Publication: Señales de seguridad: ¿influyen en la reducción del miedo durante procedimientos de extinción?
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2016-08-24
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
En la actualidad se dispone de intervenciones efectivas para el tratamiento de trastornos de ansiedad y problemas relacionados con miedos condicionados, en especial procedimientos de exposición (Norton & Price, 2007). No obstante, los mecanismos responsables de la reducción del miedo no son aún claros. Esto implica que existe información limitada respecto a las condiciones que favorecen o que interfieren con los procedimientos de exposición. Probablemente, lo anterior se debe a la distancia que existe entre la investigación básica y la investigación aplicada. Particularmente, la investigación básica puede informar cuáles son estas condiciones. En el momento en que un individuo se enfrenta a una situación que provoca temor, se observa una tendencia a presentar conductas de escape. Sin embargo, cuando no es posible escapar (por ejemplo, durante un ataque de pánico), es frecuente observar que los individuos recurren a conductas de seguridad. Un ejemplo de estas conductas es acudir a una “persona de seguridad”. Las conductas de seguridad facilitan la aparición de “señales de seguridad”, que a su vez reducen el miedo. La sola presencia de la “persona de seguridad” puede hacer que el miedo que experimenta el individuo se reduzca. También es posible que una afirmación como “no hay peligro, todo está bien” (proveniente de la “persona de seguridad”), sea suficiente para que el miedo disminuya. En el ejemplo, la conducta de seguridad consiste en llamar a la “persona de seguridad”, mientras que recibir la información sobre la ausencia de peligro, constituye la “señal de seguridad”. La diferencia entre estos dos conceptos, consiste en que las “conductas de seguridad” implican procesos instrumentales, es decir relaciones entre una conducta y una consecuencia. Por otro lado, las “señales de seguridad” involucran relaciones entre estímulos (estímulo condicionado y estímulo incondicionado) es decir, procesos pavlovianos...
Currently, there are effective interventions for the treatment of anxiety disorders and fear related problems (Norton & Price, 2007). Nevertheless, the mechanisms responsible for fear reduction are not yet clear. This means there is limited information regarding the conditions that favor or interfere exposure-based procedures. The latter is probably due to the existing gap between basic and applied research. Particularly, basic research may provide information regarding those conditions. When an individual faces a fear provoking situation, it is observed a tendency to escape. However, when that is not possible (for instance, during a panic attack), it is frequent to observe that individuals resort to safety behaviors. An example of such behaviors is seeking for a “safety person”. Safety behaviors lead to safety signals, which in turn reduce fear responses. The mere presence of the “safety person” may be sufficient to decrease the fear experienced by an individual. Additionally, it is also possible that a statement such as “there is no danger, it is going to be fine” (coming from the “safety person”), may be enough for fear to decrease. In the previous example, the safety behavior consists on reaching to the “safety person”; receiving the information about the absence of danger constitutes the safety signal. The difference between these two concepts is due to the fact that safety behaviors imply instrumental processes (this is a relationship between a behavior and a consequence). On the other hand, safety signals involve a relationship between two stimuli (a condition stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus); this is, pavlovian processes...
Currently, there are effective interventions for the treatment of anxiety disorders and fear related problems (Norton & Price, 2007). Nevertheless, the mechanisms responsible for fear reduction are not yet clear. This means there is limited information regarding the conditions that favor or interfere exposure-based procedures. The latter is probably due to the existing gap between basic and applied research. Particularly, basic research may provide information regarding those conditions. When an individual faces a fear provoking situation, it is observed a tendency to escape. However, when that is not possible (for instance, during a panic attack), it is frequent to observe that individuals resort to safety behaviors. An example of such behaviors is seeking for a “safety person”. Safety behaviors lead to safety signals, which in turn reduce fear responses. The mere presence of the “safety person” may be sufficient to decrease the fear experienced by an individual. Additionally, it is also possible that a statement such as “there is no danger, it is going to be fine” (coming from the “safety person”), may be enough for fear to decrease. In the previous example, the safety behavior consists on reaching to the “safety person”; receiving the information about the absence of danger constitutes the safety signal. The difference between these two concepts is due to the fact that safety behaviors imply instrumental processes (this is a relationship between a behavior and a consequence). On the other hand, safety signals involve a relationship between two stimuli (a condition stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus); this is, pavlovian processes...
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Psicología, Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico I (Personalidad, Evaluación y Psicología Clínica), leída el 01-12-2015