Flipbook

2 DO SAFETY BEHAVIORS PRESERVE THREAT BELIEFS? 53 In the Test phase, threat expectancy showed a main effect of Stimulus, F (1.12,62.77) = 437.53, p < .001, η p 2 = .89, Condition, F (2,56) = 59.99, p < .001, η p 2 = .68, and a Stimulus x Condition interaction, F (2,112) = 47.20, p < .001, η p 2 = .63. Threat expectancy was higher for A than for B, F (1,56) = 7603.51, p < .001, η p 2 = .99. This did not differ between conditions or show a Stimulus x Condition interaction, both F s < 1. Thus, the experimental manipulation of full avoidance, subtle safety behavior, or no avoidance or safety behavior during the Extinction phase had not differentially influenced threat expectancy ratings for danger stimulus A and safety stimulus B. The experimental manipulation had, however, caused differences between conditions in threat expectancy ratings for C in the Test phase. In line with our hypothesis, threat expectancy for C was higher in the Full avoidance condition than in the Control condition, t (20.53) = 66.53, p < .001, d = 21.59, and in the Subtle safety behavior condition, t (20.05) = 5.36, p < .001, d = 1.61 (see Figure 3, C- in the Test phase is higher in the top panel than in the middle and bottom panel). This indicates that full avoidance maintained threat expectancy for C. Additionally, threat expectancy for C was higher in the Subtle safety behavior condition than in the Control condition, t (20.74) = 3.94, p = .001, d = 1.19 (see Figure 3, C- in the Test phase is higher in the middle panel than in the bottom panel). This suggests that not avoiding or using subtle safety behavior during unreinforced C trials (i.e., during the Extinction phase) resulted in a larger reduction of threat expectancy than when subtle safety behavior was used during unreinforced C trials. Next, we examined threat expectancy for C compared with A and B in the Test phase for the Subtle safety behavior and Control condition to investigate whether using subtle safety behavior during unreinforced C trials had prevented extinction learning. In line with our hypothesis, threat expectancy was higher for A than for C in the Control condition, t (18) = 44.07, p < .001, d = 16.72, and Subtle safety behavior condition, t (20) = 5.09, p < .001, d = 1.62 (see Figure 3, C- is lower than A+ in the Test phase in the middle and bottom panel). This indicates that extinction learning occurred in the Subtle safety behavior and Control condition. However, in the