Abstract
The expression of an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can be attenuated by presenting the CS by itself (i.e., extinction, Ext). Though effective, Ext is susceptible to recovery effects such as renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement. Dunsmoor et al. (2015, 2019) have proposed that pairing the CS with a neutral outcome (novelty-facilitated Ext [NFE]) could offer better protection against recovery effects than Ext. Though NFE has been compared to Ext, it has rarely been compared to counterconditioning (CC), a similar procedure except that the CS is paired with a US having a valence opposite to the US used in initial training. We report two aversive conditioning experiments using the rapid-trial streaming procedure with human participants that compare the efficacies and susceptibilities to ABA renewal of Ext, CC, and NFE. Associative learning was assessed through expectancy learning and evaluative conditioning. CC and NFE equally decreased anticipation of the US in the presence of the CS (i.e., expectancy learning). Depending on how the CS-US association was probed, they were either as or more effective at doing so than Ext. All three interference treatments were equally susceptible to context manipulations. Only CC clearly altered the valence of the CS (i.e., evaluative conditioning). Valence ratings after Ext, CC, and NFE, as well as a no-interference control condition, were all equally susceptible to context effects. Overall, the present study does not support the assertion that NFE is consistently more resistant to recovery effects than Ext. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).