Expectations of objective threats and aversive feelings in specific fears

Abstract Mistaken beliefs about danger posed by feared stimuli are considered a key factor causing and maintaining fears. Such beliefs are intriguing because many fearful people express them, but acknowledge they are untrue in reality. While previous research indicates fearful individuals may not wholly endorse their beliefs about objective threats (e.g., the spider will bite), expectations of negative subjective consequences (e.g., I will feel terrible) are also likely to be important. We investigated the extent to which participants’ expectations of objective and subjective threats were sensitive to manipulations that encouraged them to consider whether their expectations were likely to happen in reality. Across five online experiments (N = 560, or 727 with more liberal inclusion criteria), such manipulations produced lower expectancy ratings for objective but not subjective threats (versus participants who gave ratings without the manipulation). Most participants reported that anticipation of negative feelings was more concerning than actual danger. Hence, numerous fear-relevant expectations about objective threat—considered central in understanding why people are irrationally afraid—respond to small cognitive manipulations. Additionally, expectations of negative subjective experiences during fear-provoking encounters appear to be more consistently endorsed, and feature prominently in fearful individuals’ concerns about what will happen in a fear-relevant situation

Placebo and Non-specific Effects in Reconsolidation-Based Treatment for Arachnophobia

The idea that maladaptive memories may be rendered susceptible to interference after reactivation raises the possibility of reactivating and neutralizing clinically-relevant emotional memories. In this study, we sought to investigate the feasibility of such a “reconsolidation-based” intervention for arachnophobia, drawing upon previous research that successfully reduced fear of spiders in a subclinical sample. In Experiment 1, we piloted several reactivation procedures for conducting a reconsolidation-based treatment for arachnophobic individuals. All procedures involved some form of brief exposure to a fear-provoking spider, followed by the administration of 40 mg propranolol. In Experiment 2, we conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled assessment of one procedure tested in Experiment 1. In Experiment 1, we found that most reactivation procedures produced drops in self-reported fear of spiders from pre- to post-treatment, including fear declines that were apparent up to 6- and even 14-months later. However, in Experiment 2, we found no evidence that the participants receiving propranolol were better off than those who received placebo. While our findings are limited by the small sample sizes used, they nevertheless show a different pattern of responses than was observed in a previous reconsolidation-based intervention for subclinical spider fearful participants. Alterations to the protocol made to accommodate the clinical participants may have led to greater opportunities for non-specific effects (e.g., exposure, placebo effects) to drive change in the participants. Our findings highlight both the challenges of translating reconsolidation-based procedures into clinical interventions, as well as the importance of controls for non-specific effects in reconsolidation-based research

The future of coffee and cocoa agroforestry in a warmer Mesoamerica

Climate change threatens cofee production and the livelihoods of thousands of families in Mesoamerica that depend on it. Replacing cofee with cocoa and integrating trees in combined agroforestry systems to ameliorate abiotic stress are among the proposed alternatives to overcome this challenge. These two alternatives do not consider the vulnerability of cocoa and tree species commonly used in agroforestry plantations to future climate conditions. We assessed the suitability of these alternatives by identifying the potential changes in the distribution of cofee, cocoa and the 100 most common agroforestry trees found in Mesoamerica. Here we show that cocoa could potentially become an alternative in most of cofee vulnerable areas. Agroforestry with currently preferred tree species is highly vulnerable to future climate change. Transforming agroforestry systems by changing tree species composition may be the best approach to adapt most of the cofee and cocoa production areas. Our results stress the urgency for land use planning considering climate change efects and to assess new combinations of agroforestry species in cofee and cocoa plantations in Mesoamerica