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

Abstract

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.

Figure 1

Schematic illustration of the experimental procedure. (A) Following initial practice trials, a shock work-up procedure was carried out to ensure credibility of the threat-of-shock instructions. Then the experimental session started and afterwards context conditions as well as picture materials were rated. The procedure was completed on three consecutive test days (except for the shock work-up, which was performed only on Day 1). (B) Each experimental session consisted of alternating blocks of instructed threat or safety as indicated by background colors. In each block all faces were presented once (i.e., 4 loved people and 4 unknown faces). Blocks were preceded by instruction slides (I) as a brief reminder.

Figure 2

Self-reported valence, arousal and threat ratings show highly persistent effects of instructed threat compared to safety context across three test days (M and SEM, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05).

Figure 3

Mean startle reflex as a function of (A) instructed context condition, (B) context across test days, (C) face category, and (D) interaction of face category by context condition (M and SEM, ***p < 0.001, *p < 0.05).

Figure 4

Mean skin conductance responses as a function of (A) instructed context condition, (B) context across test days, (C) face category, and (D) interaction of face category by context condition (M and SEM, **p < 0.01).