Cargando…

The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened

Looking at pictures of loved ones, such as one's romantic partner or good friends, has been shown to alleviate the experience of pain and reduce defensive reactions. However, little is known about such modulatory effects on threat and safety learning and the psychophysiological processes involv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bublatzky, Florian, Schellhaas, Sabine, Guerra, Pedro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8847570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35169193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06514-y
_version_ 1784652072944140288
author Bublatzky, Florian
Schellhaas, Sabine
Guerra, Pedro
author_facet Bublatzky, Florian
Schellhaas, Sabine
Guerra, Pedro
author_sort Bublatzky, Florian
collection PubMed
description Looking at pictures of loved ones, such as one's romantic partner or good friends, has been shown to alleviate the experience of pain and reduce defensive reactions. However, little is known about such modulatory effects on threat and safety learning and the psychophysiological processes involved. Here, we explored the hypothesis that beloved faces serve as implicit safety cues and attenuate the expression of fear responses and/or accelerate extinction learning in a threatening context. Thirty-two participants viewed pictures of their loved ones (romantic partner, parents, and best friend) as well as of unknown individuals within contextual background colors indicating threat-of-shock or safety. Focusing on the extinction of non-reinforced threat associations (no shocks were given), the experiment was repeated on two more test days while the defensive startle-EMG, SCR, and threat ratings were obtained. Results confirmed pronounced defensive responding to instructed threat-of-shock relative to safety context (e.g., threat-enhanced startle reflex and SCR). Moreover, threat-potentiated startle response slowly declined across test days indicating passive extinction learning in the absence of shocks. Importantly, neither a main effect of face category (loved vs. unknown) nor a significant interaction with threat/safety instructions was observed. Thus, a long-term learning history of beneficial relations (e.g., with supportive parents) did not interfere with verbal threat learning and aversive apprehensions. These findings reflect the effects of worries and apprehensions that persist despite the repeated experience of safety and the pictorial presence of loved ones. How to counter such aversive expectations is key to changing mal-adaptive behaviors (e.g., avoidance or stockpiling), biased risk perceptions, and stereotypes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8847570
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88475702022-02-17 The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened Bublatzky, Florian Schellhaas, Sabine Guerra, Pedro Sci Rep Article Looking at pictures of loved ones, such as one's romantic partner or good friends, has been shown to alleviate the experience of pain and reduce defensive reactions. However, little is known about such modulatory effects on threat and safety learning and the psychophysiological processes involved. Here, we explored the hypothesis that beloved faces serve as implicit safety cues and attenuate the expression of fear responses and/or accelerate extinction learning in a threatening context. Thirty-two participants viewed pictures of their loved ones (romantic partner, parents, and best friend) as well as of unknown individuals within contextual background colors indicating threat-of-shock or safety. Focusing on the extinction of non-reinforced threat associations (no shocks were given), the experiment was repeated on two more test days while the defensive startle-EMG, SCR, and threat ratings were obtained. Results confirmed pronounced defensive responding to instructed threat-of-shock relative to safety context (e.g., threat-enhanced startle reflex and SCR). Moreover, threat-potentiated startle response slowly declined across test days indicating passive extinction learning in the absence of shocks. Importantly, neither a main effect of face category (loved vs. unknown) nor a significant interaction with threat/safety instructions was observed. Thus, a long-term learning history of beneficial relations (e.g., with supportive parents) did not interfere with verbal threat learning and aversive apprehensions. These findings reflect the effects of worries and apprehensions that persist despite the repeated experience of safety and the pictorial presence of loved ones. How to counter such aversive expectations is key to changing mal-adaptive behaviors (e.g., avoidance or stockpiling), biased risk perceptions, and stereotypes. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8847570/ /pubmed/35169193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06514-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Bublatzky, Florian
Schellhaas, Sabine
Guerra, Pedro
The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened
title The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened
title_full The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened
title_fullStr The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened
title_full_unstemmed The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened
title_short The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened
title_sort mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8847570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35169193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06514-y
work_keys_str_mv AT bublatzkyflorian themeresightoflovedonesdoesnotinhibitpsychophysiologicaldefensemechanismswhenthreatened
AT schellhaassabine themeresightoflovedonesdoesnotinhibitpsychophysiologicaldefensemechanismswhenthreatened
AT guerrapedro themeresightoflovedonesdoesnotinhibitpsychophysiologicaldefensemechanismswhenthreatened
AT bublatzkyflorian meresightoflovedonesdoesnotinhibitpsychophysiologicaldefensemechanismswhenthreatened
AT schellhaassabine meresightoflovedonesdoesnotinhibitpsychophysiologicaldefensemechanismswhenthreatened
AT guerrapedro meresightoflovedonesdoesnotinhibitpsychophysiologicaldefensemechanismswhenthreatened