Behaviour Research and Therapy 48 (2010) 38–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Behaviour Research and Therapy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/brat

Fear generalization in humans: Impact of verbal instructions

Bram Vervliet a, b, *, Merel Kindt a, Debora Vansteenwegen b, Dirk Hermans b
a
University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
University of Leuven, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fear generalization lies at the heart of many anxiety problems, but little is known about the factors that can
Received 26 June 2009 influence this phenomenon. The present study investigated whether verbal instructions about specific
Received in revised form stimulus features can influence conditioned fear generalization. All participants were fear conditioned to
2 September 2009
a yellow triangle, using an electric shock. Participants had received pre-experimental instructions saying
Accepted 5 September 2009
that the shapes (or colours) of the stimuli were informative for the occurrence of shock (group Shape
and group Colour, respectively). Next, generalization was tested to presentations of a blue triangle (same
Keywords:
shape) as well as a yellow square (same colour). Fear reactions were measured through skin conductance
Fear conditioning
Fear generalization and online ratings of shock-expectancy. The results showed strongest generalization to the same shape
Associative learning stimulus in group Shape, versus the same colour stimulus in group Colour. Hence, the same learning
Psychophysiology experience can have opposite effects in terms of fear generalization, depending on verbally transmitted
Experimental psychopathology information about the relative importance of individual stimulus features.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Fear generalization is an important characteristic of various
anxiety disorders. In the case of post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), for example, strong fear reactions are typically elicited by
a wide variety of cues that bare only vague similarity with the actual
trauma cues (Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Feldner, Monson, & Friedman,
2007). This unbridled generalization clearly augments the impact
of the traumatic event in the daily life of the victim, and may well
contribute to the development and/or maintenance of the disorder.
One could even argue that the fear learning mechanism itself is
highly adaptive and promotes survival, but that fears become irra-
tional when they are overgeneralized to realistically non-dangerous
cues (Feldner et al., 2007; Lissek et al., 2005). It follows that more
insight in the phenomenon and process of fear generalization will
enhance our understanding of anxiety problems in general and
may eventually inspire new ways for treatment and/or prevention
of anxiety disorders. Generalization has been studied widely in the
older animal and human conditioning literature (until the 1970s,
see Razran, 1949, Kalish, 1969, Honig & Urcuioli, 1981, and Guirlanda
& Enquist, 2003, for reviews). However, it has only recently regained
interest in the field of human anxiety (see Lissek et al., 2008, who
developed an elegant procedure to examine interindividual differ-
ences in fear generalization; see also Dunsmoor, Mitroff, & LaBar,
2009; Hajcak et al., 2009; Vervliet, Vansteenwegen, Baeyens,
* Corresponding author at: University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: þ31 20 525 67 68; fax: þ31 20 639 13 69.
E-mail address: b.vervliet@uva.nl (B. Vervliet).
Hermans, & Eelen, 2005; Vervliet, Vansteenwegen, & Eelen, 2004).
If we want to understand the process of fear generalization, it is
important to know what factors influence it. The present study
investigated the impact of verbally transmitted information about
individual stimulus features.
Generalization occurs when a conditioned response is elicited by
a stimulus different from the conditioned stimulus (CS). Thus, when
a yellow triangle is paired with an electric shock (the unconditioned
stimulus, US) and starts eliciting fear reactions on future confron-
tations, generalization occurs when the fear reaction is then also
elicited by a blue triangle (the generalization stimulus, GS). The
process of generalization can be conceptualized in a variety of ways,
but one fruitful approach is to view stimuli as sets of features, which
can individually enter the conditioning process (Rescorla, 1976).
Thus, when a stimulus AX consists of features A and X, conditioning
experiences with that stimulus will affect both features A and X.
Imagine that generalization is tested with stimulus BX that has
feature X in common; the amount of generalization from AX to BX
will then be defined by the amount of conditioning that occurred to
X. In other words, the amount of generalization between two
stimuli is defined by the amount of conditioning that has accrued to
the features they have in common. Fear generalization from
a yellow to a blue triangle will depend on the fear conditioning that
has accrued to the feature ‘triangle’.
Hence, if we want to ask what factors influence the generaliza-
tion between two stimuli, we must ask what factors determine the
amount of conditioning to their common feature(s). This is exactly
the type of question that is central to contemporary associative

0005-7967/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.brat.2009.09.005
 B. Vervliet et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 48 (2010) 38–43
learning research: When multiple stimuli (features) are present on
a conditioning trial, what then determines the rate of conditioning
to the different stimuli (features)? It was already shown by Pavlov
(1927) that a CS elicits less conditioned responding when it was
accompanied by another stimulus during the conditioning episode
(‘‘overshadowing’’). He further showed that the strength of this
effect depended on the perceptual salience of the accompanying
stimulus: The more salient the accompanying stimulus, the weaker
the conditioning will be to the target CS. Years later, Kamin (1969)
showed that the overshadowing effect is even enhanced when
the accompanying stimulus is conditioned on its own (‘‘blocking’’).
That is, when the accompanying stimulus already carries sufficient
information about the occurrence of the US (e.g., shock), there is less
need to learn additionally about the CS–US relationship (see, e.g.,
Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). Taken together, the amount of condi-
tioning to the CS depends crucially on the salience and/or the
informational relevance of the accompanying stimulus.
This line of reasoning can also be applied to the generalization
issue: the extent to which conditioning with a CS will accrue to its
unique or common features will depend on the relative salience
and informational relevance of those features. When the unique
features are relatively more salient and/or have more informational
relevance, little conditioning will accrue to the common features
and lead to weak generalization. Conversely, when the common
features are relatively more salient and/or have more informational
relevance, most conditioning will accrue to the common features
and hence produce strong generalization. It follows that general-
ization can be influenced by factors that change the relative salience
and/or informational value of the different features of the CS.
In the present study, we aimed at manipulating the relative
salience/relevance of stimulus features through pre-experimental
instructions. Humans have the capacity to talk and to transmit
information through verbal interaction. It has long been shown that
verbal instructions can have a large impact on the conditioning of
fear reactions. Firstly, giving verbal information about the occur-
rence of shock is a powerful way to induce fear reactions (e.g.,
Phelps, O’Connor, Gatenby, Grillon, & Davis, 2001). Secondly, post-
conditioning instructions can determine the amount of fear
responding to individual stimuli when these stimuli were condi-
tioned in compound (Lovibond, 2003). Thirdly, instructions that the
US will no longer follow can speed up extinction of conditioned
fear (e.g., McNally, 1981; Soares & Ohman, 1993). Verbal instruc-
tions can serve as an experimental tool to investigate the effects of
cognitions (beliefs, ideas, assumptions, schemata) on experience-
based learning phenomena like classical conditioning. Differences
in such cognitions may contribute to the differential impact of
traumatic experiences in different persons (leading to a chronic
course of PTSD or not). In the present study, pre-experimental
instructions focused attention to a particular feature of the CS,
which was shared by one generalization test stimulus but not by
the other. We expected that the instructions would promote fear
generalization to the stimulus with the shared feature.
Thirty-two participants received exactly identical conditioning
experiences, and differed only in the pre-experimental instructions.
Participants from group Shape were told that the shape of the figures
that they were about to see would be instructive for the occurrence
of the electric shock (US), and that they had to learn to distinguish
between ‘‘good’’ shapes and ‘‘bad’’ shapes. Participants from group
Colour received similar instructions, but about the colour of the
figures. Next, all participants received 4 presentations of a yellow
triangle (the CSþ) that co-terminated with shock. A black cross
functioned as the control CS (4 times presented, without shock).
Generalization was then tested to a blue triangle (same shape) and
a yellow square (same colour), which were both 6 times presented
without shock. We expected more generalization to the blue triangle
39
in group Shape, versus more generalization to the yellow square in
group Colour. Finally, we also added a small test phase where we
presented the original CSs again (yellow triangle and black cross),
each three times without shock. This extra test was included in order
to assess the survival of conditioned fear responding after extinction
of both generalization stimuli. Previous research has indicated
that extinction of generalization stimuli has no impact on fear
responding to the original CS (Vervliet et al., 2005, 2004). We had no
differential predictions for this fear recovery test phase.
Methods
Participants
Thirty-two students participated either to earn course credits or
a small monetary award. Participants were randomly assigned to the
two experimental groups (group Colour: N ¼ 16 of which 13 females,
mean age ¼ 19.06, SD ¼ 1.34; group Shape: N ¼ 16 of which 9 females,
mean age ¼ 19.44, SD ¼ 2.63). They all gave informed consent and
were informed that they could decline to participate at any time.
Apparatus
An isosceles triangle with black outlines and coloured in yellow
served as the CSþ for all participants. The CS was a black cross. One
generalization test stimulus, GSc, was a square with black outlines and
coloured in the same yellow. The other generalization test stimulus,
GSs, was the same isosceles triangle as the CSþ, but coloured in blue.
All stimuli were presented on a computer screen, located on eye-level
in front of the participant at approximately 500 mm. The stimulus
sequence, the presentation of the stimuli and the ITIs were controlled
by Affect3 software designed in our lab, which can be downloaded
freely (Hermans, Clarysse, Baeyens & Spruyt, 2002). A 2 ms electro-
cutaneous stimulus delivered to the wrist of the left hand served as
unconditional stimulus (US). It was administered by a Digitimer DS7A
constant current stimulator (Hertfordshire, UK) via a pair of 11-mm
Fukuda Standard Ag/AgCl electrodes. The electrodes were filled
with K-Y Jelly. The intensity of the shock was individually selected to
a level where it was ‘‘uncomfortable but not painful’’. Participants
were seated in an armchair in a sound attenuated experimental room,
adjacent to the experimenter’s room.
Electrodermal activity was recorded using a skin conductance
coupler manufactured by Coulbourn Instruments (model V71-23,
Allentown, PA). During skin conductance measurement, the coupler
applied a constant voltage of .5 V across a pair of sintered-pellet silver
chloride electrodes (8 mm), attached to the hypothenar palm of the
non-preferred hand, which was cleaned with tap water. The inter-
electrode distance was 7 mm. The electrodes were filled with K-Y Jelly.
The resulting conductance signal was submitted through a Labmaster
DMA 12-bit analog-to-digital converter (Scientific Solutions, Solon,
Ohio) and digitized at 10 Hz from 2 s prior to CS onset until 6 s after CS
offset. Participants used their right hand to record their subjective
expectancy of a shock on a continuous, 180-degree, rotary dial placed
on the table in front of them. The left extreme of the semicircular dial
was labelled Certain no shock, the right extreme was labelled Certain
shock and the intermediate point, at 90 degree, was labelled Uncertain.
The rotary dial generated a voltage signal between 0 and 5 V, which
was transmitted through a Labmaster DMA 12-bit analog-to-digital
converter (Scientific Solutions, Solon, Ohio) and digitized at 10 Hz
from 2 s prior to CS onset until 6 s after CS offset.
Procedure
Following general instructions and completion of the informed
consent, participants were fitted with electrodes and were led
40 B. Vervliet et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 48 (2010) 38–43
through the work-up procedure to select a ‘‘definitely uncomfort-
able, but not painful’’ shock level. Next, participants were instruc-
ted that geometrical figures would be presented to them on the
computer screen. They were also told that they had to learn to
accurately predict the shock on the basis of the figures. Importantly,
participants from Group Colour were told that the colour of the
figures would be instructive about the occurrence of the shock, and
that they should learn to distinguish ‘‘good’’ from ‘‘bad’’ colours.
Inversely, the participants from Group Shape were told that the
shape of the figures would be instructive about the occurrence of
the shock, and that they should learn to distinguish ‘‘good’’ from
‘‘bad’’ shapes. All participants also received the information that
a black cross would sometimes be presented, and never followed
by shock. This last instruction was added in order to avoid that
participants would learn about certain perceptual dimensions
that differentiate the CSþ from the CS (which could in principle
influence the direction of generalization to the GSs as well).
Next, the operation of the expectancy pointer was explained. The
participants were asked to indicate their expectancy of shock upon
each stimulus presentation, and to return the dial to the starting
point (the middle of the scale, Uncertain) during inter trial interval.
When the experimenter had left the room, written instructions
appeared on the computer screen recapitulating the verbal instruc-
tions: ‘‘Remember well: (1) the black cross will never be followed
the electrical stimulus, (2) the COLOUR [SHAPE] of the geometrical
figures is important to know when the electrical stimulus will
follow.’’ After approximately 10 s, these instructions disappeared and,
following an interval of 5 s, the actual experiment started.
The stimuli were always presented for 8 s; the inter trial interval
varied between 13 s and 17 s, with a mean of 15 s. During the
acquisition phase, the CSþ and the CS were presented 4 times each,
in a randomized order with the restriction of no more than 2
consecutive stimulus presentations being identical. The termination
of every CSþ presentation was immediately followed by the shock.
During the subsequent generalization test phase, the GSc and the GSs
were each presented 6 times without the shock US. The first GS
presentation was counterbalanced across participants and groups.
The rest of the stimulus presentations were randomized, with the
restriction of no more than two consecutive presentations being
identical. The experiment ended with a fear recovery test phase, in
which the original CSþ and CS were presented, three times each
without shock. The first CS presentation was counterbalanced across
participants and groups, and the rest of the stimulus presentations
were randomized, with the restriction of no more than two
consecutive presentations being identical.
Results
Data analysis
The expectancy ratings on the rotary dial were registered as
analog-to-digital units (AD units), and averaged over the last
second of each stimulus presentation before statistical analysis.
This generated 1 expectancy rating per trial.
Skin conductance response amplitudes were defined as the peak
value within the 1–4 s interval after CS onset, relative to a baseline
averaged over the 2 s prior to CS onset. This generates the first
interval response (FIR, see Prokasy & Raskin, 1973). Negative changes
were scored as zero and included in the analyses. Amplitudes were
range-corrected using the largest response elicited by the US (peak
amplitude between 9 and 14 s after CS onset) as the maximum range
for each individual. The corrected response magnitudes were
subjected to a square-root transformation in order to normalize the
distribution prior to statistical analysis. The alpha-level was set at .05
for all analyses.
Online shock-expectancy ratings
Acquisition
The left panel of Fig. 1 suggests a smooth development of
differential shock-expectancy to the CSþ and the CS over the
course of the acquisition phase, without differences between the
groups. This was confirmed by an ANOVA with one between-
subjects factor (Group, 2 levels), one within-subjects factor (CS, 2
levels) and one repeated measures factor (Trial, 4 levels). This
ANOVA revealed a main effect of Stimulus, F(1,30) ¼ 258.95, p < .001,
partial h2 ¼ .90, a main effect of Trial, F(3,90) ¼ 30.1, p < .001, partial
h2 ¼ .50, and most importantly a significant Trial * CS interaction,
F(3,90) ¼ 116.68, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .80. This interaction shows
that the differential shock-expectancy developed gradually over
trials. In addition, the Group * Trial * CS interaction was far from
significant, F(3,90) < 1, confirming that the groups did not differ in
the acquisition phase.
Test
The middle panel of Fig. 1 shows the expectancy ratings to the two
generalization test stimuli, over the course of 6 nonreinforced trials.
The Figure suggests opposite effects in the two groups, in the expected
direction. This was confirmed by an ANOVA with one between-
subjects factor (Group, 2 levels), one within-subjects factor (GS, 2
levels) and one repeated measures factor (Trial, 6 levels). Most
importantly, the analysis reveals a significant Group * GS interaction,
F(1,30) ¼ 22.94, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .43, showing that the direction of
generalization was influenced by the verbal instructions that distin-
guished the groups. The main effect of GS itself was not significant,
F(1,30) < 1, nor the effect of Group, F(1,30) < 1, showing that the
level of expectancy was not directly defined by stimulus or group
membership. There was a main effect of Trial, F(5,150) ¼ 205.68,
p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .87, indicating that the level of shock-expectancy
decreased over the 6 (nonreinforced) trials. This points to extinction
learning to both GSs. The CS * Trial interaction was not significant,
F(5,160) < 1, but the Group * CS * Trial interaction was significant,
F(5,160) ¼ 23.99, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .44. This is not surprising, as the
direction of generalization was clearly different in the two groups,
leading to different extinction curves. In order to confirm that the
group differences were produced by differences in generalization,
we conducted a separate ANOVA on the first test trial alone, with one
between-subjects factor (Group, 2 levels) and one within-subjects
factor (GS, 2 levels). This resulted again in a significant Group * GS
interaction, F(1,30) ¼ 73.03, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .71, and the absence
of a significant main effect of GS, F(1,30) < 1, or Group, F(1,30) < 1.
Fear recovery
The right panel of Fig. 1 shows the expectancy elicited by the
original CSþ and CS, over the course of 3 nonreinforced test trials.
The figure suggests a complete return of shock-expectancy. This
was confirmed by an ANOVA with one between-subjects factor
(Group, 2 levels), one within-subjects factor (CS, 2 levels) and one
repeated measure (Trial, 3 levels). This analysis revealed a main
effect of CS, F(1,30) ¼ 226.26, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .88, and the
absence of a significant Group * CS interaction, F(1,30) < 1. The
main effect of Trial was significant, F(2,60) ¼ 45.91, p < .001, partial
h2 ¼ .61, as was the Trial * CS interaction, F(2,60) ¼ 58.06, p < .001,
partial h2 ¼ .66. This shows that the level of shock-expectancy
extinguished over the course of three nonreinforced test trials, and
that this occurred differentially for the CSþ and the CS. Again, the
Group factor did not influence this interaction, F(2,60) ¼ 1.25,
p ¼ .30. In order to test whether there was any effect of the
extinction phase, we conducted a separate ANOVA to compare the
size of the discrimination on the last acquisition trial and the first
renewal test trial. This ANOVA with one between-subjects factor
 B. Vervliet et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 48 (2010) 38–43 41

GROUP COLOUR
CSp
CSm
450 GS1
GS2
400

rated shock-expectancy
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
acq1 acq2 acq3 acq4 ext1 ext2 ext3 ext4 ext5 ext6 test1 test2 test3

GROUP SHAPE
CSp
CSm
450
GS1
400 GS2
rated shock-expectancy

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
acq1 acq2 acq3 acq4 ext1 ext2 ext3 ext4 ext5 ext6 test1 test2 test3

Fig. 1. Mean expectancy ratings per trial over the entire experiment. Ratings are represented as digitized voltage outputs (AD units) from the rotary expectancy dial. High levels
correspond to more certainty of imminent shock (where 450 ¼ ‘‘Certain shock’’), lower levels correspond to more certainty of no shock (where 0 ¼ ‘‘Certain no shock’’). The upper
graph represents the data from group Colour, the lower graph the data from group Shape. The left panel shows the data from the acquisition phase for both the CSþ and the
CS (acq1-acq4); the middle panel shows the data from the generalization test phase for both the GSc and the GSs (ext1-ext6); the right panel shows the data for the fear recovery
test phase for both the CSþ and the CS (test1-test3).

(Group, 2 levels), one within-subjects factor (CS, 2 levels) and one
repeated measures factor (Trial, 2 levels) revealed a significant
main effect of CS, F(1,30) ¼ 500.92, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .94, and
the absence of a main effect of Trial, F(1,30) < 1, and of a Trial * CS
interaction, F(1,30) ¼ 1.63, p ¼ .21. Moreover, the Group factor had
no influence on this interaction, F(1,30) < 1. This analysis thus
confirms that there was no detectable effect of the extinction phase
on the differential shock-expectancy to the original CSs.
Skin conductance responding
Acquisition
The left panel of Fig. 2 suggests a smooth development of differ-
ential skin conductance responding in the two groups. This was
confirmed by an ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (Group, 2
levels), one within-subjects factor (CS, 2 levels) and one repeated
measures factor (Trial, 4 levels). This analysis revealed a main effect of
CS, F(1,30) ¼ 23.27, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .44, and a significant CS * Trial
interaction, F(3,90) ¼ 2.8, p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .09. This shows that the
differential response was indeed an effect of the conditioning proce-
dure. As expected, the Group * CS * Trial was not significant, F(3,90) < 1,
suggesting that the groups did not differ over the course of acquisition.
Test
The middle panel of Fig. 2 shows a capricious curve, but suggests
a difference between the groups. This was analyzed by conducting
an ANOVA over the first three test trials, with one between-subjects
factor (Group, 2 levels), one within-subjects factor (GS, 2 levels) and
one repeated measure (Trial, three levels). Most importantly, this
analysis revealed the expected Group * CS interaction, F(1,30) ¼ 4.95,
p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .14, showing that skin conductance responding
to the two GSs differed in function of Group. There was no main
effect of CS, F(1,30) ¼ 1.99, p ¼ .17, but a main effect of Trial,
F(2,60) ¼ 4.25, p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .12, showing that extinction was
already initiated. Interestingly, there was also a marginally signifi-
cant Group * CS * Trial interaction, F(2,60) ¼ 3.15, p ¼ .05, partial
h2 ¼ .01, showing that the rate of extinction differed between the two
GSs in function of Group. This difference in rate of extinction is most
likely a consequence of the difference in the level of generalization.
Fear recovery
The right panel of Fig. 2 shows the skin conductance responses
to the CSþ and the CS over the course of 3 nonreinforced test
trials. The figure suggests clear differential responding to the two
CSs, unaffected by the extinction phase. This was tested first with
an ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (Group, 2 levels), one
within-subjects factor (CS, 2 levels) and one repeated measures
factor (Trial, 3 levels). Most importantly, this analysis revealed
a significant main effect of CS, F(1,30) ¼ 21.95, p < .001, partial
h2 ¼ .42, without a significant interaction with Group, F(1,30) < 1.
The main effect of Trial, F(2,60) ¼ 3.52, p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .11,
indicates that extinction was initiated by the three nonreinforced
test trials. In order to test whether there was any effect of the
extinction phase with the generalization stimuli, we conducted
a separate ANOVA to compare the size of the discrimination on the
last acquisition trial with the first renewal test trial. This ANOVA
42 B. Vervliet et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 48 (2010) 38–43

GROUP COLOUR
CSp
0,6 CSm
GS1
0,5 GS2

FIR-range corr-sqrt
0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
acq1 acq2 acq3 acq4 ext1 ext2 ext3 ext4 ext5 ext6 test1 test2 test3

GROUP SHAPE
CSp
0,6
CSm
GS1
GS2
0,5
FIR-range corr sqrt

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
acq1 acq2 acq3 acq4 ext1 ext2 ext3 ext4 ext5 ext6 test1 test2 test3

Fig. 2. Mean first interval skin conductance responses (F.I.R.) per trial over the entire experiment. Responses are range-corrected and square-root transformed. The upper graph
represents the data from group Colour, the lower graph the data from group Shape. The left panel shows the data from the acquisition phase for both the CSþ and the CS
(acq1-acq4); the middle panel shows the data from the generalization test phase for both the GSc and the GSs (ext1-ext6); the right panel shows the data for the fear recovery test
phase for both the CSþ and the CS (test1-test3).

with one between-subjects factor (Group, 2 levels), one within-
subjects factor (CS, 2 levels) and one repeated measures factor
(Trial, 2 levels) revealed a main effect of CS, F(1,30) ¼ 13.16, p < .01,
partial h2 ¼ .31, and surprisingly, a significant CS * Trial interaction,
F(1,30) ¼ 4.33, p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .13. This interaction indicates
that the size of the discrimination actually increased from acqui-
sition to test (see Fig. 2). Hence, extinguishing the GSs had certainly
not a decreasing effect on the original discrimination.
Discussion
The present study was designed to test whether verbal instruc-
tions can influence the direction of fear generalization in humans.
The instructions focused attention to a specific stimulus feature of the
conditioned stimulus, and generalization was tested with stimuli that
either shared that feature or not. Two groups differed in the partic-
ular feature of the CS that was instructed to focus on. The results
clearly showed stronger generalization towards the stimulus that
shared the ‘instructed feature’, both in the online shock-expectancy
ratings and in the skin conductance responses. This suggests that fear
generalization is influenced by cognitions (expectations, beliefs, etc.)
about the relative importance of the different features of a feared
stimulus. Under the assumption that fear generalization plays a role
in the development of anxiety disorders, these cognitions may
therefore influence that development.
In the procedure of the present experiment, all features of the CS
(a yellow triangle) were present in the two generalization test stimuli
(a yellow square and a blue triangle). Further nonreinforced presen-
tations of the two generalization stimuli provided an opportunity to
test whether fear of a stimulus can be extinguished by extinguishing
fear of its features. The results were very clear in this regard: There was
no indication whatsoever of fear extinction to the CS during final
testing. One interpretation of this finding is that fear extinction tends
to bind to the unique features of the stimulus under extinction (blue,
square), rather than to the features it has in common with the CS
(yellow, triangle). An alternative viewpoint is that fear extinction
promotes configural processing of the stimulus under extinction; the
fear extinction effects then become confined to that specific percep-
tual constellation (see Vervliet, Vansteenwegen, Hermans, & Eelen,
2007; Lovibond, Davis, & O’Flaherty, 2000). Irrespective of the exact
mechanism, the present finding shows once again that generalization-
of-extinction is difficult to achieve, and that it is clearly weaker than
the generalization-of-acquisition (see also Vervliet et al., 2004, 2005;
Vervliet, Vansteenwegen, & Eelen, 2006; Vervliet, Vansteenwegen,
Hermans, & Eelen, 2007, and Rowe & Craske, 1998). This parallels the
established asymmetry in contextual generalization between fear
 B. Vervliet et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 48 (2010) 38–43
acquisition and fear extinction (the latter being much more context-
specific, see Bouton, 2002; Vansteenwegen et al., 2005). This context-
specificity of fear extinction has often been viewed as an experimental
model to study relapse of anxiety following successful therapy
completion (e.g., Bouton, 1988, 2002; Craske & Mystkowski, 2006).
The present results suggest that the stimulus-specificity of fear
extinction may represent yet another road to relapse.
The emotional index (skin conductance) and the cognitive index
(shock-expectancy) showed remarkably similar results in this
experiment. They only differed on one point. The skin conductance
data revealed hardly any difference between the two GSs in group
Colour (although the crucial Group * GS interaction was statistically
significant), whereas the effect was equally strong in both groups
for the expectancy ratings. It is unclear why the effect was absent in
the skin conductance, but one possibility is that the shapes were
generally more salient than the colours. Under this assumption, the
colour instructions succeeded in weakening the ‘‘normal’’ gener-
alization on the basis of the shape, but failed to redirect it on the
basis of the colour. This seems a plausible explanation for the skin
conductance data, but it remains unclear why the expectancy
ratings are different (more successful) in this regard.
The experimental protocol of the present study provides a basic
tool for further investigations into fear generalization and the factors
that influence it. The present study focused on the effect of verbal
instructions, but other strategies to influence the salience/relevance
of stimulus features can be investigated as well. For instance, the
verbal instructions may be replaced by prior conditioning experi-
ences in which certain stimulus features acquire more relevance
than others (cf. the literature on selective attention in animal
discrimination learning, see Mackintosh, 1965; see also LePelley,
Oakeshott, & McLaren, 2005, for a demonstration of associability
processes in human causal learning). Alternatively, the salience of
stimulus features can be changed by targeted preexposures of the CS
and another stimulus in alternation. It is known that such pre-
exposure schedules induce perceptual learning that augments the
salience of the features that distinguish the two stimuli (Hall, 2003).
These strategies can be implemented in the present procedure and
tested for their effects on conditioned fear generalization in humans.
Fear generalization is central to many anxiety problems, but it has
received relatively little attention in contemporary preclinical and
clinical research. The present study proposes an experimental
procedure to investigate this phenomenon and the factors that
influence it. It was shown here that verbally transmitted information
can drastically influence the direction of generalization following
a fearful experience. Hence, cognitions may contribute to the inter-
individual differences regarding the impact of a traumatic event, by
determining the generalization of acquired fear reactions.
Acknowledgements
Preparation of this paper was supported by a VENI-grant
(451-07-033) of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
Research (NWO), and by a Grant GOA/2007/03 of the University
of Leuven. We would like to thank Ellen Vervoort for assistance
in conducting the research.
References
Bouton, M. E. (1988). Context and ambiguity in the extinction of emotional
learning: implications for exposure therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26,
137–149.
Bouton, M. E. (2002). Context, ambiguity, and unlearning: sources of relapse after
behavioral extinction. Biological Psychiatry, 52(10), 976–986.
Craske, M. G., & Mystkowski, J. L. (2006). Exposure therapy and extinction: clinical
studies. In M. Craske, D. Hermans, & D. Vansteenwegen (Eds.), Fear and learning:
From basic processes to clinical application. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
43
Dunsmoor, J. E., Mitroff, S. R., & LaBar, K. S. (2009). Generalization of conditioned
fear along a dimension of increasing fear intensity. Learning & Memory, 16,
460–469.
Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 319–345.
Feldner, M., Monson, C., & Friedman, M. (2007). A critical analysis of approaches to
targeted PTSD prevention: current status and theoretically derived future
directions. Behavior Modification, 31, 80–116.
Guirlanda, S., & Enquist, M. (2003). A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour,
66, 15–36.
Hajcak, G., Castille, C., Olvet, D. M., Dunnning, J. P., Roohi, J., & Hatchwell, E. (2009).
Genetic variation in brain-derived neurotrophic factor and human fear condi-
tioning. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 8, 80–85.
Hall, G. (2003). Learned changes in the sensitivity of stimulus representations:
associative and nonassociative mechanisms. The Quarterly Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56B(1), 43–55.
Hermans, D., Clarysse, J., Baeyens, F., & Spruyt, A. (2002). Affect (Version 3.0)
[computer software] from University of Leuven, Belgium, http://www.psy.
kuleuven.be/leerpsy/affect3. Retrieved20.04.06.
Honig, W., & Urcuioli, P. (1981). The legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 years
of research on stimulus generalization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 36, 405–445.
Kalish, H. (1969). Stimulus generalization. In M. Marx (Ed.), Learning: Processes (pp.
205–297). Oxford, England: Macmillan.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In
R. M. Church (Ed.), Punishment and aversive behaviour (pp. 279–296). New York:
Appleton-Centuries-Crofts.
LePelley, M. E., Oakeshott, S. M., & McLaren, I. P. (2005). Blocking and unblocking in
human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior
Processes, 31, 56–70.
Lissek, S., Biggs, A. L., Rabin, S. J., Cornwell, B. R., Alvarez, R. P., Pine, D. S., et al.
(2008). Generalization of conditioned fear-potentiated startle in humans:
experimental validation and clinical relevance. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
46, 678–687.
Lissek, S., Powers, A. S., McClure, E. B., Phelps, E. A., Woldehawariat, G., Grillon, C., et
al. (2005). Classical fear conditioning in the anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1391–1424.
Lovibond, P. F. (2003). Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: retrospective
revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 97–106.
Lovibond, P. F., Davis, N. R., & O’Flaherty, A. S. (2000). Protection from extinction in
human fear conditioning. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 967–983.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1965). Selective attention in animal discrimination learning.
Psychological Bulletin, 64(2), 124–150.
McNally, R. J. (1981). Phobias and preparedness: instructional reversal of elec-
trodermal conditioning to fear-relevant stimuli. Psychological Reports, 48,
175–180.
Pavlov, I. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.
Phelps, E. A., O’Connor, K. J., Gatenby, J. C., Grillon, C., & Davis, M. (2001). Activation
of the left amygdala to a cogitative representation of fear. Nature Neuroscience,
4(4), 437–441.
Prokasy, W. F., & Raskin, D. C. (1973). Electrodermal activity in psychological research.
Oxford, England: Academic Press.
Razran, G. (1949). Stimulus generalization of conditioned responses. Psychological
Bulletin, 46, 337–365.
Rescorla, A. R. (1976). Stimulus generalization: some predictions from a model of
Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior
Processes, 2(1), 88–96.
Rescorla, R., & Wagner, A. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in
the effectiveness of rein forcement and nonreinforcement. In A. Black, &
W. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton
Century Crofts.
Rowe, M. K., & Craske, M. G. (1998). Effects of varied-stimulus exposure training
on fear reduction and return of fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36,
719–734.
Soares, J. J., & Ohman, A. (1993). Preattentive processing, preparedness and
phobias: effects of instructions on conditioned electrodermal responses to
masked and non-masked fear-relevant stimuli. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 31(1), 87–95.
Vansteenwegen, D., Hermans, D., Vervliet, B., Francken, G., Beckers, T., Baeyens, F., et
al. (2005). Return of fear in a human differential conditioning paradigm caused
by a return to the original acquisition context. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
43(3), 323–336.
Vervliet, B., Vansteenwegen, D., Baeyens, F., Hermans, D., & Eelen, P. (2005). Return
of fear in a human differential conditioning paradigm caused by a stimulus
change after extinction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(3), 357–371.
Vervliet, B., Vansteenwegen, D., & Eelen, P. (2004). Generalization of extinguished
skin conductance responding in human fear conditioning. Learning & Memory,
11, 555–558.
Vervliet, B., Vansteenwegen, D., & Eelen, P. (2006). Generalization gradients for
acquisition and extinction in human contingency learning. Experimental
Psychology, 53(2), 132–142.
Vervliet, B., Vansteenwegen, D., Hermans, D., & Eelen, P. (2007). Concurrent excitors
limit the extinction of conditioned fear in humans. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 45, 375–383.