What question did this study set out to answer?

The research aims to compare three extinction methods and their susceptibility to context effects in conditioning.

March 28, 2026Open Access

Comparisons of extinction, counterconditioning, and novelty-facilitated extinction within ABA vs. ABC renewal designs.

Key Points

The research aims to compare three extinction methods and their susceptibility to context effects in conditioning.
Conducted two experiments with rapid trial streams and predictive learning ratings.
Participants rated the likelihood of a conditioned stimulus being followed by an unconditioned stimulus after different extinction techniques.
Used different contexts (A, B, and C) to test context effects on learning and valence.
No significant differences found in predictive testing across extinction methods in both experiments.
In Experiment 2, counterconditioning altered valence ratings more than novelty-facilitated extinction, but the effect varied by context.

Abstract

The expression of an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) can be weakened by presenting the CS by itself (extinction Ext), pairing it with an appetitive US (counterconditioning CC), or pairing it with a neutral stimulus (novelty-facilitated extinction NFE). The present research tested whether NFE is less susceptible to ABC renewal than Ext and CC. In two experiments, participants viewed streams of rapid trials. After each stream, participants rated how likely it was that the target CS would be followed by the target US (i.e., predictive learning) as well as the valence of the target CS (i.e., evaluative conditioning). A stream was composed of two phases: Phase 1 established an association between the target CS and target US while Phase 2 aimed at disrupting the expression of this association through Ext, CC, or NFE. Phase 1 occurred in Context A while Phase 2 occurred in Context B. Prediction and valence ratings occurred in either Context A, B, or C. Neither Experiment 1 nor Experiment 2 found differences across interference conditions with predictive testing, regardless of test context. In Experiment 2, better controlled for context effect, CC and NFE altered the CS valence (CC more than NFE) when testing occurred in B, but the difference disappeared when testing occurred in either A or C. The present data do not support the hypothesis that NFE is less susceptible to ABC renewal than either Ext or CC. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

AI से पूछें

Bookmark

View Full Paper