Reinstatement of thought conditioning following extinction and counterconditioning.

Pairing a cue (e.g., an image of a geometrical figure) with an outcome (e.g., an image with aversive content) can result in the cue eliciting thoughts of that outcome (i.e., thought conditioning). Previous research suggests an advantage of counterconditioning over extinction in reducing thoughts of (aversive) outcomes. However, it is unclear how robust this effect is. This study aimed to (1) replicate the previously observed advantage of counterconditioning over extinction and (2) test whether counterconditioning leads to less reinstatement of thoughts of an aversive outcome relative to extinction. Participants (N = 118) underwent a differential conditioning procedure and were then assigned to one of three conditions: extinction (i.e., the aversive outcome was no longer presented), no extinction (i.e., the aversive outcome continued to be presented) and counterconditioning (i.e., the aversive outcome was replaced with positive images). After three unsignaled outcome presentations, participants indicated in a return of fear test the extent to which they thought of the aversive outcome. As predicted, counterconditioning was more successful in reducing thinking of the aversive outcome than extinction. Yet, there were no differences in return of thoughts of the aversive outcome between the two conditions. Future research should consider other return of fear procedures.