Men Scare Me More: Gender Differences in Social Fear Conditioning in Virtual Reality.
avoidance behavior
fear ratings
fear-potentiated startle
recognition
social anxiety disorder
social fear conditioning
virtual reality
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
31
01
2019
accepted:
26
06
2019
entrez:
17
8
2019
pubmed:
17
8
2019
medline:
17
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Women nearly twice as often develop social anxiety disorder (SAD) compared to men. The reason for this difference is still being debated. The present study investigates gender differences and the effect of male versus female agents in low (LSA) and high socially anxious (HSA) participants regarding the acquisition and extinction of social fear in virtual reality (VR). In a social fear conditioning (SFC) paradigm, 60 participants actively approached several agents, some of which were paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) consisting of a verbal rejection and spitting simulated by an aversive air blast (CS+), or without an US (CS-). Primary outcome variables were defined for each of the 4 levels of emotional reactions including experience (fear ratings), psychophysiology (fear-potentiated startle), behavior (avoidance), and cognition (recognition task). Secondary outcome variables were personality traits, contingency ratings, heart rate (HR), and skin conductance response (SCR). As hypothesized, fear ratings for CS+ increased significantly during acquisition and the differentiation between CS+ and CS- vanished during extinction. Additionally, women reported higher fear compared to men. Furthermore, a clear difference in the fear-potentiated startle response between male CS+ and CS- at the end of acquisition indicates successful SFC to male agents in both groups. Concerning behavior, results exhibited successful SFC in both groups and a general larger distance to agents in HSA than LSA participants. Furthermore, HSA women maintained a larger distance to male compared to female agents. No such differences were found for HSA men. Regarding recognition, participants responded with higher sensitivity to agent than object stimuli, suggesting a higher ability to distinguish the target from the distractor for social cues, which were on focus during SFC. Regarding the secondary physiological outcome variables, we detected an activation in HR response during acquisition, but there were no differences between stimuli or groups. Moreover, we observed a gender but no CS+/CS- differences in SCR. SFC was successfully induced and extinguished according to the primary outcome variables. VR is an interesting tool to measure emotional learning processes on different outcome levels with enhanced ecological validity. Future research should further investigate social fear learning mechanisms for developing more efficient treatments of SAD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31417443
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01617
pmc: PMC6657456
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1617Références
Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Apr;176:379-86
pubmed: 10827888
Behav Res Ther. 2001 Aug;39(8):967-75
pubmed: 11480837
Biol Psychiatry. 2002 Aug 15;52(4):328-37
pubmed: 12208640
J Anxiety Disord. 2002;16(5):495-510
pubmed: 12396208
Psychophysiology. 1992 Nov;29(6):646-56
pubmed: 1461955
Psychophysiology. 2005 Jan;42(1):1-15
pubmed: 15720576
Behav Res Ther. 2005 Nov;43(11):1391-424
pubmed: 15885654
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005 Aug;15(4):453-62
pubmed: 15921898
Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Mar 15;59(6):516-22
pubmed: 16213468
Biol Psychol. 2006 Jun;72(3):265-70
pubmed: 16343731
Learn Mem. 2006 Jul-Aug;13(4):441-50
pubmed: 16847304
Behav Neurosci. 2006 Dec;120(6):1196-203
pubmed: 17201462
J Anxiety Disord. 2008;22(3):561-9
pubmed: 17544252
Psychol Assess. 2007 Jun;19(2):176-88
pubmed: 17563199
Psychol Assess. 2007 Sep;19(3):340-6
pubmed: 17845125
J Anxiety Disord. 2008 Jun;22(5):849-59
pubmed: 17923381
Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;165(1):124-32
pubmed: 18006874
Cogn Behav Ther. 2007;36(4):193-209
pubmed: 18049945
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 Mar;127(3):567-80
pubmed: 18226795
J Anxiety Disord. 2009 Jan;23(1):93-103
pubmed: 18534814
Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008 Aug;11(4):425-30
pubmed: 18721090
Psychophysiology. 2009 Sep;46(5):984-95
pubmed: 19558401
J Vis Exp. 2010 Aug 09;(42):null
pubmed: 20736913
Biol Psychol. 2013 Jan;92(1):90-6
pubmed: 22223096
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Apr;8(4):438-45
pubmed: 22287265
Cogn Emot. 2012;26(7):1256-72
pubmed: 22551520
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47539
pubmed: 23077631
Front Psychol. 2012 Nov 02;3:471
pubmed: 23130011
Behav Res Ther. 2013 Feb;51(2):68-74
pubmed: 23261707
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2014 Sep;113:143-8
pubmed: 24120427
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014 Dec;39(13):3027-35
pubmed: 24964815
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 Jul;10(7):929-37
pubmed: 25338634
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 18;9(11):e111511
pubmed: 25405344
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Apr;70:476-85
pubmed: 25541499
Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 30;6:26
pubmed: 25688218
Depress Anxiety. 2015 Apr;32(4):239-53
pubmed: 25703487
Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 07;6:400
pubmed: 25904889
J Abnorm Psychol. 1989 Nov;98(4):395-406
pubmed: 2592673
Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 1;79(3):213-21
pubmed: 26208744
Biol Psychol. 2016 Dec;121(Pt B):146-152
pubmed: 26987423
J Anxiety Disord. 2016 Dec;44:36-46
pubmed: 27728838
Learn Mem. 2016 Dec 15;24(1):43-54
pubmed: 27980075
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Jun;77:247-285
pubmed: 28263758
Psychol Bull. 1986 Jan;99(1):20-35
pubmed: 2871574
Front Psychol. 2017 Nov 14;8:1979
pubmed: 29250000
Front Psychol. 2018 May 07;9:657
pubmed: 29867639
Biol Psychol. 2018 Sep;137:49-64
pubmed: 29990522
Behav Res Ther. 1996 Oct;34(10):787-94
pubmed: 8952121
Behav Res Ther. 1997 Aug;35(8):741-56
pubmed: 9256517
Br J Clin Psychol. 1997 Nov;36 ( Pt 4):467-88
pubmed: 9403141
Behav Res Ther. 1998 Apr;36(4):455-70
pubmed: 9670605