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

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

Psychedelic drug use in healthy individuals:A review of benefits, costs, and implications for drug policy

The potential of psychedelic drugs in the treatment of mental health problems is increasingly being recognized. However, relatively little thrust has been given to the suggestion that individuals without any mental health problems may benefit from using psychedelic drugs, and that they may have a right to do so. This review considers contemporary research into the use of psychedelic drugs in healthy individuals, including neurobiological and subjective effects. In line with findings suggesting positive effects in the treatment of mental health problems, such research highlights the potential of psychedelic drugs for the enhancement of wellbeing even in healthy individuals. The relatively low risk associated with usage does not appear to align with stringent drug laws that impose heavy penalties for their use. Some policy implications, and suggestions for future research, are considered