mar 4.
Safety behavior prevents the occurrence of threat, thus it is typically considered adaptive. However, safety behavior in anxiety-related disorders is often costly, and persists even the situation does not entail realistic threat. Individuals can engage in safety behavior to varying extents, however, these behaviors are typically measured dichotomously (i.e., to execute or not). To better understand the nuances of safety behavior, this study developed a dimensional measure of safety behavior that had a negative linear relationship with the admission of an aversive outcome. In two experiments, a Reward group receiving fixed or individually calibrated incentives competing with safety behavior showed reduced safety behavior than a Control group receiving no incentives. This allowed extinction learning to a previously learnt warning signal in the Reward group (i.e., updating the belief that this stimulus no longer signals threat). Despite the Reward group exhibited extinction learning, both groups showed a similar increase in fear to the warning signal once safety behavior was no longer available. This null group difference was due to some participants in the Reward group not incentivized enough to disengage from safety behavior. Dimensional assessment revealed a dissociation between low fear but substantial safety behavior to a safety signal in the Control group. This suggests that low-cost safety behavior does not accurately reflect the fear-driven processes, but also other non-fear-driven processes, such as cost (i.e., engage in safety behavior merely because it bears little to no cost). Pinpointing both processes is important for furthering the understanding of safety behavior.
安全行为可以防止威胁的发生,因此通常被认为是适应性的。然而,与焦虑相关的障碍中的安全行为通常是代价高昂的,并且即使情况不涉及现实威胁,它也会持续存在。个体可以在不同程度上从事安全行为,然而,这些行为通常是二分法测量的(即执行或不执行)。为了更好地理解安全行为的细微差别,本研究开发了一种安全行为的维度测量方法,该方法与对不愉快结果的承认呈负线性关系。在两项实验中,与接受无激励的对照组相比,一组接受固定或个体校准激励的奖励组表现出的安全行为减少。这使得奖励组(即更新该刺激不再表示威胁的信念)对先前学习的警告信号进行了消退学习。尽管奖励组表现出了消退学习,但两组在安全行为不再可用时,对警告信号的恐惧都有类似的增加。这种无组间差异是由于奖励组中的一些参与者没有得到足够的激励来脱离安全行为。维度评估揭示了控制组中对安全信号的低恐惧但大量安全行为之间的分离。这表明低成本的安全行为并不能准确反映恐惧驱动的过程,也反映了其他非恐惧驱动的过程,例如成本(即,仅仅因为它几乎没有成本就从事安全行为)。准确识别这两个过程对于深入了解安全行为非常重要。