分类和概念对恐惧泛化的影响机制

恐惧泛化与多种焦虑障碍的病理基础密切相关。例如创伤后应激障碍个体往往持续地逃避与创伤事件有关的刺激,遭受着创伤痛苦折磨。本文在厘清知觉辨别与恐惧泛化关系的基础上,着力于高级认知过程(分类与概念相似性、典型性和人工概念)对恐惧泛化的影响,回顾了恐惧泛化的相关神经机制,并揭示恐惧泛化对焦虑障碍患者的临床治疗启示。未来研究应将知觉和高级认知维度的恐惧泛化进行整合研究,同时扩充恐惧习得和泛化的神经回路,以促进人类恐惧泛化更深入的研究。     

他人在场抑制条件性恐惧泛化

本研究采用经典的知觉辨别恐惧条件反射范式,将主观电击预期和皮肤电反应作为主要指标,考察他人在场对恐惧习得过程和恐惧泛化程度的影响。结果发现,恐惧习得过程未出现显著的组间差异。在恐惧泛化上,他人在场抑制了恐惧泛化水平,表现为皮肤电泛化水平更低、泛化梯度更广。研究初步证明,他人在场可能会分散个体的注意资源,降低个体的知觉辨别能力,进而抑制恐惧泛化。因此,他人在场在临床上对情绪障碍,特别是恐惧和焦虑相关障碍群体的干预作用值得重视。     

积极情绪对条件性恐惧泛化的抑制作用

恐惧的过度泛化是焦虑障碍的核心症状之一,表现为患者对与原危险刺激极不相似的安全刺激也产生恐惧反应。本研究采用经典条件恐惧范式,以US主观预期、回溯性恐惧评定、回溯性效价评定和皮电反应作为恐惧反应的指标,通过"最好自我"训练来诱发被试的积极情绪,考察了恐惧习得后的积极情绪对于恐惧泛化的影响。本研究发现,积极情绪能有效地抑制条件性恐惧的泛化,增强被试对安全信号的学习,并对消退后的恐惧重建现象起到预防作用。研究同时显示,恐惧泛化在主观评定指标和生理指标间出现了分离,这表明积极情绪对恐惧泛化的抑制作用是一个综合的过程,可能涉及到不同的作用机制。本研究结果提示可以通过诱发积极情绪,抑制条件性恐惧的泛化,对临床干预有一定的启发意义。     

状态焦虑对条件性恐惧泛化的影响

恐惧的过度泛化是焦虑障碍患者重要的潜在病因,探索焦虑对恐惧泛化的影响具有重要意义。本研究在恐惧习得后,通过恐惧创伤电影范式诱发状态焦虑组被试的焦虑水平,采用主观预期值和皮电反应值作为指标,考察状态焦虑对条件性恐惧泛化的影响。结果表明,恐惧创伤电影范式显著提高了状态焦虑组被试的焦虑水平。在泛化阶段,状态焦虑组被试表现出更强的恐惧泛化,对与条件刺激相似的泛化刺激表现出更强烈的恐惧以及更高的预期。状态焦虑使得被试恐惧泛化的消退更慢,持续时间更长。研究同时发现,在状态焦虑下,被试对条件刺激的辨识出现增强趋势。研究结果提示在对经历负性事件个体进行临床干预时,可通过降低其焦虑水平来减少过度泛化。     

与恐惧相关的简化刺激在不同知觉负载条件下的注意捕获效应

本研究选用视觉搜索范式,探讨了与恐惧相关的简化刺激在不同知觉负载条件下的注意捕获效应。结果发现:在分心物刺激为清晰的条件下,与恐惧相关的分心物刺激能够优先捕获被试注意,即使分心物刺激在一定程度上被简化,与恐惧相关的简化分心物刺激依然具有加工优先权,并且与恐惧相关的简化刺激在低知觉负载条件下和高知觉负载条件下的注意捕获量并没有显著差异,这一结果表明,与恐惧相关的简化刺激不受知觉负载的限制,能够自动化加工。     

疼痛恐惧的形成、泛化与消退

疼痛恐惧源于把疼痛等同于伤害的灾难化信念及对疼痛的负性解释, 它在慢性疼痛和能力丧失的发生和发展过程中起着重要作用。疼痛恐惧可以通过联合学习和观察学习等方式获得, 并且在具有相似特征的刺激中存在泛化现象。通过教育干预和等级暴露疗法等可以成功消退疼痛恐惧, 在消退过程中要控制安全信息等因素的不良影响。在疼痛恐惧的获得与消退中, 主要有杏仁核, 脑岛和前扣带皮层等脑区参与。未来的研究可以集中在深入探讨疼痛恐惧形成中的泛化及消退后的恢复、再巩固等现象, 加强其临床上的应用, 并综合心理、生物和认知神经科学, 研究疼痛恐惧的获得、泛化与消退的深层机制。     

知觉和概念信息对3岁儿童归纳推理的影响

采用经典的三角归纳范式(Gelman & Markman,1986)研究了3岁儿童的归纳推理及其影响因素。采用龙长权、路晓英、李红和范籍丹(2008)的研究中相同的实验材料和程序,测试了3岁儿童的归纳,结果表明3岁儿童基于知觉相似和基于概念类别之间的差异不显著(实验一)。增加了与靶刺激在知觉上不相似且不属于同一类别的分心刺激之后,3岁儿童能够忽略分心刺激,表明3岁儿童不是在随机猜测(实验二)。分类实验表明3岁儿童能够根据概念关系对实验材料中的项目进行分类,表明3岁儿童具有关于实验项目的概念知识(实验三)。提高概念比较刺激与靶刺激的知觉相似程度,降低知觉比较刺激和概念比较刺激与靶刺激在知觉相似上的冲突程度之后,3岁儿童基于知觉相似和基于概念类别选择之间的差异仍不显著,表明抑制控制不是导致儿童在实验一中表现出基于知觉相似和基于概念类别之间差异不显著的原因(实验四)。降低概念比较刺激与靶刺激之间的类别等级结构,使概念比较刺激与靶刺激属于相同的基本水平类别时,3岁儿童能够主要基于概念类别进行归纳(实验五)。增加经典三角测试的前提的数量,3岁儿童也能主要基于概念类别进行归纳(实验六)。这些研究表明,3岁儿童在一定条件下能够基于概念类别进行归纳,多个因素能够影响3岁儿童在三角测试中的表现。     

知觉启动效应及其脑机制的研究进展

该文从三个方面对知觉启动效应研究进行了回顾：(1)知觉启动的一般特征：(2)刺激的物理特征与知觉启动之间的关系;(3)知觉启动的神经解剖基础及神经机制。该文指出．知觉启动主要加工刺激表面的物理特征;刺激的大小、位置、颜色、模式等特征尽管对知觉启动有影响．但刺激的形状和结构等特征对于知觉启动更重要;知觉启动主要受枕部皮层的调节。最后,讨论了几个有关知觉启动机制的理论假说。     

知觉启动效应及其脑机制的研究进展

启动效应是内隐记忆研究的主要对象,人们认为至少存在着两种类型的启动效应——知觉启动和概念启动。知觉启动被认为主要反应对刺激形式的优先加工,概念启动被认为主要反应对刺激意义的优先加工。通常被认为具有知觉特征的启动任务有：阈下呈现的单词识别,词干补笔,残词补笔,和图片命名等。     

条件性恐惧泛化的性别差异

恐惧的过度泛化是焦虑障碍的核心症状之一, 表现为患者对与原危险刺激极不相似的中性刺激也有着较高强度的恐惧反应。临床上, 女性比男性更有可能患焦虑障碍, 因而对恐惧泛化进行性别差异研究可以为解释女性有着更高焦虑障碍发病率提供新的角度, 同时为临床治疗提供参考。本研究采用辨别性条件恐惧范式, 以主观预期值和皮电反应值作为测量指标, 从行为和生理两个层面对条件性恐惧泛化程度和恐惧泛化消退的性别差异进行研究。结果发现, 在恐惧泛化程度上, 未出现显著性别差异。在恐惧泛化消退上, 在主观预期值和皮电反应值两个层面均有着显著性别差异, 具体表现为相较于男性, 女性恐惧泛化的消退更慢, 持续时间更长。研究结果表明, 女性焦虑障碍高发病率的潜在影响因素之一可能在于女性对于恐惧泛化刺激的难以消除。     

Generalization of conditioned fear along a dimension of increasing fear intensity

The present study investigated the extent to which fear generalization in humans is determined by the amount of fear intensity in nonconditioned stimuli relative to a perceptually similar conditioned stimulus. Stimuli consisted of graded emotionally expressive faces of the same identity morphed between neutral and fearful endpoints. Two experimental groups underwent discriminative fear conditioning between a face stimulus of 55% fear intensity (conditioned stimulus, CS+), reinforced with an electric shock, and a second stimulus that was unreinforced (CS−). In Experiment 1 the CS− was a relatively neutral face stimulus, while in Experiment 2 the CS− was the most fear-intense stimulus. Before and following fear conditioning, skin conductance responses (SCR) were recorded to different morph values along the neutral-to-fear dimension. Both experimental groups showed gradients of generalization following fear conditioning that increased with the fear intensity of the stimulus. In Experiment 1 a peak shift in SCRs extended to the most fear-intense stimulus. In contrast, generalization to the most fear-intense stimulus was reduced in Experiment 2, suggesting that discriminative fear learning procedures can attenuate fear generalization. Together, the findings indicate that fear generalization is broadly tuned and sensitive to the amount of fear intensity in nonconditioned stimuli, but that fear generalization can come under stimulus control. These results reveal a novel form of fear generalization in humans that is not merely based on physical similarity to a conditioned exemplar, and may have implications for understanding generalization processes in anxiety disorders characterized by heightened sensitivity to nonthreatening stimuli.Fear generalization occurs when a fear response acquired to a particular stimulus transfers to another stimulus. Generalization is often an adaptive function that allows an organism to rapidly respond to novel stimuli that are related in some way to a previously learned stimulus. Fear generalization, however, can be maladaptive when nonthreatening stimuli are inappropriately treated as harmful, based on similarity to a known threat. For example, an individual may acquire fear of all dogs after an aversive experience with a single vicious dog. In this case, recognizing that a novel animal is related to a feared (or fear-conditioned) animal is made possible in part by shared physical features to the fear exemplar, such as four legs and a tail. On the other hand, fear generalization may be selective for those features that are associated with natural categories of threat; a harmless dog may not pose a threat, but possesses naturally threatening features common to other threatening animals, such as sharp teeth and claws. Moreover, the degree to which an individual fearful of dogs responds with fear may be related to either the physical similarity to the originally feared animal (e.g., from a threatening black dog to another black dog), or the intensity of those threatening features relative to the originally feared animal (e.g., sharp teeth from one animal to sharp teeth of another animal). Therefore, fear generalization based on perceptual information may occur via two routes—similarity to a learned fear exemplar along nonthreatening physical dimensions or along dimensions of fear relevance. Given that fear generalization often emerges as a consequence of conditioning or observational learning, it is important to determine which characteristics of novel stimuli facilitate fear generalization and the extent to which generalization processes can be controlled.Early explanations of stimulus generalization emphasized that an organism''s ability to generalize to nonconditioned stimuli is related to both the similarity and discriminability to a previously conditioned stimulus (CS) (Hull 1943; Lashley and Wade 1946). While Lashley and Wade (1946) argued that generalization was simply a failure of discriminating between a nonconditioned stimulus (CS−) and the reinforced CS (CS+), contemporary views contend that generalization enables learning to extend to stimuli that are readily perceptually distinguished from the CS (Pearce 1987; Shepard 1987; McLaren and Mackintosh 2002). This latter view has been supported by empirical studies of stimulus generalization in laboratory animals (Guttman and Kalish 1956; Honig and Urcuioli 1981). In these studies, animals were reinforced for responding to a CS of a specific physical quality such as color, and then tested with several different values along the same stimulus dimension as the CS (e.g., at various wavelengths along the color spectrum). Orderly gradients of responses are often reported that peak at or near the reinforced value and decrease as a function of physical similarity to the CS along the stimulus dimension (Honig and Urcuioli 1981). Further generalization was shown to extend from the CS+ to discriminable nonconditioned stimuli, suggesting that generalization is not bound to the organism''s ability to discriminate stimuli (Guttman and Kalish 1956, 1958; Shepard 1987).Interestingly, when animals learn to distinguish between a CS+ and a CS−, the peak of behavioral responses often shift to a new value along the dimension that is further away from the CS− (Hanson 1959). For instance, when being trained to discriminate a green CS+ and an orange CS−, pigeons will key peck more to a greenish-blue color than the actual CS+ hue. Intradimensional generalization of this sort is reduced when animals are trained to discriminate between two or more stimulus values that are relatively close during conditioning (e.g., discriminating a green-yellow CS+ from a green-blue CS−), suggesting that the extent of generalization can come under stimulus control through reinforcement learning (Jenkins and Harrison 1962). Spence (1937) described the transposition of response magnitude as an effect of interacting gradients of excitation and inhibition formed around the CS+ and CS−, respectively, which summate to shift responses to values further from the inhibitory CS− gradient. In all, early theoretical and empirical treatments of stimulus generalization in nonhuman animals revealed that behavior transfers to stimuli that are physically similar, but can be discriminated from a CS, and that differential reinforcement training can both sharpen the stimulus gradient and shift the peak of responses to a nonreinforced value.Although this rich literature has revealed principles of generalization in nonhuman animals, few studies of fear generalization have been conducted in humans (for review, see Honig and Urcuioli 1981; Ghirlanda and Enquist 2003). Moreover, the existing human studies have yet to consider the second route through which fear responses may generalize—via gradients of fear relevance. While a wide range of neutral stimuli, such as tones or geometric figures, can acquire fear relevance through conditioning processes, other stimuli, such as threatening faces or spiders, are biologically prepared to be fear relevant (Lanzetta and Orr 1980; Dimberg and Öhman 1996; Whalen et al. 1998; Öhman and Mineka 2001). Compared with fear-irrelevant CSs, biologically prepared stimuli capture attention (Öhman et al. 2001), are conditioned without awareness (Öhman et al. 1995; Öhman and Soares 1998), increase brain activity in visual and emotional processing regions (Sabatinelli et al. 2005), and become more resistant to extinction when paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) (Öhman et al. 1975). Although the qualitative nature of the CS influences acquisition and expression of conditioned fear, it is unknown how generalization proceeds along a gradient of natural threat. For instance, human studies to date have all tested variations of a CS along physically neutral stimulus dimensions, such as tone frequency (Hovland 1937), geometric shape (Vervliet et al. 2006), and physical size (Lissek et al. 2008). These investigations implicitly assume that the generalization gradient is independent of the conditioned value (equipotentiality principle). In other words, since the stimuli are all equally neutral prior to fear learning, fear generalization operates solely as a function of similarity along the reinforced physical dimension. However, since fear learning is predisposed toward fear-relevant stimuli, generalization may be selective to those shared features between a CS+ and CS− that are associated with natural categories of threat. Examining generalization using fear-relevant stimuli is thus important to gain better ecological validity and to develop a model system for studying maladaptive fear generalization in individuals who may express exaggerated fear responses to nonthreatening stimuli following a highly charged aversive experience (i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder or specific phobias).To address this issue, the present study examined generalization to fearful faces along an intradimensional gradient of fear intensity. A fearful face is considered a biologically prepared stimulus that recruits sensory systems automatically for rapid motor responses (Öhman and Mineka 2001), and detecting fearful faces may be evolutionarily selected as an adaptive response to social signals of impending danger (Lanzetta and Orr 1980; Dimberg and Öhman 1996). During conditioning, an ambiguous face containing 55% fear intensity (CS+) was paired with an electric shock US, while a relatively neutral face (11% fear intensity) was explicitly unreinforced (CS−) (Experiment 1). Skin conductance responses (SCR) were recorded as a dependent measure of fear conditioning. Before and following fear conditioning, SCRs were recorded in response to face morphs of the same actor expressing several values of increasing fear intensity (from 11% to 100%; see Fig. 1). A total of five values along the continuum were used: 11% fear/88% neutral, 33% fear/66% neutral, 55% fear/44% neutral, 77% fear/22% neutral, and 100% fear. For clarity, these stimuli are herein after labeled as S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5, respectively.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Experimental design. (A) Pre-conditioning included six presentations of all five stimulus values without the US. (B) Fear conditioning involved discriminative fear learning between the S3, paired with the US (CS+), and either the unreinforced S1 (Experiment 1) or the unreinforced S5 (Experiment 2) (CS−). (C) The generalization test included nine presentations of all five stimuli (45 total), with three out of nine S3 trials reinforced with the US. Stimuli are not drawn to scale.Testing generalization along an intradimensional gradient of emotional expression intensity allows for an examination of the relative contributions of fear intensity and physical similarity on the magnitude of generalized fear responses. If fear generalization is determined purely by the perceptual overlap between the CS+ and other morph values, without regard to fear intensity, then we would expect a bell-shaped generalization function with the maximum SCR centered on the reinforced (intermediate) CS+ value (S3), less responding to the directly adjacent, but most perceptually similar values (S2 and S4), and the least amount of responding to the most distal and least perceptually similar morph values (S1 and S5). This finding would be in line with stimulus generalization reported along fear-irrelevant dimensions (Lissek et al. 2008) and in stimulus generalization studies using appetitive instrumental learning procedures (Guttman and Kalish 1956). If, however, fear generalization is biased toward nonconditioned stimuli of high fear intensity, then an asymmetric generalization function should result with maximal responding to the most fear-intense nonconditioned stimuli. This finding would suggest that fear generalization is selective to the degree of fear intensity in stimuli, similar to studies of physical intensity generalization gradients in nonhuman animals (Ghirlanda and Enquist 2003). We predicted that the latter effect would be observed, such that the magnitude of SCRs will disproportionately generalize to stimuli possessing a greater degree of fear intensity than the CS+ (Experiment 1). A secondary goal was to determine whether fear generalization to nonconditioned stimuli can be reduced through discriminative fear learning processes. Therefore, a second group of participants was run for whom the CS− was the 100% fearful face (Experiment 2). In this case, we predicted that discriminative fear conditioning between the CS+ (55% intensity) and the most fear-intense nonconditioned stimulus would sharpen the generalization gradient around the reinforced CS+ value, and that responses to the most fear-intense stimulus would decrease relative to Experiment 1. Moreover, this discriminative fear-learning process may provide evidence that fear generalization is influenced by associative learning processes and is not exclusively driven by selective sensitization to stimuli of high fear relevance (Lovibond et al. 1993). Finally, we were interested to discover whether generalization processes would yield subsequent false memory for the intensity of the CS+ in a post-experimental retrospective report. In sum, the present study has implications for understanding how fear generalization is related to the degree of fear intensity of a nonconditioned stimulus, the extent to which discrimination training efforts can thwart the generalization process, and how fear generalization affects stimulus recognition.     

Is pain-related fear a predictor of somatosensory hypervigilance in chronic low back pain patients?

Pain-related fear has been found to be associated with increased disability and increased pain perception in patients with chronic low back pain. A possible mechanism by which pain-related fear could lead to increased pain perception is heightened attention to somatosensory sensations. In the present study, chronic pain patients reporting either a high or low level of pain related fear and control participants performed an auditory reaction time task, while occasionally non-painful electrical stimuli--accompanied by threatening instructions--were given to the arm or back. In the primary task condition, participants had to perform the auditory task while ignoring the electrical stimuli. Next, the task was presented under dual task conditions in which participants had to respond both to tones as well as to detection of electrical stimuli. It was hypothesized that for the primary task, high fearful patients would show greater disruption of performance on the auditory task than low fearful patients and controls when stimuli were presented to the back. For the dual task, slower reaction times for the auditory task, in combination with faster detection of electrical stimuli was expected. The hypotheses were not confirmed but patients scoring high on pain-related fear did show an overall increase in reaction time for all conditions of the primary task, with or without simultaneous stimulation. Regression analyses demonstrated that high pain-related fear was associated with increased reaction time to tones both in patients and healthy controls, and that within patients pain-related fear was a better predictor of reaction time to tones than present pain intensity. The findings may be interpreted as showing that patients with elevated levels of pain-related fear habitually attend to somatic sensations, giving less priority to other attention-demanding tasks.     

Trait Anxiety and Fear Responses to Safety Cues: Stimulus Generalization or Sensitization?

Abnormal fear responding to threat cues may contribute to the aetiology and maintenance of persistent fears and pathological anxiety. Chronic anxiety may also involve abnormal fear responding to ??safety?? cues, which do not signal danger. Yet investigations of fear responding to acquired safety cues are scarce and the basis of such responding remains unclear. Moreover, previous studies do not distinguish between stimulus generalization (an associative mechanism based on perceptual similarity between threat and safety cues) and sensitization (a non-associative mechanism whereby fear responses to any novel, intense, or fear-related stimulus are temporarily elevated). This study investigated responses to acquired safety cues in volunteers with varying trait anxiety, using a novel fear conditioning paradigm designed to distinguish between effects of trait anxiety on generalization and sensitization. The paradigm used three conditioned stimuli: a threat cue (CS+) and two safety cues (CS?), one perceptually similar to the CS+ and one perceptually dissimilar. Conditioned fear to these cues was indexed by fear potentiation of the startle blink reflex, skin conductance responses, and self-report. To examine how trait anxiety moderated responses to safety cues, participants were divided into high and low trait anxiety subgroups. Startle, skin conductance, and self-reported fear measures indicated that generalization of fear occurred for the safety cue which resembled the threat cue, but not for the perceptually dissimilar safety cue, consistent with the stimulus generalization hypothesis. There was some evidence that stimulus generalization was exaggerated in anxious individuals. The current study sheds light on the mechanism by which fear responses to safety cues arise in healthy individuals, and offers some insight into the influence of this mechanism in chronic anxiety.     

Stimulus hierarchy generalization in systematic desensitization

A group of snake phobic Ss were desensitized to the first 5 items of a standard 7 item snake fear hierarchy in which the items were ordered on the basis of distance from a snake. This group and a no-treatment control group (which did not receive the desensitization) were treated for fear of all the hierarchy stimuli in terms of ratings both before and after the desensitization. The Ss rated their fear responses to all the stimuli as presented to them in (1) real form (2) by slide, and (3) in imaginal form. The results verified all four experimental hypotheses: (1) The experimental Ss showed greater fear reduction than the control Ss to both the training stimuli (the stimuli on which desensitization done) and the generalization stimuli (the other two stimuli), (2) The systematic desensitization (SD) group showed (a) more fear reduction to the last training stimuli than to the lower generalization stimulus and (b) more to the latter than to the higher generalization stimulus, (3) The SD group showed less fear reduction to the generalization stimuli in their real form than in both the slide and imaginai modalities (in the desensitization each stimulus presentation was done first in slide form and then in imaginal form), and (4) There were significant overall individual differences in generalization of fear reduction to the generalization stimuli.     

Pavlovian Disgust Conditioning and Generalization: Specificity and Associations With Individual Differences

Although studies have identified differences between fear and disgust conditioning, much less is known about the generalization of conditioned disgust. This is an important gap in the literature given that overgeneralization of conditioned disgust to neutral stimuli may have clinical implications. To address this knowledge gap, female participants (n = 80) completed a Pavlovian conditioning procedure in which one neutral food item (conditioned stimulus; CS+) was followed by disgusting videos of individuals vomiting (unconditioned stimulus; US) and another neutral food item (CS–) was not reinforced with the disgusting video. Following this acquisition phase, there was an extinction phase in which both CSs were presented unreinforced. Importantly, participants also evaluated generalization stimuli (GS+, GS?) that resembled, but were distinct from, the CS after each conditioning phase. As predicted, the CS+ was rated as significantly more disgusting and fear inducing than the CS? after acquisition and this pattern persisted after extinction. However, disgust ratings of the CS+ after acquisition were significantly larger than fear ratings. Participants also rated the GS+ as significantly more disgusting, but not fear inducing, than the GS? after acquisition. However, this effect was not observed after extinction. Disgust proneness did predict a greater increase in disgust and fear ratings of the CS+ relative to the CS? after acquisition and extinction. In contrast, trait anxiety predicted only higher fear ratings to the CS+ relative to the CS? after acquisition and extinction. Disgust proneness nor trait anxiety predicted the greater increase in disgust to the GS+ relative to the GS? after acquisition. These findings suggest that while conditioned disgust can generalize, individual difference variables that predict generalization remain unclear. The implications of these findings for disorders of disgust are discussed.     

Switching from approach to withdrawal is easier than vice versa

The preparedness theory of classical conditioning proposed by Seligman (1970, 1971) has been applied extensively over the past 40 years to explain the nature and “source” of human fear and phobias. In this review we examine the formative studies that tested the four defining characteristics of prepared learning with animal fear-relevant stimuli (typically snakes and spiders) and consider claims that fear of social stimuli, such as angry faces, or faces of racial out-group members, may also be acquired utilising the same preferential learning mechanism. Exposition of critical differences between fear learning to animal and social stimuli suggests that a single account cannot adequately explain fear learning with animal and social stimuli. We demonstrate that fear conditioned to social stimuli is less robust than fear conditioned to animal stimuli as it is susceptible to cognitive influence and propose that it may instead reflect on negative stereotypes and social norms. Thus, a theoretical model that can accommodate the influence of both biological and cultural factors is likely to have broader utility in the explanation of fear and avoidance responses than accounts based on a single mechanism.