The Use of Classical Conditioning to Produce Fear and PTSD

Abstract

The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes classical conditioning as “Conditioning in which the conditioned stimulus (such as the sound of a bell) is paired with and precedes the unconditioned stimulus (such as the sight of food) until the conditioned stimulus alone is sufficient to elicit the response (such as salivation in a dog)”(Merriam-Webster). This paper looks at two journals dealing with the lasting effects of classical conditioning. The first journal will describe the generalization of fear inside of PTSD. This experiment was conducted on females from the ages of eighteen to sixty-five that experienced childhood maltreatment.

The results concluded that these women were completely healthy but did show signs of PTSD. While they did not show signs like a soldier would returning home from war, they manifest the psychological signals and signs. These women were also paired with women who did not experience traumatic situations and gave a better response to treatment. The second journal provides explanations of how negative classical conditioning affects our brain and the mode network connectivity. The tactic of fear conditioning was copiously used throughout the duration of this experiment. Fear conditioning is a form of classical conditioning that connects an uncomfortable, or painful, stimulus with a neutral stimulus. The result shows the human reaction to fear in the presence of this stimulus. For example, an electrode would be placed on the thumb of the participant and they would receive a shock. This shock would occur at random times to test the difference in reaction to the environments the participant was placed in.

The Use of Classical Conditioning to Produce Fear and PTSD

Many different studies have been conducted to discover the true effects of classical conditioning, and most reach the same consensus. Ivan Pavlov used the tactic of classical conditioning to measure the salivation of dogs. He would ring a bell to signal he was bringing food, in turn the dogs would hear the bell and associate it with the food. As the experiment furthered, he would ring the bell in advance and then measure the salivation. He noted that the dogs, after being conditioned for a time, salivated the same as smelling the food (Mcleod). A more modern experiment was conducted and revealed an interesting result.

Method

The experiment took a sample group of women who had a traumatic childhood and tested them for signs of PTSD. When prompted with a tactic of fear conditioning, all women in the group showed signs of PTSD and extreme fear. Fear conditioning can be conducted in many ways. In this experiment, the conductors placed electrodes on the thumbs of the participants and placed them in different situations. Each situation had a unique environment and at random times there would be an electric shock through the electrodes. How the participant reacted was noted and used to identify if the woman has underlying signs of PTSD. The next step of the process was to use another group of women who had not prior traumatic instances. They were then paired with a woman from the original sample group. When tested again, now being in the presence of another woman, the women from the original sample group were more relaxed and showed little signs of fear (Thome).

When looking at the bigger picture, all conditioning does is give our subconscious a way to control us while being conscious. Just like in Pavlov’s experiment, the dogs learned that when the bell was rung, they were going to be fed. This point leads right into the second experiment. This experiment took a different approach to classical conditioning. The conductors decided to look at the human brain and decipher how this natural hypnosis trains our brain. They are studying what is called the Default Mode Network (DMN). In this study, they claim the DMN is “involved in affective learning and described as facilitating a state of readiness in responding to environmental changes.” This piece of our extremely complex puzzle is small but mighty. The DMN is what humans use as a buffer to new environmental changes. In this experiment the observers, just like in the first experiment, attached electrodes to the participants. They would show a series of colorful objects and give shocks at designated times without warning. Opposite from the first experiment, this shock wasn’t small or insignificant. Before the test began, the participants were shocked to discover their “pain threshold.” Once this threshold was outlined, the voltage was increased to accurately measure the Skin Conductance Response (SCR). The SCR is the physical reactions to shock and were monitored through the electrodes. After copious amounts of tests, the results showed that the shocks gave a direct shot to the brain and caused a state of panic and fear in the participant. Even though this reaction is normal, when paired with the stimulus in front of the participants, there was a unique reaction inside of the brain in a completely different section (Zidda).

In conclusion, classical conditioning is a beast all its own. Fear conditioning is prevalent in both studies, making it appear to be a close relative to its classical counterpart. Although, classical conditioning, and conditioning in general, is all around us in the world. The term “conditioned stimulus” has the power to be anything holding our attention. Just like when you are driving and you begin to daydream, then suddenly you snap back and discover you drove using your subconscious. Your body has been conditioned to drive the same route and only strays whenever you make the conscious decision to change.