The effect of typicality training on costly safety behavior generalization

The effect of typicality training on costly safety behavior generalization | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The effect of typicality training on costly safety behavior generalization Işık E. Kesim, Andre Pittig, Alex H. K. Wong This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4021599/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Jun, 2024 Read the published version in Psychological Research → Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background and objectives: Typicality asymmetry in generalization refers to the enhanced fear generalization when trained with typical compared to atypical exemplars. Typical exemplars are highly representative of their category, whereas atypical exemplars are less representative. Individual risk factors, such as trait anxiety, attenuate this effect, due to the high level of threat ambiguity of atypical exemplars. Although recent research provided evidence for generalization of safety behavior, it is unclear whether this generalization also follows typicality asymmetry. This study examined 1) whether participants exhibited typicality asymmetry in the generalization of safety behavior and 2) whether this effect would be attenuated by individual risk factors, such as intolerance of uncertainty and trait anxiety. Methods: Participants were trained with either typical (Typical group, n = 53) or atypical (Atypical group, n = 55) exemplars in a fear and avoidance conditioning procedure. Participants acquired differential conditioned fear and costly safety behavior to the threat- and safety-related exemplars. In a following Generalization Test, the degree of safety behavior to novel exemplars of the same categories was tested. Results: The Atypical group showed greater differential safety behavior responses compared to the Typical group. Higher trait anxiety was associated with lower differential safety behavior generalization, driven by an increase in generalized responding to novel safety-related exemplars. Limitations: This study used hypothetical cost instead of real cost. Conclusions: Training with atypical exemplars led to greater safety behavior generalization. Moreover, individuals with high trait anxiety show impaired safety behavior generalization. Safety behavior generalization Trait anxiety Intolerance of uncertainty Threat ambiguity Typicality asymmetry Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Fear conditioning refers to the repeated pairing of an initially neutral conditioned stimulus (CS+) and an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US). Consequently, the CS + becomes a signal of threat and elicits conditioned fear responses such as elevated threat expectancy and skin conductance responses (SCRs). In many cases, fear conditioning was thought to model the development and maintenance of adaptive and maladaptive anxiety (Craske et al., 2018 ; Lissek et al., 2006, 2008 ; Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006). Accordingly, research has utilized fear conditioning models to examine fear learning patterns in healthy individuals and individuals with anxiety-related disorders (Craske et al., 2018 ; Dunsmoor & Paz, 2015 ). A pattern linked to clinical anxiety is excessive fear generalization (Duits et al., 2015 ; Dunsmoor & Paz, 2015 ; Dymond et al., 2015 ). Fear generalization refers to fear acquired towards a CS + spreading to a range of novel stimuli that resemble the CS + even if they were never paired with the US (Dunsmoor et al., 2009 ). Recent research has demonstrated that fear can generalize to novel stimuli that are conceptually related to the CS+ (Bennet et al., 2015; Mertens et al., 2021 ; Wong & Lovibond, 2021). In categorical generalization, for example, fear generalized to novel stimuli that are categorically related to the CS + despite having no prior history with the US itself (e.g., Dunsmoor et al., 2012 ; Dunsmoor & Murphy, 2014 ; Lee et al., 2019 ; Wong & Pittig, 2021 ). In these studies, exemplars from one category (e.g., mammals; the threat category) were paired with an aversive US, whereas exemplars from another category (e.g., tools) were never reinforced (safe category). Later in the generalization test, novel exemplars of the two categories were presented. In general, participants exhibited stronger fear responses to novel exemplars of the threat category compared to those of the safety category (Dunsmoor et al., 2012 ; Dunsmoor & Murphy, 2014 ; Lee et al., 2019 ; Wong & Lovibond, 2021). One factor that modulates the degree of categorical generalization is typicality (Dunsmoor & Murphy, 2014 ; Murphy, 2002; Wong & Beckers, 2021 ). Typicality refers to the degree to which a stimulus represents the defining features of a given category. Dunsmoor and Murphy ( 2014 ) developed a categorical fear conditioning framework, where individuals were trained with either typical (i.e., exemplars that are great representatives of their category; cows as mammals) or atypical exemplars (i.e., exemplars that are less representative of their category; bats as mammals) and were tested with novel exemplars of reversed typicality. Individuals showed limited fear generalization to novel exemplars when trained with atypical compared to typical exemplars. This difference in fear generalization due to typicality is referred to as typicality asymmetry . According to the authors, training with typical exemplars likely facilitated the formation of category membership-US association, which might explain why novel exemplars of the same category yielded stronger fear generalization. Conversely, training with less representative exemplars of a category likely confined the acquisition of CS-US contingency to individual exemplars, thus limiting fear generalization. Typicality asymmetry was, however, only examined in (passive) conditioned responses, but not in active responses such as safety behaviors. Safety behaviors refer to active behavioral responses that minimize an expected threat onset when confronting a feared stimulus/situation. Safety behaviors become maladaptive when they are used excessively in the absence of realistic threat, a hallmark feature in anxiety disorders (Craske 1999 ; Dymond & Roche, 2009 ). In laboratory settings, safety behaviors are modeled as US-avoidance responses (e.g., Flores et al., 2018 ; 2020; Levita et al., 2012 ; Lovibond et al., 2009 ; Pittig, 2019 ) which regards executing a designated response (e.g., pressing a specific key) during CS + presentation to effectively reduce the chance of the US onset. Recent studies have also introduced competing rewards to US-avoidance to render them costly (Pittig et al., 2021), allowing laboratory models to mirror pathological safety behaviors observed in anxiety-related disorders (Pittig et al., 2014 ). One aim of the current study was to examine whether typicality asymmetry could be observed in costly US-avoidance. There are other factors affecting the degree of fear generalization alongside typicality, for example, individual difference factors such as trait anxiety (Pittig et al., 2020 ; Wong & Lovibond, 2018 ) and intolerance of uncertainty (Morris et al., 2016, 2019). Trait anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty refers to individual’s dispositional tendency to experience anxiety in various situations even in the absence of a threat (Barlow, 2002 ) and to react negatively to uncertain and ambiguous situations (Buhr & Dugas, 2006 ; Carleton et al., 2007 ), respectively. Both trait anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty are regarded as risk factors in the development of anxiety disorders (Chambers et al., 2004 ; Dugas & Koerner 2005; Gentes & Ruscio, 2011 ; Jorm et al., 2000 ; McEvoy et al., 2016). Trait anxiety has been associated with various maladaptive fear learning patterns, and a stronger association between conditioned fear and avoidance behavior (see Pittig et al., 2014 ). For example, impaired safety learning was evident in trait anxious individuals consistently showing stronger self-reported distress to safety stimuli (see Gazendam et al., 2013 ). Similarly, intolerance of uncertainty was associated with incapability to discriminate between threatening and innocuous stimuli that are perceptually similar (Morriss et al., 2016 ), and with impaired extinction learning retention, reflected by individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty showing greater SCRs to an extinguished CS + after extinction learning compared to their low intolerance of uncertainty counterparts (see Morriss et al., 2016 ; Morriss et al., 2018). For categorical fear generalization, typicality asymmetry might be attenuated in trait-anxious individuals (Wong and Beckers, 2021 ). Training with atypical exemplars had likely confined learning to an individual exemplar – US association. In other words, participants trained with atypical exemplars were less likely to learn the threat predictiveness for the category (category membership – US association), but rather learned that individual exemplars were associated with the US (multiple CS – US associations). As a result, novel exemplars presented in a following generalization test became highly threat ambiguous as their threat predictiveness was relatively unclear. This high level of threat ambiguity represents a ‘weak’ situation, which is optimal to observe the maladaptive aspects of trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty on fear learning (Beckers et al., 2013 ). In line with this idea, typicality asymmetry was observed across all participants but was attenuated in high-trait anxious individuals compared to their low-trait counterparts (i.e., high-trait anxious individuals showing stronger fear generalization compared to their low-trait counterparts despite training with atypical exemplars). The current study sought to examine whether individual risk factors attenuate typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization. We followed the preliminary work of Wong and Beckers ( 2021 ) and expanded it to costly US-avoidance. In line with preliminary findings, we hypothesized that participants trained with typical exemplars would exhibit stronger US-avoidance generalization compared to those trained with atypical exemplars (i.e., typicality asymmetry). Secondly, we hypothesized that typicality asymmetry in generalization would be reduced in individuals high in trait anxiety or high in intolerance of uncertainty. Method Participants A simulation-based power analysis was performed in R using mixed power package (Kumle et al., 2021 ). The estimated power was based on a previous study examining the effect of trait anxiety on typicality asymmetry in fear generalization (Wong & Beckers, 2021 ). According to the simulation-based power analyses, at least 100 participants were required to attain a power of 92.3% to detect an expected effect size of b = 1.69, or R2 = 0.02 (Jaeger et al., 2017 ) (see preregistration https://osf.io/d75rg ). A total of 110 psychology undergraduates (17 men, 91 women, and 2 non-binary/other) from Erasmus University Rotterdam were recruited as participants and received mandatory course credits for their participation. Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 30 ( M = 20, and SD = 2). This study received ethics approval (ETH2122-0452) from the Research Ethics Review Committee at Erasmus University Rotterdam in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Apparatus, stimuli, and materials Twelve greyscale images from the mammal and bird categories (see Table 1 ) served as the category exemplars. They were previously rated for their typicality of membership on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7 (1 = not at all typical to 7 = highly typical; Wong and Beckers 2021 ). The atypical exemplars had a mean typicality rating of 2.7 ( SD = 1.6), whereas typical exemplars had a mean typicality rating of 6.6 ( SD = 0.8). The intermediate exemplars had a mean rating of 4.7 ( SD = 1.7). Skin conductance was measured via two Ag/AgCl electrodes connected to a BioPac system at a sampling rate of 1000Hz. The aversive noise US was a 500 ms noise blast at 100db administered via headphones connected to a sound amplifier. Participants completed the English-translated Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS; Freestone, et al., 1994; translated; Buhr, & Dugas, 2002) and the short version of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). IUS was used to assess whether individuals found uncertain situations to be distressing. IUS consisted of 27 items, rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = not at all characteristics of me to 5 = entirely characteristic of me ). The English-translated version of IUS yielded an excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .94) (Buhr, & Dugas, 2002). DASS-21 consisted of 21 items, rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3 (0 = did not apply to me at all to 3 = applied to me very much or most of the time ). Furthermore, DASS-21 validly measures and discriminates between three negative emotional states (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress) (Henry & Crawford, 2005 ). Moreover, the anxiety subscale had an excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .89) (Coker et al., 2018 ). Table 1 Bird and mammal exemplars used in the current study. Typicality Birds Mammals Typical Hummingbird, Pigeon, Sparrow Bear, Cow, Gorilla Atypical Cassowary, Emu, Penguin Bat, Platypus, Seal Intermediate Duck, Flamingo, Kiwi, Peahen, Swan, Turkey Alpaca, Camel, Dolphin, Otter, Rat, Sloth Procedure The study began after participants provided informed consent. During the pre-experimental phase, headphones were placed on the participants which initiated the noise familiarization phase. Participants received 4 noise blasts with increasing intensity, starting from 30 dB to 100dB. The intensity of the final noise US was lowered to 95dB if participants found it too aversive. A reward-matching phase was carried out immediately after. Participants were presented with questions regarding whether they would tolerate the noise blast for a certain amount of hypothetical financial reward (“Are you willing to tolerate the noise when given €__?”) ranging between 5 to 31 cents in odd numbers (e.g., 5, 7, …,31 cents) in a randomized order. Participants responded verbally by saying YES or NO. Then the maximum competing reward was uniquely calculated for each participant as the amount between the highest hypothetical monetary reward that received a “NO” and the lowest hypothetical monetary reward that received a “YES”. For instance, if a participant agreed to tolerate the noise US for rewards ranging from 17 to 31 cents (i.e., responding “YES”) but refused to tolerate it (i.e., responding “NO”) for rewards ranging from 5 to 15 cents (i.e., responding “NO”), the maximum competing reward would be 16 cents. This individually calibrated level of reward was sufficient to create a conflict between avoidance and approach (see Schlund et al., 2016 ). Hereafter, participants were asked to fill in the IUS (Buhr, & Dugas, 2002) and the DASS-21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The experimental phases started immediately after. The design of the current study is shown in Table 2 . Table 2 Design of the current study Pavlovian fear acquisition Costly US-avoidance acquisition Generalization Test CS1+ (9) CS2- (9) CS1*[+, €] (9) CS2*- [€] (9) GS1-* [€] (9) GS2-* [€] (9) + indicates US presentation; - indicates US omission; * indicates the availability of US-avoidance; [+] indicates the presentation of US and [€] indicates competing reward, the presentation of US and competing reward depend on US-avoidance; number in parentheses indicates the number of trials. Pavlovian fear acquisition . Participants were informed that various exemplars (CS) would be followed by a noise blast (US) and were prompted to learn the relation between the CSs and the aversive noise unconditioned stimulus (US). The Pavlovian fear acquisition phase had three identical blocks. In each block, three different mammal exemplars served as the CS + s whereas three different bird exemplars served as the CS-s, thus amounting to a total of 9 CS + trials and 9 CS- trials. The CSs were counterbalanced across participants. The CS presentation was pseudo-randomized, meaning that the same CSs were not presented more than twice in a row. The CS + s were fully reinforced by the noise US while the CS-s were never reinforced. Importantly, typical exemplars served as the CS + s in the Typical group whereas atypical exemplars served as the CS + s in the Atypical group. In both groups, exemplars of intermediate typicality served as the CS-s (see Table 1 ). All CSs were presented on screen for 8 s with the US-expectancy scale. Participants were prompted to indicate their US-expectancy on each trial. Hence, participants were presented with a visual analog scale (VAS) below the CSs ranging from 0 to 100% with a 1% increment (0% = Certainly NO noise to 100% = Certain noise ). The US-expectancy scale disappeared with the CS offset and the noise US was delivered immediately after the CS + offset. The inter-trial intervals ranged from 15 to 18 s in all three phases. Costly US-avoidance acquisition . At the start of the Costly US-avoidance acquisition phase, participants were informed about their opportunity to avoid the potential noise US by indicating their avoidance responses on the US-avoidance scale. Therefore, a VAS ranging from 0 to 100% with 1% increments was presented first below the CSs. The US-avoidance scale was negatively proportional to the chance of US onset and the maximum reward. For instance, if a participant selected 60% on the US-avoidance scale, there would be a 40% chance of receiving the noise US after CS + offset. However, participants would only recieve 40% of the maximum reward. The costly US-avoidance acquisition phase consisted of three blocks. Each block consisted of the three CS + s and three CS-s presented in the previous phase. After participants indicated their US-avoidance responses, the CS and the US-avoidance scale disappeared simultaneously. Following a 1 s fixation cross, the same CS was presented for 8 s with the US-expectancy scale below. Participants were prompted to indicate their US-expectancy responses. After CS offset, a US might be administered depending on the US-avoidance response and CS type, followed by a 2 s reward feedback. Generalization test. This phase followed seamlessly from the same block and trial structure as the previous phase. Three novel stimuli from the CS + category (GS+) and three novel stimuli from the CS- category (GS-) were presented once in each of the three blocks. The Atypical group was presented with typical GS + whereas the Typical group was presented with atypical GS+. Both groups received GS- of intermediate typicality. On each trial, participants were presented with GSs and were prompted to indicate their US-avoidance responses. After a US-avoidance response was made, the GS and US-avoidance scale disappeared followed by a 1 s fixation cross. The same GSs then reappeared for 8 s with a US-expectancy scale. A 2 s reward feedback followed the GS offset. Importantly, neither the GS + nor GS- was reinforced, and participants were not given this information prior. Scoring and Analysis Skin conductance was measured throughout the experiment. Only SCRs 1s after CS/GS onset to CS/GS offset were included for analysis. To remove the high-frequency noise from the skin conductance data, we applied a 1 Hz low-pass filter and a 50 Hz notch filter. After, SCRs were calculated by taking the difference between the maximum response and the preceding trough (Pineles, Orr, & Orr, 2009 ). SCRs were then square-rooted to reduce skewness (Boucsein et al., 2012 ). All data were analyzed within a linear mixed model framework in R with lmer package (Bates, Maechler, & Bolker, 2012 ). All planned analyses were pre-registered on OSF ( https://osf.io/bj658 ). We carried out two separate manipulation checks. First, we analyzed whether participants had higher expectancy ratings and greater SCRs to the CS + than the CS- during Pavlovian fear acquisition. Expectancy ratings and SCRs were used as the dependent variable in two separate models. CS type (CS + vs. CS-) and Block (linear trend repeated measure across blocks), and their interaction, served as fixed effects in both models. These models captured whether fear learning to the CS + was acquired. Group (Typical vs. Atypical) and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty (as continuous variables) were subsequently added to these models as fixed effects to see if these factors had any effect on fear learning. Second, we analyzed whether participants had acquired stronger US-avoidance to CS + compared to CS- during Costly US-avoidance acquisition. Accordingly, US-avoidance responses served as the dependent variable, while CS type, Block, and their interactions served as fixed effects. Group and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty were subsequently added to these models to examine whether these factors had any effect on costly US-avoidance acquisition. Regarding the main hypotheses, we investigated whether typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization was observed. Specifically, we examined whether the Typical group showed greater differential costly US-avoidance to the GSs compared to the Atypical group during the Generalization test phase. To this end, we employed a model where US-avoidance responses served as the dependent variable. Stimulus type (GS + vs. GS-), Group, and their interactions served as fixed effects. Then, we tested whether higher trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty reduced typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization (i.e., higher trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty indexes greater differential responding to the GSs in the Atypical group). Therefore, US-avoidance responses during the Generalization test phase served as the dependent variable. Stimulus type, Group, Block, and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty, and their interactions served as fixed effects. Finally, we implemented two separate models that only included the first block of Generalization test to minimize confounding extinction learning (i.e., to minimize the confounding reduction in responses as all GSs were not reinforced in Generalization test). US-avoidance served as the dependent variable in both models. The first model included Stimulus type, Group, and their interaction as fixed effects. In the second model, Stimulus type, Group, trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty, and their interactions served as the fixed effects. Participants served as the random effect for all the aforementioned linear mixed models. The degree of significance was reported with Satterthwaite approximation for degrees of freedom in all models (Satterthwaite, 1941 ). Finally, we expected that Group and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty would have no effect on differential US-expectancy and costly US-avoidance acquisition. Therefore, we used the Bayes Model to confirm the absence of an effect (Kruschke, 2015 ). We obtained 95% highest density intervals (HDI), which contain the most credible values. Then, we looked at the posterior distribution that fell under the range of area around the null value, also referred to as the Region of Practical Equivalence (ROPE) (Kruschke, 2015 ). We then calculated the percentage of HDIs that fell under ROPE (Kruschke, 2015 ; Kruschke & Liddell, 2018 ). Results As preregistered, statistical analyses were restricted to participants who had demonstrated differential fear conditioning and CS-US contingency awareness. In other words, only participants who had higher averaged US-expectancy ratings for the CS + compared to the CS- in the last Pavlovian fear acquisition block (i.e., the last 3 trials of CS + and the last 3 trials of CS-) were included to the statistical analyses. A total of 2 participants were excluded from this study, leaving 108 participants (53 in the Typical and 55 in the Atypical group). Pavlovian fear acquisition phase: Figure 1 A-B show the mean US-expectancy ratings across Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks in each typicality group. Averaged over typicality groups, participants developed higher US expectancy ratings to the CS + compared to the CS- across acquisition block, whereas this difference increased across blocks. This was supported by a significant interaction between CS type and Block averaged across Group ( b CStype×Block = -1187.22, SE = 43.61, p < .001). Unexpectedly, the interaction between Group and CS type averaged over Block was significant ( b Group×CStype = -12.79, SE = 2.32, p < .001). This suggests that the Typical group had greater US-expectancy ratings to CS + compared to CS- averaged across the Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks when compared to the Atypical group. No other interactions involving Group reached significance (smallest p = .545). No interactions involving intolerance of intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest p = .194). The Bayesian model confirmed the absence of the effect of intolerance of uncertainty on the differential US-expectancy responses averaged across the Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks, as 100% of the HDIs depicting the interaction between CS type, Group and intolerance of uncertainty fell within ROPE. On the other hand, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with impaired differential US-expectancy ratings to the CSs averaged over Block and Group ( b CStype×TA = 0.48, SE = 0.17, p = .005). No other interactions involving trait anxiety reached significance (smallest p = .071). Figure 1 C-D show the square root SCRs across Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks in each group. Participants had stronger SCRs to the CS + s compared to the CS-s averaged over blocks and groups. This was supported by a significant main effect of CS type ( b CStype = -0.08, SE = 0.01, p < .001). None of the interactions involving Group reached significance (smallest p = .162), suggesting there was no evidence that the two groups differed in SCRs during Pavlovian fear acquisition. Additionally, no interactions involving trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest p = .132). The Bayesian model confirmed the absence of these effects, as 100% of the HDIs depicting the interactions involving CS type, Group and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty fell within ROPE. Costly US-avoidance acquisition phase: Figure 2 A-B show the mean US-avoidance responses across Costly US-avoidance acquisition blocks in each group. Averaged across Block and Group, US-avoidance for the CS + exemplars were higher compared to the CS- exemplars ( b CStype= -39.88, SE = 1.11, p < .001), indicating differential US-avoidance to the CSs during the Costly US-avoidance acquisition phase. Unexpectedly, the Typical group had greater differential US-avoidance responses to the CSs compared to the Atypical group, b CStype×Group = -6.90, SE = 2.21, p = .002. No other interactions involving the Group had reached significance (smallest p = .725). Furthermore, no interaction involving intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest p = .161). The Bayesian model confirmed the absence of the effect of intolerance of uncertainty on the differential US-avoidance responses, as 100% of the HDIs depicting the interactions involving CS type, Group, and intolerance of uncertainty fell within ROPE. The three-way interaction involving Group, CS type, and trait anxiety reached significance ( b CStype×Group×TA= -1.52, SE = 0.33, p < .001). This suggests that increased trait anxiety was associated with decreased differential US-avoidance responses to the CSs; this pattern was stronger in the Atypical group compared to the Typical group averaged across Costly US-avoidance acquisition blocks. US-expectancy ratings and SCRs were also assessed after US-avoidance responses were made. The analyses of US expectancy and SCRs were reported in the Supplementary Materials. Generalization Test: Figure 2 C-D illustrate the mean US-avoidance across Generalization test blocks in each group. We observed that averaged across Groups, participants showed greater costly US-avoidance to the GS + compared to the GS-, while this difference decreased across blocks ( b Stimulustype×Block = 130.66, SE = 42.64, p = .002). Unexpectedly, the Atypical group had stronger differential US-avoidance generalization evidenced by a greater difference in responding to the GS + compared to the GS- than the Typical group when averaging across blocks ( b Stimulustype×Group = 5.37, SE = 1.93, p = .007). This suggests the expected typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization (stronger generalization in the Typical group than the Atypical group) went into an opposite direction. No other effects involving Group reached significance (smallest p = .578). See Supplementary Materials for the US-expectancy ratings and SCRs analyses. Figure 3 A-D show the mean US-avoidance across Generalization Test blocks for high and low trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty participants between typicality groups respectively. No interactions involving intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest p = .594). This suggests that there was no evidence that an increase in intolerance of uncertainty was associated with different degrees of US-avoidance generalization. Regarding trait anxiety, averaged over Group and Block, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with a decrease in differential US-avoidance to the GSs, supported by a significant interaction between Stimulus type and trait anxiety ( b Stimulustype×TA = 0.55, SE = 0.15, p < .001). Follow-up robust regression analyses showed that an increase in trait anxiety was associated with an increase in generalized US-avoidance responses to the GS-, β TA = 0.0093, SE = 0.0017, p < .001, but there was no evidence that trait anxiety was associated with generalized US-avoidance responses to the GS+, β TA = -0.0011, SE = 0.0050, p = .829. No other interactions involving trait anxiety reached significance (smallest p = .478). Given that group differences already emerged during Costly US-avoidance acquisition , we exploratorily examined whether this pre-existing group difference contributed to the group differences observed in Generalization test . Therefore, we added the group difference in differential US-avoidance during Costly US-avoidance acquisition as a covariate in Generalization test . Averaged across Block, the covariate reached significance ( p < .001) whereas the Stimulus type*Group interaction remained significant, bStimulustype×Group = 5.37, SE = 1.93, p = .006. This suggests that the pre-existing group differences during acquisition had an impact on the group differences observed during Generalization test . First Block of Generalization Test: To minimize confounding extinction learning, we examined only the first block of the Generalization Test . US-avoidance responses were generalized selectively to the GS + in both groups, supported by a main effect of Stimulus type ( b StimulusType = -18.32, SE = 1.74, p < .001). However, there was no evidence for any group differences in costly US-avoidance generalization, b StimulusType×Group = 3.81, SE = 3.48, p = .275, suggesting no evidence for typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization. Moreover, no interaction involving trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty reached significance, (smallest p = .169). This suggests that there was no evidence that trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty had an effect on US-avoidance generalization in the first block of the Generalization Test phase. Discussion The current study sought to extend typicality asymmetry in generalization of costly US-avoidance. Furthermore, we examined whether trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty would reduce typicality asymmetry in costly US-avoidance generalization. We expected participants trained with atypical exemplars to exhibit limited US-avoidance generalization compared to participants trained with typical exemplars. Moreover, we expected that this pattern would reduce as trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty increased. During Pavlovian fear acquisition, the Typical group had stronger differential US-expectancy ratings compared to the Atypical group, as further characterized by the Typical group showing higher US expectancies to the CS + and lower US expectancies to the CS- compared to the Atypical group. This difference was presumably due to the faster attribution of US predictiveness to the category membership in the Typical group. In contrast, the Atypical group likely attributed US occurrence to individual exemplars instead of to the category membership, thus leading to a delay in acquiring differential US-expectancy ratings (c.f. Dunsmoor et al., 2012 ). Moreover, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with impaired differential costly US-avoidance responses, specifically in the Atypical group. This aligned with findings that trait anxiety is associated with impaired differential safety behaviors learning (Wake et al., 2021 ). This pattern might have only been observed in the Atypical group due to increased threat ambiguity, as the effects of trait anxiety on fear and avoidance learning are more likely to manifest under threat ambiguity (Beckers, et al., 2013 ). During the Generalization test, we observed stronger US-avoidance responses to the GS + s compared to GS-s, suggesting US-avoidance responses more selectively generalized to novel exemplars that shared category membership with the trained CS + category (Arnaudova et al., 2017 ; Dymond et al., 2012, 2014 ). This was in line with research that examined higher-order conceptual generalization of avoidance to novel stimuli that shared category membership or had semantic relation to the CS+ (Boyle et al., 2016 ; Dymond et al., 2011 , 2014 ; Kloos et al., 2022 ). In contrast to our expectation, the Atypical group showed stronger differential costly US-avoidance to the GSs compared to the Typical group. This finding contradicted previous studies that found typicality asymmetry in fear generalization (Dunsmoor & Murphy, 2014 ; Wong & Beckers, 2021 ). The discrepancy in typicality asymmetry in the current study compared to past studies (Dunsmoor & Murphy, 2014 ; Wong & Beckers, 2021 ) was presumably due to the differences in experimental manipulations. In this study, all CS + exemplars in both typicality groups were fully reinforced during Pavlovian fear acquisition, compared to a 67% reinforcement rate in past studies (Dunsmoor & Murphy, 2014 ; Wong & Beckers, 2021 ). This full reinforcement schedule might have introduced different learning patterns in the two typicality groups. In the Typical group, a full reinforcement schedule might have further strengthened the learning of a category membership – US association. In contrast, this reinforcement schedule might have further reinforced the learning of individual exemplar CS –US association in the Atypical group. Therefore, novel GS + exemplars presented in Generalization test presumably induced a high level of threat ambiguity in the Atypical group compared to past studies that partially reinforced the atypical CS + s. This higher level of threat ambiguity in the Atypical group might have led to stronger safety behaviors to the GS + compared to the Typical group. That means, the apparent greater differential responding in the Atypical group compared to the Typical group during Generalization test was evoked by a high level of threat ambiguity but less likely due to genuine generalization. This explanation is further complemented by how weaker differential US-avoidance in the Atypical group compared to the Typical group in Costly US-avoidance acquisition contributed to an opposite pattern in Generalization test . This pattern further suggests that the apparent stronger generalization in the Atypical group was likely due to stronger responding evoked by high level of threat ambiguity. A second alternative explanation is that the Atypical group might have adopted a different learning strategy from the one mentioned above. Instead of learning an individual exemplar – US association (or individual exemplar - no US association), the Atypical group might have explicitly learnt the CS- category – no US association . For instance, they might have adopted a strategy that all birds signaled no shock (when birds served as the CS- exemplars), while all non-bird exemplars signaled shock (see Wong & Lovibond, 2021). Thus, the apparent stronger generalization in the Atypical group could be merely due to participants responding strongly to exemplars that did not belong to the CS- category. This alternative explanation is complemented by the reversed typicality effect only observed across test blocks, but not on the first test block. This pattern further suggested that the Atypical group who might have adopted the “only CS- category was safe” strategy might have focused more on the GS- exemplars, thus leading to slower extinction learning to the GS + compared to the Typical group. Moreover, the current study sought to examine whether trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty would attenuate typicality asymmetry in safety behaviors generalization. We hypothesized that an increase in these risk factors would be associated with a reduced typicality asymmetry. However, the current findings were not able to support this hypothesis, as no typicality asymmetry in safety behaviors generalization was found in the first place. Averaged across group manipulation, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with impaired discriminative generalized safety behaviors to the GSs during the Generalization test (i.e., differential safety behavior generalization was reduced as trait anxiety increased). This pattern was driven by trait anxious individuals exhibiting stronger generalized safety behaviors to the GS-. This pattern expands on findings that trait anxiety is associated with impaired safety learning (e.g., Baas et al., 2008 ; Chan & Lovibond, 1996 ) to generalized responding to novel safety stimuli. On the other hand, we did not find any effects of intolerance of uncertainty of safety behaviors generalization, in contrast to findings that suggest intolerance of uncertainty is associated with stronger safety behaviors generalization (San Martin et al., 2020). The field of examining individual risk factors and avoidance learning is, however, still in its infancy (Wong et al., 2023 ). Therefore, it is important for future study to test the robustness of the effects of risk factors on avoidance learning (and its generalization) via replication. One limitation of this study was the use of hypothetical reward. One may argue that using hypothetical reward may not model costly US-avoidance as participants may not view it as costly as a real reward. However, studies have used hypothetical reward and successfully reduced behavioral avoidance (e.g., Dibbets & Fonteyne, 2015 ; Pittig et al., 2014 ), suggesting that participants did pursue hypothetical rewards by not using avoidance responses. Furthermore, studies have shown that both hypothetical and reward rewards had similar effects on decision making (e.g., Jenkinson et al., 2008 ; Locey et al., 2011 ). Conclusion In conclusion, the current study replicated research regarding higher-order categorical safety behavior generalization (Dymond et al., 2011 ; 2014 ; Kloos et al., 2022 ). More specifically, we observed that participants successfully generalized from their training exemplars to the novel generalization exemplars. However, we did not replicate typicality asymmetry in costly safety behavior generalization. In fact, the Atypical group showed greater differential costly US-avoidance generalization compared to the Typical group. We have made two speculations in the failure to replicate this pattern, including the increased ambiguity in the Atypical group due to continuous reinforcement rate and the possible adaptation of a different learning strategy (i.e., the CS- category – no US association). Nevertheless, the findings showed that increased trait anxiety was associated with stronger generalized safety behaviors to exemplars that belong to the safety category, highlighting the maladaptive safety behaviors generalization to other innocuous situations observed in anxious individuals. It is worth noting that there is currently a lack of research examining the relationship between conceptual safety behavior generalization and individual risk factors. As such, this study makes an important contribution to the field by shedding light on the potential influence of individual risk factors on the maladaptive pathological avoidance observed in anxiety-related disorders. Declarations Credit authorship contribution statement Işık Eren Kesim: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original draft, Visualization, Data collection. Andre Pittig: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing. Alex H. K. Wong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Marcelina Nogiec for data collection and data processing. Declaration of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare References Arnaudova, I., Krypotos, A. M., Effting, M., Kindt, M., & Beckers, T. (2017). Fearing shades of grey: Individual differences in fear responding towards generalisation stimuli . Cognition and Emotion, 31 , 1181–1196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1204990 Baas, J. M. P., van Ooijen, L., Goudriaan, A., & Kenemans, J. L. (2008). Failure to condition to a cue is associated with sustained contextual fear. Acta Psychologica, 127 , 581-592. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.009 Bates, D.M., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0. Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Beckers, T., Krypotos, A. M., Boddez, Y., Effting, M., & Kindt, M. (2013). What’s wrong with fear conditioning? Biological Psychology , 92 (1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.12.015 Bishop, S. J. (2008). Trait anxiety and impoverished prefrontal control of attention . Nature Neuroscience , 12 (1), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2242 Boucsein, W., Fowles, D. C., Grimnes, S., Ben-Shakhar, G., roth, G., Dawson, W. T., & Filion, D. L. (2012). Publication recommendations for electrodermal measurements. Psychophysiology , 49 (8), 1017–1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01384.x. Boyle, S., Roche, B., Dymond, S., & Hermans, D. (2016). Generalisation of fear and avoidance along a semantic continuum . Cognition and Emotion , 30 (2), 340–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.1000831 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 20 (2), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.12.004 Browning, M., Behrens, T. E., Jocham, G., O’Reilly, J. X., & Bishop, S. J. (2015). Anxious individuals have difficulty learning the causal statistics of aversive environments. Nature Neuroscience , 18 (4), 590–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3961 Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5 (4), 325–370. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00122575 Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 21 (1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 Chambers, J. A., Power, K. G., & Durham, R. C. (2004). The relationship between trait vulnerability and anxiety and depressive diagnoses at long-term follow-up of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 18 (5), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.09.001 Chan, C. K. Y., & Lovibond, P. F. (1996). Expectancy bias in trait anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 105 (4), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.105.4.637 Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review , 30 (2 ), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003 Coker, A. O., Coker, O., & Sanni, D. (2018). Psychometric properties of the 21-item Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21). African Research Review, 12 (2), 135. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v12i2.13 Craske, M. G. (1999). Anxiety disorders: Psychological approaches to theory and treatment. Westview Press. Craske, M. G., Hermans, D., & Vervliet, B. (2018). State-of-the-art and future directions for extinction as a translational model for fear and anxiety. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 373 (1742), 20170025. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0025 De Kleine, R. A., Hutschemaekers, M. H. M., Hendriks, G., Kampman, M., Papalini, S., Van Minnen, A., & Vervliet, B. (2023). Impaired action-safety learning and excessive relief during avoidance in patients with anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 96 , 102698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102698 Dibbets, P., & Fonteyne, R. (2015). High spider fearfuls can overcome their fear in a virtual approach-avoidance conflict task. Journal of Depression & Anxiety, 4 (2), https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1044.1000182 Dugas, M. J., Buhr, K., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). The Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty in Etiology and Maintenance. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk, & D. S. Mennin (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice (pp. 143–163). The Guilford Press. Dugas, M. J., Marchand, A., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Further validation of a cognitive-behavioral model of generalized anxiety disorder: Diagnostic and symptom specificity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19 (3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.02.002 Duits, P., Cath, D. C., Lissek, S., Hox, J. J., Hamm, A. O., Engelhard, I. M., van den Hout, M. A., & Baas, J. M. P. (2015). UPDATED META-ANALYSIS OF CLASSICAL FEAR CONDITIONING IN THE ANXIETY DISORDERS. Depression and Anxiety , 32 (4), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22353 Dunsmoor, J. E., Mitroff, S. R., & LaBar, K. S. (2009). Generalization of conditioned fear along a dimension of increasing fear intensity. Learning & Memory , 16 (7), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.1431609 Dunsmoor, J. E., Martin, A., & LaBar, K. S. (2012). Role of conceptual knowledge in learning and retention of conditioned fear. Biological Psychology , 89 (2), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.11.002 Dunsmoor, J. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2014). Stimulus Typicality Determines How Broadly Fear Is Generalized. Psychological Science , 25 (9), 1816–1821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535401 Dunsmoor, J. E., & Paz, R. (2015). Fear Generalization and Anxiety: Behavioral and Neural Mechanisms. Biological Psychiatry , 78 (5), 336–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.04.010 Dymond, S., Dunsmoor, J. E., Vervliet, B., Roche, B., & Hermans, D. (2015). Fear Generalization in Humans: Systematic Review and Implications for Anxiety Disorder Research. Behavior Therapy , 46 (5), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.10.001 Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2009). A contemporary behavior analysis of anxiety and avoidance. The Behavior Analyst , 32 (1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392173 Dymond, S., Schlund, M. W., Roche, B., & Whelan, R. (2014). The Spread of Fear: Symbolic Generalization Mediates Graded Threat-Avoidance in Specific Phobia. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67 (2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.800124 Dymond, S., Schlund, M. W., Roche, B., Whelan, R., Richards, J., & Davies, C. (2011). Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 49 (10), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2011.06.007 Flores, A., López, F. J., Vervliet, B., & Cobos, P. L. (2018). Intolerance of uncertainty as a vulnerability factor for excessive and inflexible avoidance behavior. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 104 , 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.02.008 Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin , 99 (1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20 Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences , 17 (6), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5 Gangemi, A., Mancini, F., & Van Den Hout, M. (2012). Behavior as information: “If I avoid, then there must be a danger.” Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 43 (4), 1032–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.04.005 Gazendam, F. J., Kamphuis, J. H., & Kindt, M. (2013). Deficient safety learning characterizes high trait anxious individuals. Biological Psychology , 92 (2), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.11.006. Gentes, E. L., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of the relation of intolerance of uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive–compulsive disorder. Clinical Psychology Review , 31 (6), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.05.001 Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2011). Uncertainty is associated with biased expectancies and heightened responses to aversion. Emotion , 11 (2), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022583 Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology , 44 (2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X29657 Hunt, C., Cooper, S. E., Hartnell, M. P., & Lissek, S. (2019). Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty facilitate associations between generalized Pavlovian fear and maladaptive avoidance decisions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 128 (4), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000422 Jaeger, B. C., Edwards, L. J., Das, K., & Sen, P. K. (2017). An R 2 statistic for fixed effects in the generalized linear mixed model. Journal of Applied Statistics , 44 (6), 1086–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2016.1193725 Jenkinson, P. M., Baker, S. R., Edelstyn, N. M. J., & Ellis, S. J. (2008). Does autonomic arousal distinguish good and bad decisions? Journal of Psychophysiology, 22 , 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803.22.3.141. Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P. A., Korten, A. E., & Rodgers, B. (2000). Predicting anxiety and depression from personality: Is there a synergistic effect of neuroticism and extraversion? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 109 , 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.1.145 Kloos, T., van Vliet, C., Riecke, J., Meulders, A. (2022). Indoor or Outdoor? Generalization of Costly Pain-Related Avoidance Behavior to Conceptually Related Contexts. The Journal of Pain, 23 (4), 657–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2021.10.010 Kumle, L., Võ, M. L. H., & Draschkow, D. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 53 (6), 2528–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01546-0 Kruschke, J. (2015). Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (second ed.). Academic Press. Kruschke, J. K., & Liddell, T. M. (2018). The bayesian new statistics: hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a bayesian perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 25 (1), 178–206. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423- 016-1221-4 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Lee, J. C., Hayes, B. K., & Lovibond, P. F. (2018). Peak shift and rules in human generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 44 (12), 1955–1970. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000558 Lee, J. C., Lovibond, P. F., & Hayes, B. K. (2019). Evidential diversity increases generalisation in predictive learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 72 (11), 2647–2657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819857065 Levita, L., Hoskin, R., Champi, S. (2012). Avoidance of harm and anxiety: A role for the nucleus accumbens. NeuroImage , 62 (1), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.059 Lissek, S., Kaczkurkin, A. N., Rabin, S., Geraci, M., Pine, D. S., & Grillon, C. (2014). Generalized Anxiety Disorder Is Associated With Overgeneralization of Classically Conditioned Fear. Biological Psychiatry , 75 (11), 909–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.07.025 Lissek, S., Levenson, J., Biggs, A. L., Johnson, L. L., Ameli, R., Pine, D. S., & Grillon, C. (2008). Elevated Fear Conditioning to Socially Relevant Unconditioned Stimuli in Social Anxiety Disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry , 165 (1), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06091513 Lissek, S., Powers, A. S., McClure, E. B., Phelps, E. A., Woldehawariat, G., Grillon, C., & Pine, D. S. (2005). Classical fear conditioning in the anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 43 (11), 1391–1424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.10.007 Lissek, S., Rabin, S., Heller, R. E., Lukenbaugh, D., Geraci, M., Pine, D. S., & Grillon, C. (2010). Overgeneralization of Conditioned Fear as a Pathogenic Marker of Panic Disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry , 167 (1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09030410 Locey, M. L., Jones, B. A., & Rachlin, H. (2011). Real and hypothetical rewards in self- control and social discounting. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 522–564. Lovibond, P. F., Mitchell, C. J., Minard, E., Brady, A., Menzies, R. G. (2009). Safety behaviours preserve threat beliefs: Protection from extinction of human fear conditioning by an avoidance response. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 47 (8), 716–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.04.013 Meulders, A. (2020). Fear in the context of pain: Lessons learned from 100 years of fear conditioning research. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 131 , 103635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103635 Mertens, G., Boddez, Y., Krypotos, A. M., & Engelhard, I. M. (2021). Human fear conditioning is moderated by stimulus contingency instructions. Biological Psychology , 158 , 107994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107994 McEvoy, P. M., & Mahoney, A. E. (2012). To Be Sure, To Be Sure: Intolerance of Uncertainty Mediates Symptoms of Various Anxiety Disorders and Depression. Behavior Therapy , 43 (3), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.02.007 Morriss, J., Macdonald, B., & van Reekum, C. M. (2016). What Is Going On Around Here? Intolerance of Uncertainty Predicts Threat Generalization. PLOS ONE , 11 (5), e0154494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154494 Morriss, J., Saldarini, F., van Reekum, C. M. (2019). The role of threat level and intolerance of uncertainty in extinction. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 142 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.05.013 Morriss, J., Saldarini, F., Chapman, C., Pollard, M., & van Reekum, C. M. (2019). Out with the old and in with the new: The role of intolerance of uncertainty in reversal of threat and safety. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology , 10 (1), 204380871983445. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043808719834451 North, C. S., Pfefferbaum, B., Tivis, L., Aya, K., Reddy, C., & Spitznagel, E. L. (2004). The course of posttraumatic stress disorder in a follow-up study of survivors of the Oklahoma city bombing . Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 16 (4), 209–215. https://doi. org/10.1080/10401230490522034. Pittig, A., & Dehler, J. (2019). Same fear responses, less avoidance: Rewards competing with aversive outcomes do not buffer fear acquisition, but attenuate avoidance to accelerate subsequent fear extinction. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 112 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.003 Pineles, S. L., Orr, M. R., & Orr, S. P. (2009). An alternative scoring method for skin conductance responding in a differential fear conditioning paradigm with a long-duration conditioned stimulus. Psychophysiology , 46(5), 984–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00852.x Pittig, A. (2019). Incentive-based extinction of safety behaviors: Positive outcomes competing with aversive outcomes trigger fear-opposite action to prevent protection from fear extinction. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 121 , 103463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103463 Pittig, A., Schulz, A. R., Craske, M. G., & Alpers, G. W. (2014). Acquisition of behavioral avoidance: Task-irrelevant conditioned stimuli trigger costly decisions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 123 (2), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036136 Pittig, A., Treanor, M., LeBeau, R. T., & Craske, M. G. (2018). The role of associative fear and avoidance learning in anxiety disorders: Gaps and directions for future research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 88 , 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.03.015 Pittig, A., Wong, A. H., Glück, V. M., & Boschet, J. M. (2020). Avoidance and its bi-directional relationship with conditioned fear: Mechanisms, moderators, and clinical implications. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 126 , 103550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103550 Satterthwaite, F. E. (1941). Synthesis of variance. Psychometrika, 6, 309–316. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF022 88586 Schlund, M. W., Brewer, A. T., Magee, S. K., Richman, D. M., Solomon, S. D., Ludlum, M. D., & Dymond, S. (2016). The tipping point: Value differences and parallel dorsal–ventral frontal circuits gating human approach–avoidance behavior. NeuroImage , 136 , 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.070 Shihata, S., McEvoy, P. M., Mullan, B. A., & Carleton, R. N. (2016). Intolerance of uncertainty in emotional disorders: What uncertainties remain? Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 41 , 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.05.001 Wake, S., van Reekum, C. M., Dodd, H. (2021). The effect of social anxiety on the acquisition and extinction of low-cost avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 146 , 103967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103967 Winter, B. (2013). Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. arXiv:1308.5499. [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5499.pdf] Wong, A. H. K., & Beckers, T. (2021). Trait anxiety is associated with reduced typicality asymmetry in fear generalization. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 138 , 103802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103802 Wong, A. H. K., & Pittig, A. (2021). A dimensional measure of safety behavior: A non-dichotomous assessment of costly avoidance in human fear conditioning. Psychological Research , 86 (1), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01490-w Wong, A. H. K., & Lovibond, P. F. (2018). Excessive generalisation of conditioned fear in trait anxious individuals under ambiguity. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 107 , 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.05.012 Wong, A. H. K., & Lovibond, P. F. (2020). Breakfast or bakery? The role of categorical ambiguity in overgeneralization of learned fear in trait anxiety. Emotion, 21 (4), 856–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000739 Wong, A. H. K., Aslanidou, A., Malbec, M., Pittig, A., Wieser, M. J., & Andreatta, M. (2023). A systematic review of the inter-individual differences in avoidance learning. Collabra , 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77856 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SuppMaterialsTypicality.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Jun, 2024 Read the published version in Psychological Research → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 18 Apr, 2024 Reviews received at journal 15 Apr, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Mar, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Mar, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 22 Mar, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 07 Mar, 2024 First submitted to journal 06 Mar, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4021599","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":277029253,"identity":"be79bba6-2db8-476f-8d67-f92d2383d887","order_by":0,"name":"Işık E. Kesim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Erasmus University Rotterdam","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Işık","middleName":"E.","lastName":"Kesim","suffix":""},{"id":277029254,"identity":"b9c0abb5-89ef-4ea0-a529-07230dcdd76c","order_by":1,"name":"Andre Pittig","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Georg-August-Universität Göttingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andre","middleName":"","lastName":"Pittig","suffix":""},{"id":277029255,"identity":"9c3b6529-9e8d-4af2-b514-e32076ca1d04","order_by":2,"name":"Alex H. K. Wong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Erasmus University Rotterdam","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alex","middleName":"H. K.","lastName":"Wong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-03-06 15:35:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4021599/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4021599/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01979-0","type":"published","date":"2024-06-01T19:05:52+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":52455741,"identity":"bc278604-aaf5-4f75-8866-4786f8db18e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-11 19:57:16","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1743483,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLeft panel: Mean US-expectancy ratings to the CS+ (A) and the CS- (B) across Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks. Right Panel: Mean square root SCRs to the CS+ (C) and the CS- (D) across Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks. The orange and blue bars indicate responding in the Typical group and the Atypical group, respectively. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4021599/v1/0a3cb22425f43417c063766e.png"},{"id":52455740,"identity":"9899e7f4-e9d1-4fb4-acf7-8f4f694660ca","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-11 19:57:16","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1562288,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLeft panel: US-avoidance to the CS+ (A) and the CS- (B) across Costly US-avoidance acquisition blocks. Right Panel: US-avoidance to the GS+ (C) and the GS- (D) across Generalization Test blocks. GS+ indicates novel categorical exemplars that belong with CS+; GS- indicates novel categorical exemplars that belong with CSs. The orange and blue bars indicate responding in the Typical group and the Atypical group, respectively. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4021599/v1/294554f9d70b074e37134469.png"},{"id":52455742,"identity":"12e218c6-336b-4dd7-8a2e-1e088d37dee1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-11 19:57:16","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1546318,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA median split was performed to categorize high and low trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty individuals. This was done for better visualization of the data. Left Panel: Mean US-avoidance responses of High- and Low- intolerance of uncertainty participants across Generalization Test blocks. Right Panel: Mean US-avoidance responses of High- and Low- trait anxious participants across Generalization Test blocks. GS+ indicates novel categorical exemplars that belong with CS+; GS- indicates novel categorical exemplars that belong with CSs. The orange and blue bars indicate responding in the Typical group and the Atypical group, respectively. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4021599/v1/ad452a7d8a3a8e9be3664f02.png"},{"id":61189336,"identity":"64427bd0-1e6c-402f-bde7-8baa44a89f05","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-26 19:06:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":7273347,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4021599/v1/8a33b0e8-24c9-4182-8a7d-9f06cf018057.pdf"},{"id":52455738,"identity":"45596468-3f1e-4e7c-8369-ef7c035f9f36","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-11 19:57:13","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":996372,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SuppMaterialsTypicality.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4021599/v1/2e8f1647230cc5b31e315a47.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The effect of typicality training on costly safety behavior generalization","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFear conditioning refers to the repeated pairing of an initially neutral conditioned stimulus (CS+) and an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US). Consequently, the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;becomes a signal of threat and elicits conditioned fear responses such as elevated threat expectancy and skin conductance responses (SCRs). In many cases, fear conditioning was thought to model the development and maintenance of adaptive and maladaptive anxiety (Craske et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Lissek et al., 2006, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Mineka \u0026amp; Zinbarg, 2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, research has utilized fear conditioning models to examine fear learning patterns in healthy individuals and individuals with anxiety-related disorders (Craske et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Paz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). A pattern linked to clinical anxiety is excessive fear generalization (Duits et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Paz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Dymond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Fear generalization refers to fear acquired towards a CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;spreading to a range of novel stimuli that resemble the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;even if they were never paired with the US (Dunsmoor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Recent research has demonstrated that fear can generalize to novel stimuli that are conceptually related to the CS+ (Bennet et al., 2015; Mertens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Lovibond, 2021). In categorical generalization, for example, fear generalized to novel stimuli that are categorically related to the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;despite having no prior history with the US itself (e.g., Dunsmoor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Pittig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In these studies, exemplars from one category (e.g., mammals; the threat category) were paired with an aversive US, whereas exemplars from another category (e.g., tools) were never reinforced (safe category). Later in the generalization test, novel exemplars of the two categories were presented. In general, participants exhibited stronger fear responses to novel exemplars of the threat category compared to those of the safety category (Dunsmoor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Lovibond, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne factor that modulates the degree of categorical generalization is typicality (Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Murphy, 2002; Wong \u0026amp; Beckers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Typicality refers to the degree to which a stimulus represents the defining features of a given category. Dunsmoor and Murphy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) developed a categorical fear conditioning framework, where individuals were trained with either typical (i.e., exemplars that are great representatives of their category; cows as mammals) or atypical exemplars (i.e., exemplars that are less representative of their category; bats as mammals) and were tested with novel exemplars of reversed typicality. Individuals showed limited fear generalization to novel exemplars when trained with atypical compared to typical exemplars. This difference in fear generalization due to typicality is referred to as \u003cem\u003etypicality asymmetry\u003c/em\u003e. According to the authors, training with typical exemplars likely facilitated the formation of category membership-US association, which might explain why novel exemplars of the same category yielded stronger fear generalization. Conversely, training with less representative exemplars of a category likely confined the acquisition of CS-US contingency to individual exemplars, thus limiting fear generalization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypicality asymmetry was, however, only examined in (passive) conditioned responses, but not in active responses such as safety behaviors. Safety behaviors refer to active behavioral responses that minimize an expected threat onset when confronting a feared stimulus/situation. Safety behaviors become maladaptive when they are used excessively in the absence of realistic threat, a hallmark feature in anxiety disorders (Craske \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Dymond \u0026amp; Roche, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In laboratory settings, safety behaviors are modeled as US-avoidance responses (e.g., Flores et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; 2020; Levita et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Lovibond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Pittig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) which regards executing a designated response (e.g., pressing a specific key) during CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;presentation to effectively reduce the chance of the US onset. Recent studies have also introduced competing rewards to US-avoidance to render them costly (Pittig et al., 2021), allowing laboratory models to mirror pathological safety behaviors observed in anxiety-related disorders (Pittig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). One aim of the current study was to examine whether typicality asymmetry could be observed in costly US-avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are other factors affecting the degree of fear generalization alongside typicality, for example, individual difference factors such as trait anxiety (Pittig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Lovibond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and intolerance of uncertainty (Morris et al., 2016, 2019). Trait anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty refers to individual\u0026rsquo;s dispositional tendency to experience anxiety in various situations even in the absence of a threat (Barlow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) and to react negatively to uncertain and ambiguous situations (Buhr \u0026amp; Dugas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Carleton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), respectively. Both trait anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty are regarded as risk factors in the development of anxiety disorders (Chambers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Dugas \u0026amp; Koerner 2005; Gentes \u0026amp; Ruscio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Jorm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; McEvoy et al., 2016). Trait anxiety has been associated with various maladaptive fear learning patterns, and a stronger association between conditioned fear and avoidance behavior (see Pittig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). For example, impaired safety learning was evident in trait anxious individuals consistently showing stronger self-reported distress to safety stimuli (see Gazendam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, intolerance of uncertainty was associated with incapability to discriminate between threatening and innocuous stimuli that are perceptually similar (Morriss et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), and with impaired extinction learning retention, reflected by individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty showing greater SCRs to an extinguished CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;after extinction learning compared to their low intolerance of uncertainty counterparts (see Morriss et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Morriss et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor categorical fear generalization, typicality asymmetry might be attenuated in trait-anxious individuals (Wong and Beckers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Training with atypical exemplars had likely confined learning to an individual exemplar \u0026ndash; US association. In other words, participants trained with atypical exemplars were less likely to learn the threat predictiveness for the category (category membership \u0026ndash; US association), but rather learned that individual exemplars were associated with the US (multiple CS \u0026ndash; US associations). As a result, novel exemplars presented in a following generalization test became highly threat ambiguous as their threat predictiveness was relatively unclear. This high level of threat ambiguity represents a \u0026lsquo;weak\u0026rsquo; situation, which is optimal to observe the maladaptive aspects of trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty on fear learning (Beckers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In line with this idea, typicality asymmetry was observed across all participants but was attenuated in high-trait anxious individuals compared to their low-trait counterparts (i.e., high-trait anxious individuals showing stronger fear generalization compared to their low-trait counterparts despite training with atypical exemplars).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study sought to examine whether individual risk factors attenuate typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization. We followed the preliminary work of Wong and Beckers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and expanded it to costly US-avoidance. In line with preliminary findings, we hypothesized that participants trained with typical exemplars would exhibit stronger US-avoidance generalization compared to those trained with atypical exemplars (i.e., typicality asymmetry). Secondly, we hypothesized that typicality asymmetry in generalization would be reduced in individuals high in trait anxiety or high in intolerance of uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA simulation-based power analysis was performed in R using mixed power package (Kumle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The estimated power was based on a previous study examining the effect of trait anxiety on typicality asymmetry in fear generalization (Wong \u0026amp; Beckers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). According to the simulation-based power analyses, at least 100 participants were required to attain a power of 92.3% to detect an expected effect size of b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.69, or R2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02 (Jaeger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) (see preregistration \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/d75rg\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/d75rg\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). A total of 110 psychology undergraduates (17 men, 91 women, and 2 non-binary/other) from Erasmus University Rotterdam were recruited as participants and received mandatory course credits for their participation. Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 30 (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20, and \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2). This study received ethics approval (ETH2122-0452) from the Research Ethics Review Committee at Erasmus University Rotterdam in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eApparatus, stimuli, and materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwelve greyscale images from the mammal and bird categories (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) served as the category exemplars. They were previously rated for their typicality of membership on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7 (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all typical to 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highly typical; Wong and Beckers \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The atypical exemplars had a mean typicality rating of 2.7 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.6), whereas typical exemplars had a mean typicality rating of 6.6 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.8). The intermediate exemplars had a mean rating of 4.7 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.7).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSkin conductance was measured via two Ag/AgCl electrodes connected to a BioPac system at a sampling rate of 1000Hz. The aversive noise US was a 500 ms noise blast at 100db administered via headphones connected to a sound amplifier.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants completed the English-translated Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS; Freestone, et al., 1994; translated; Buhr, \u0026amp; Dugas, 2002) and the short version of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond \u0026amp; Lovibond, 1995). IUS was used to assess whether individuals found uncertain situations to be distressing. IUS consisted of 27 items, rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003enot at all characteristics of me\u003c/em\u003e to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eentirely characteristic of me\u003c/em\u003e). The English-translated version of IUS yielded an excellent internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94) (Buhr, \u0026amp; Dugas, 2002). DASS-21 consisted of 21 items, rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3 (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003edid not apply to me at all\u003c/em\u003e to 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eapplied to me very much or most of the time\u003c/em\u003e). Furthermore, DASS-21 validly measures and discriminates between three negative emotional states (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress) (Henry \u0026amp; Crawford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the anxiety subscale had an excellent internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89) (Coker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBird and mammal exemplars used in the current study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypicality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBirds\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMammals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHummingbird, Pigeon, Sparrow\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBear, Cow, Gorilla\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAtypical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCassowary, Emu, Penguin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBat, Platypus, Seal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntermediate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuck, Flamingo, Kiwi, Peahen, Swan, Turkey\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlpaca, Camel, Dolphin, Otter, Rat, Sloth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study began after participants provided informed consent. During the pre-experimental phase, headphones were placed on the participants which initiated the noise familiarization phase. Participants received 4 noise blasts with increasing intensity, starting from 30 dB to 100dB. The intensity of the final noise US was lowered to 95dB if participants found it too aversive. A reward-matching phase was carried out immediately after. Participants were presented with questions regarding whether they would tolerate the noise blast for a certain amount of hypothetical financial reward (\u0026ldquo;Are you willing to tolerate the noise when given \u0026euro;__?\u0026rdquo;) ranging between 5 to 31 cents in odd numbers (e.g., 5, 7, \u0026hellip;,31 cents) in a randomized order. Participants responded verbally by saying YES or NO. Then the maximum competing reward was uniquely calculated for each participant as the amount between the highest hypothetical monetary reward that received a \u0026ldquo;NO\u0026rdquo; and the lowest hypothetical monetary reward that received a \u0026ldquo;YES\u0026rdquo;. For instance, if a participant agreed to tolerate the noise US for rewards ranging from 17 to 31 cents (i.e., responding \u0026ldquo;YES\u0026rdquo;) but refused to tolerate it (i.e., responding \u0026ldquo;NO\u0026rdquo;) for rewards ranging from 5 to 15 cents (i.e., responding \u0026ldquo;NO\u0026rdquo;), the maximum competing reward would be 16 cents. This individually calibrated level of reward was sufficient to create a conflict between avoidance and approach (see Schlund et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Hereafter, participants were asked to fill in the IUS (Buhr, \u0026amp; Dugas, 2002) and the DASS-21 (Lovibond \u0026amp; Lovibond, 1995). The experimental phases started immediately after. The design of the current study is shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign of the current study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePavlovian fear acquisition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralization Test\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCS1+ (9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCS2- (9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCS1*[+, \u0026euro;] (9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCS2*- [\u0026euro;] (9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGS1-* [\u0026euro;] (9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGS2-* [\u0026euro;] (9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e+ indicates US presentation; - indicates US omission; * indicates the availability of US-avoidance; [+] indicates the presentation of US and [\u0026euro;] indicates competing reward, the presentation of US and competing reward depend on US-avoidance; number in parentheses indicates the number of trials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePavlovian fear acquisition\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were informed that various exemplars (CS) would be followed by a noise blast (US) and were prompted to learn the relation between the CSs and the aversive noise unconditioned stimulus (US). The Pavlovian fear acquisition phase had three identical blocks. In each block, three different mammal exemplars served as the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s whereas three different bird exemplars served as the CS-s, thus amounting to a total of 9 CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;trials and 9 CS- trials. The CSs were counterbalanced across participants. The CS presentation was pseudo-randomized, meaning that the same CSs were not presented more than twice in a row. The CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s were fully reinforced by the noise US while the CS-s were never reinforced. Importantly, typical exemplars served as the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s in the Typical group whereas atypical exemplars served as the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s in the Atypical group. In both groups, exemplars of intermediate typicality served as the CS-s (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). All CSs were presented on screen for 8 s with the US-expectancy scale. Participants were prompted to indicate their US-expectancy on each trial. Hence, participants were presented with a visual analog scale (VAS) below the CSs ranging from 0 to 100% with a 1% increment (0% = \u003cem\u003eCertainly NO noise\u003c/em\u003e to 100% = \u003cem\u003eCertain noise\u003c/em\u003e). The US-expectancy scale disappeared with the CS offset and the noise US was delivered immediately after the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;offset. The inter-trial intervals ranged from 15 to 18 s in all three phases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the start of the Costly US-avoidance acquisition phase, participants were informed about their opportunity to avoid the potential noise US by indicating their avoidance responses on the US-avoidance scale. Therefore, a VAS ranging from 0 to 100% with 1% increments was presented first below the CSs. The US-avoidance scale was negatively proportional to the chance of US onset and the maximum reward. For instance, if a participant selected 60% on the US-avoidance scale, there would be a 40% chance of receiving the noise US after CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;offset. However, participants would only recieve 40% of the maximum reward. The costly US-avoidance acquisition phase consisted of three blocks. Each block consisted of the three CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s and three CS-s presented in the previous phase. After participants indicated their US-avoidance responses, the CS and the US-avoidance scale disappeared simultaneously. Following a 1 s fixation cross, the same CS was presented for 8 s with the US-expectancy scale below. Participants were prompted to indicate their US-expectancy responses. After CS offset, a US might be administered depending on the US-avoidance response and CS type, followed by a 2 s reward feedback.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGeneralization test.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis phase followed seamlessly from the same block and trial structure as the previous phase. Three novel stimuli from the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;category (GS+) and three novel stimuli from the CS- category (GS-) were presented once in each of the three blocks. The Atypical group was presented with typical GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;whereas the Typical group was presented with atypical GS+. Both groups received GS- of intermediate typicality. On each trial, participants were presented with GSs and were prompted to indicate their US-avoidance responses. After a US-avoidance response was made, the GS and US-avoidance scale disappeared followed by a 1 s fixation cross. The same GSs then reappeared for 8 s with a US-expectancy scale. A 2 s reward feedback followed the GS offset. Importantly, neither the GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;nor GS- was reinforced, and participants were not given this information prior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eScoring and Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSkin conductance was measured throughout the experiment. Only SCRs 1s after CS/GS onset to CS/GS offset were included for analysis. To remove the high-frequency noise from the skin conductance data, we applied a 1 Hz low-pass filter and a 50 Hz notch filter. After, SCRs were calculated by taking the difference between the maximum response and the preceding trough (Pineles, Orr, \u0026amp; Orr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). SCRs were then square-rooted to reduce skewness (Boucsein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll data were analyzed within a linear mixed model framework in R with lmer package (Bates, Maechler, \u0026amp; Bolker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). All planned analyses were pre-registered on OSF (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/bj658\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/bj658\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe carried out two separate manipulation checks. First, we analyzed whether participants had higher expectancy ratings and greater SCRs to the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;than the CS- during Pavlovian fear acquisition. Expectancy ratings and SCRs were used as the dependent variable in two separate models. CS type (CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;vs. CS-) and Block (linear trend repeated measure across blocks), and their interaction, served as fixed effects in both models. These models captured whether fear learning to the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;was acquired. Group (Typical vs. Atypical) and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty (as continuous variables) were subsequently added to these models as fixed effects to see if these factors had any effect on fear learning. Second, we analyzed whether participants had acquired stronger US-avoidance to CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to CS- during Costly US-avoidance acquisition. Accordingly, US-avoidance responses served as the dependent variable, while CS type, Block, and their interactions served as fixed effects. Group and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty were subsequently added to these models to examine whether these factors had any effect on costly US-avoidance acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the main hypotheses, we investigated whether typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization was observed. Specifically, we examined whether the Typical group showed greater differential costly US-avoidance to the GSs compared to the Atypical group during the Generalization test phase. To this end, we employed a model where US-avoidance responses served as the dependent variable. Stimulus type (GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;vs. GS-), Group, and their interactions served as fixed effects. Then, we tested whether higher trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty reduced typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization (i.e., higher trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty indexes greater differential responding to the GSs in the Atypical group). Therefore, US-avoidance responses during the Generalization test phase served as the dependent variable. Stimulus type, Group, Block, and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty, and their interactions served as fixed effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, we implemented two separate models that only included the first block of Generalization test to minimize confounding extinction learning (i.e., to minimize the confounding reduction in responses as all GSs were not reinforced in Generalization test). US-avoidance served as the dependent variable in both models. The first model included Stimulus type, Group, and their interaction as fixed effects. In the second model, Stimulus type, Group, trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty, and their interactions served as the fixed effects. Participants served as the random effect for all the aforementioned linear mixed models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe degree of significance was reported with Satterthwaite approximation for degrees of freedom in all models (Satterthwaite, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1941\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, we expected that Group and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty would have no effect on differential US-expectancy and costly US-avoidance acquisition. Therefore, we used the Bayes Model to confirm the absence of an effect (Kruschke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). We obtained 95% highest density intervals (HDI), which contain the most credible values. Then, we looked at the posterior distribution that fell under the range of area around the null value, also referred to as the Region of Practical Equivalence (ROPE) (Kruschke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). We then calculated the percentage of HDIs that fell under ROPE (Kruschke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Kruschke \u0026amp; Liddell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs preregistered, statistical analyses were restricted to participants who had demonstrated differential fear conditioning and CS-US contingency awareness. In other words, only participants who had higher averaged US-expectancy ratings for the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to the CS- in the last \u003cem\u003ePavlovian fear acquisition\u003c/em\u003e block (i.e., the last 3 trials of CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;and the last 3 trials of CS-) were included to the statistical analyses. A total of 2 participants were excluded from this study, leaving 108 participants (53 in the Typical and 55 in the Atypical group).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePavlovian fear acquisition phase:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA-B show the mean US-expectancy ratings across Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks in each typicality group. Averaged over typicality groups, participants developed higher US expectancy ratings to the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to the CS- across acquisition block, whereas this difference increased across blocks. This was supported by a significant interaction between CS type and Block averaged across Group (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eCStype\u0026times;Block = -1187.22, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43.61, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Unexpectedly, the interaction between Group and CS type averaged over Block was significant (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eGroup\u0026times;CStype = -12.79, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). This suggests that the Typical group had greater US-expectancy ratings to CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to CS- averaged across the \u003cem\u003ePavlovian fear acquisition\u003c/em\u003e blocks when compared to the Atypical group. No other interactions involving Group reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.545).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo interactions involving intolerance of intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.194). The Bayesian model confirmed the absence of the effect of intolerance of uncertainty on the differential US-expectancy responses averaged across the \u003cem\u003ePavlovian fear acquisition\u003c/em\u003e blocks, as 100% of the HDIs depicting the interaction between CS type, Group and intolerance of uncertainty fell within ROPE.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with impaired differential US-expectancy ratings to the CSs averaged over Block and Group (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eCStype\u0026times;TA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.48, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005). No other interactions involving trait anxiety reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.071).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eC-D show the square root SCRs across Pavlovian fear acquisition blocks in each group. Participants had stronger SCRs to the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s compared to the CS-s averaged over blocks and groups. This was supported by a significant main effect of CS type (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eCStype = -0.08, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). None of the interactions involving Group reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.162), suggesting there was no evidence that the two groups differed in SCRs during Pavlovian fear acquisition. Additionally, no interactions involving trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.132). The Bayesian model confirmed the absence of these effects, as 100% of the HDIs depicting the interactions involving CS type, Group and trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty fell within ROPE.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition phase:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA-B show the mean US-avoidance responses across Costly US-avoidance acquisition blocks in each group. Averaged across Block and Group, US-avoidance for the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;exemplars were higher compared to the CS- exemplars (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eCStype= -39.88, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), indicating differential US-avoidance to the CSs during the \u003cem\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition phase.\u003c/em\u003e Unexpectedly, the Typical group had greater differential US-avoidance responses to the CSs compared to the Atypical group, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eCStype\u0026times;Group = -6.90, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002. No other interactions involving the Group had reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.725).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, no interaction involving intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.161). The Bayesian model confirmed the absence of the effect of intolerance of uncertainty on the differential US-avoidance responses, as 100% of the HDIs depicting the interactions involving CS type, Group, and intolerance of uncertainty fell within ROPE. The three-way interaction involving Group, CS type, and trait anxiety reached significance (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eCStype\u0026times;Group\u0026times;TA= -1.52, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). This suggests that increased trait anxiety was associated with decreased differential US-avoidance responses to the CSs; this pattern was stronger in the Atypical group compared to the Typical group averaged across \u003cem\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition\u003c/em\u003e blocks. US-expectancy ratings and SCRs were also assessed after US-avoidance responses were made. The analyses of US expectancy and SCRs were reported in the Supplementary Materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGeneralization Test:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eC-D illustrate the mean US-avoidance across \u003cem\u003eGeneralization test\u003c/em\u003e blocks in each group. We observed that averaged across Groups, participants showed greater costly US-avoidance to the GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to the GS-, while this difference decreased across blocks (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eStimulustype\u0026times;Block\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;130.66, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42.64, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002). Unexpectedly, the Atypical group had stronger differential US-avoidance generalization evidenced by a greater difference in responding to the GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to the GS- than the Typical group when averaging across blocks (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eStimulustype\u0026times;Group\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.37, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.93, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007). This suggests the expected typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization (stronger generalization in the Typical group than the Atypical group) went into an opposite direction. No other effects involving Group reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.578). See Supplementary Materials for the US-expectancy ratings and SCRs analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA-D show the mean US-avoidance across \u003cem\u003eGeneralization Test\u003c/em\u003e blocks for high and low trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty participants between typicality groups respectively. No interactions involving intolerance of uncertainty reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.594). This suggests that there was no evidence that an increase in intolerance of uncertainty was associated with different degrees of US-avoidance generalization. Regarding trait anxiety, averaged over Group and Block, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with a decrease in differential US-avoidance to the GSs, supported by a significant interaction between Stimulus type and trait anxiety (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eStimulustype\u0026times;TA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.55, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Follow-up robust regression analyses showed that an increase in trait anxiety was associated with an increase in generalized US-avoidance responses to the GS-, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003eTA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0093, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0017, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, but there was no evidence that trait anxiety was associated with generalized US-avoidance responses to the GS+, \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003eTA = -0.0011, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0050, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.829. No other interactions involving trait anxiety reached significance (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.478).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that group differences already emerged during \u003cem\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition\u003c/em\u003e, we exploratorily examined whether this pre-existing group difference contributed to the group differences observed in \u003cem\u003eGeneralization test\u003c/em\u003e. Therefore, we added the group difference in differential US-avoidance during \u003cem\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition\u003c/em\u003e as a covariate in \u003cem\u003eGeneralization test\u003c/em\u003e. Averaged across Block, the covariate reached significance (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) whereas the Stimulus type*Group interaction remained significant, bStimulustype\u0026times;Group\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.37, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.93, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006. This suggests that the pre-existing group differences during acquisition had an impact on the group differences observed during \u003cem\u003eGeneralization test\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFirst Block of Generalization Test:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo minimize confounding extinction learning, we examined only the first block of the \u003cem\u003eGeneralization Test\u003c/em\u003e. US-avoidance responses were generalized selectively to the GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;in both groups, supported by a main effect of Stimulus type (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eStimulusType = -18.32, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). However, there was no evidence for any group differences in costly US-avoidance generalization, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003eStimulusType\u0026times;Group\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.81, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.275, suggesting no evidence for typicality asymmetry in US-avoidance generalization. Moreover, no interaction involving trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty reached significance, (smallest \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.169). This suggests that there was no evidence that trait anxiety/intolerance of uncertainty had an effect on US-avoidance generalization in the first block of the \u003cem\u003eGeneralization Test\u003c/em\u003e phase.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current study sought to extend typicality asymmetry in generalization of costly US-avoidance. Furthermore, we examined whether trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty would reduce typicality asymmetry in costly US-avoidance generalization. We expected participants trained with atypical exemplars to exhibit limited US-avoidance generalization compared to participants trained with typical exemplars. Moreover, we expected that this pattern would reduce as trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty increased.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring Pavlovian fear acquisition, the Typical group had stronger differential US-expectancy ratings compared to the Atypical group, as further characterized by the Typical group showing higher US expectancies to the CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;and lower US expectancies to the CS- compared to the Atypical group. This difference was presumably due to the faster attribution of US predictiveness to the category membership in the Typical group. In contrast, the Atypical group likely attributed US occurrence to individual exemplars instead of to the category membership, thus leading to a delay in acquiring differential US-expectancy ratings (c.f. Dunsmoor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with impaired differential costly US-avoidance responses, specifically in the Atypical group. This aligned with findings that trait anxiety is associated with impaired differential safety behaviors learning (Wake et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This pattern might have only been observed in the Atypical group due to increased threat ambiguity, as the effects of trait anxiety on fear and avoidance learning are more likely to manifest under threat ambiguity (Beckers, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the Generalization test, we observed stronger US-avoidance responses to the GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s compared to GS-s, suggesting US-avoidance responses more selectively generalized to novel exemplars that shared category membership with the trained CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;category (Arnaudova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Dymond et al., 2012, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This was in line with research that examined higher-order conceptual generalization of avoidance to novel stimuli that shared category membership or had semantic relation to the CS+ (Boyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Dymond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Kloos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast to our expectation, the Atypical group showed stronger differential costly US-avoidance to the GSs compared to the Typical group. This finding contradicted previous studies that found typicality asymmetry in fear generalization (Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Beckers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The discrepancy in typicality asymmetry in the current study compared to past studies (Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Beckers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) was presumably due to the differences in experimental manipulations. In this study, all CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;exemplars in both typicality groups were fully reinforced during Pavlovian fear acquisition, compared to a 67% reinforcement rate in past studies (Dunsmoor \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Wong \u0026amp; Beckers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This full reinforcement schedule might have introduced different learning patterns in the two typicality groups. In the Typical group, a full reinforcement schedule might have further strengthened the learning of a category membership \u0026ndash; US association. In contrast, this reinforcement schedule might have further reinforced the learning of individual exemplar CS \u0026ndash;US association in the Atypical group. Therefore, novel GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;exemplars presented in Generalization test presumably induced a high level of threat ambiguity in the Atypical group compared to past studies that partially reinforced the atypical CS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;s. This higher level of threat ambiguity in the Atypical group might have led to stronger safety behaviors to the GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to the Typical group. That means, the apparent greater differential responding in the Atypical group compared to the Typical group during Generalization test was evoked by a high level of threat ambiguity but less likely due to genuine generalization. This explanation is further complemented by how weaker differential US-avoidance in the Atypical group compared to the Typical group in \u003cem\u003eCostly US-avoidance acquisition\u003c/em\u003e contributed to an opposite pattern in \u003cem\u003eGeneralization test\u003c/em\u003e. This pattern further suggests that the apparent stronger generalization in the Atypical group was likely due to stronger responding evoked by high level of threat ambiguity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA second alternative explanation is that the Atypical group might have adopted a different learning strategy from the one mentioned above. Instead of learning an individual exemplar \u0026ndash; US association (or individual exemplar - no US association), the Atypical group might have explicitly learnt the \u003cem\u003eCS- category \u0026ndash; no US association\u003c/em\u003e. For instance, they might have adopted a strategy that all birds signaled no shock (when birds served as the CS- exemplars), while all non-bird exemplars signaled shock (see Wong \u0026amp; Lovibond, 2021). Thus, the apparent stronger generalization in the Atypical group could be merely due to participants responding strongly to exemplars that did not belong to the CS- category. This alternative explanation is complemented by the reversed typicality effect only observed across test blocks, but not on the first test block. This pattern further suggested that the Atypical group who might have adopted the \u0026ldquo;only CS- category was safe\u0026rdquo; strategy might have focused more on the GS- exemplars, thus leading to slower extinction learning to the GS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;compared to the Typical group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the current study sought to examine whether trait anxiety or intolerance of uncertainty would attenuate typicality asymmetry in safety behaviors generalization. We hypothesized that an increase in these risk factors would be associated with a reduced typicality asymmetry. However, the current findings were not able to support this hypothesis, as no typicality asymmetry in safety behaviors generalization was found in the first place.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAveraged across group manipulation, an increase in trait anxiety was associated with impaired discriminative generalized safety behaviors to the GSs during the Generalization test (i.e., differential safety behavior generalization was reduced as trait anxiety increased). This pattern was driven by trait anxious individuals exhibiting stronger generalized safety behaviors to the GS-. This pattern expands on findings that trait anxiety is associated with impaired safety learning (e.g., Baas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Chan \u0026amp; Lovibond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) to generalized responding to novel safety stimuli.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, we did not find any effects of intolerance of uncertainty of safety behaviors generalization, in contrast to findings that suggest intolerance of uncertainty is associated with stronger safety behaviors generalization (San Martin et al., 2020). The field of examining individual risk factors and avoidance learning is, however, still in its infancy (Wong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it is important for future study to test the robustness of the effects of risk factors on avoidance learning (and its generalization) via replication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne limitation of this study was the use of hypothetical reward. One may argue that using hypothetical reward may not model costly US-avoidance as participants may not view it as costly as a real reward. However, studies have used hypothetical reward and successfully reduced behavioral avoidance (e.g., Dibbets \u0026amp; Fonteyne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Pittig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that participants did pursue hypothetical rewards by not using avoidance responses. Furthermore, studies have shown that both hypothetical and reward rewards had similar effects on decision making (e.g., Jenkinson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Locey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the current study replicated research regarding higher-order categorical safety behavior generalization (Dymond et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Kloos et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). More specifically, we observed that participants successfully generalized from their training exemplars to the novel generalization exemplars. However, we did not replicate typicality asymmetry in costly safety behavior generalization. In fact, the Atypical group showed greater differential costly US-avoidance generalization compared to the Typical group. We have made two speculations in the failure to replicate this pattern, including the increased ambiguity in the Atypical group due to continuous reinforcement rate and the possible adaptation of a different learning strategy (i.e., the CS- category \u0026ndash; no US association). Nevertheless, the findings showed that increased trait anxiety was associated with stronger generalized safety behaviors to exemplars that belong to the safety category, highlighting the maladaptive safety behaviors generalization to other innocuous situations observed in anxious individuals. It is worth noting that there is currently a lack of research examining the relationship between conceptual safety behavior generalization and individual risk factors. As such, this study makes an important contribution to the field by shedding light on the potential influence of individual risk factors on the maladaptive pathological avoidance observed in anxiety-related disorders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eCredit authorship contribution statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIşık Eren Kesim: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; Original draft, Visualization, Data collection. Andre Pittig: Conceptualization, Writing \u0026ndash; Review \u0026amp; Editing. \u0026nbsp;Alex H. K. Wong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; Review \u0026amp; Editing, Supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Acknowledgments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank Marcelina Nogiec for data collection and data processing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Declaration of interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no competing interests to declare\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnaudova, I., Krypotos, A. M., Effting, M., Kindt, M., \u0026amp; Beckers, T. (2017). Fearing shades of grey: Individual differences in fear responding towards generalisation stimuli\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCognition and Emotion, 31\u003c/em\u003e, 1181\u0026ndash;1196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1204990\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaas, J. M. P., van Ooijen, L., Goudriaan, A., \u0026amp; Kenemans, J. L. (2008). Failure to condition to a cue is associated with sustained contextual fear. \u003cem\u003eActa Psychologica, 127\u003c/em\u003e, 581-592. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBates, D.M., Maechler, M., \u0026amp; Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarlow, D. H. (2002). \u003cem\u003eAnxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeckers, T., Krypotos, A. M., Boddez, Y., Effting, M., \u0026amp; Kindt, M. (2013). What\u0026rsquo;s wrong with fear conditioning? \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e92\u003c/em\u003e(1), 90\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.12.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBishop, S. J. (2008). Trait anxiety and impoverished prefrontal control of attention\u003cem\u003e. Nature Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 92\u0026ndash;98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2242\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoucsein, W., Fowles, D. C., Grimnes, S., Ben-Shakhar, G., roth, G., Dawson, W. T., \u0026amp; Filion, D. L. (2012). Publication recommendations for electrodermal measurements. \u003cem\u003ePsychophysiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1017\u0026ndash;1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01384.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyle, S., Roche, B., Dymond, S., \u0026amp; Hermans, D. (2016). Generalisation of fear and avoidance along a semantic continuum\u003cem\u003e. Cognition and Emotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 340\u0026ndash;352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.1000831\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuhr, K., \u0026amp; Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 222\u0026ndash;236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.12.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrowning, M., Behrens, T. E., Jocham, G., O\u0026rsquo;Reilly, J. X., \u0026amp; Bishop, S. J. (2015). Anxious individuals have difficulty learning the causal statistics of aversive environments. \u003cem\u003eNature Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(4), 590\u0026ndash;596. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3961\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCamerer, C., \u0026amp; Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Risk and Uncertainty,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 325\u0026ndash;370. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00122575\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., \u0026amp; Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 105\u0026ndash;117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChambers, J. A., Power, K. G., \u0026amp; Durham, R. C. (2004). The relationship between trait vulnerability and anxiety and depressive diagnoses at long-term follow-up of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(5), 587\u0026ndash;607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.09.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, C. K. Y., \u0026amp; Lovibond, P. F. (1996). Expectancy bias in trait anxiety. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e105\u003c/em\u003e(4), 637\u0026ndash;647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.105.4.637\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCisler, J. M., \u0026amp; Koster, E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2\u003cem\u003e),\u003c/em\u003e 203\u0026ndash;216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoker, A. O., Coker, O., \u0026amp; Sanni, D. (2018). Psychometric properties of the 21-item Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21). \u003cem\u003eAfrican Research Review,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v12i2.13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCraske, M. G. (1999). \u003cem\u003eAnxiety disorders: Psychological approaches to theory and treatment.\u003c/em\u003e Westview Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCraske, M. G., Hermans, D., \u0026amp; Vervliet, B. (2018). State-of-the-art and future directions for extinction as a translational model for fear and anxiety. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e373\u003c/em\u003e(1742), 20170025. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Kleine, R. A., Hutschemaekers, M. H. M., Hendriks, G., Kampman, M., Papalini, S., Van Minnen, A., \u0026amp; Vervliet, B. (2023). Impaired action-safety learning and excessive relief during avoidance in patients with anxiety disorders. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e, 102698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102698\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDibbets, P., \u0026amp; Fonteyne, R. (2015). High spider fearfuls can overcome their fear in a virtual approach-avoidance conflict task. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Depression \u0026amp; Anxiety, 4\u003c/em\u003e(2), https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1044.1000182\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDugas, M. J., Buhr, K., \u0026amp; Ladouceur, R. (2004). The Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty in Etiology and Maintenance. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk, \u0026amp; D. S. Mennin (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eGeneralized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 143\u0026ndash;163). The Guilford Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDugas, M. J., Marchand, A., \u0026amp; Ladouceur, R. (2005). Further validation of a cognitive-behavioral model of generalized anxiety disorder: Diagnostic and symptom specificity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders, 19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 329\u0026ndash;343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.02.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuits, P., Cath, D. C., Lissek, S., Hox, J. J., Hamm, A. O., Engelhard, I. M., van den Hout, M. A., \u0026amp; Baas, J. M. P. (2015). UPDATED META-ANALYSIS OF CLASSICAL FEAR CONDITIONING IN THE ANXIETY DISORDERS. \u003cem\u003eDepression and Anxiety\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 239\u0026ndash;253. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22353\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunsmoor, J. E., Mitroff, S. R., \u0026amp; LaBar, K. S. (2009). Generalization of conditioned fear along a dimension of increasing fear intensity. \u003cem\u003eLearning \u0026amp; Memory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(7), 460\u0026ndash;469. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.1431609\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunsmoor, J. E., Martin, A., \u0026amp; LaBar, K. S. (2012). Role of conceptual knowledge in learning and retention of conditioned fear. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e89\u003c/em\u003e(2), 300\u0026ndash;305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunsmoor, J. E., \u0026amp; Murphy, G. L. (2014). Stimulus Typicality Determines How Broadly Fear Is Generalized. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1816\u0026ndash;1821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535401\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunsmoor, J. E., \u0026amp; Paz, R. (2015). Fear Generalization and Anxiety: Behavioral and Neural Mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(5), 336\u0026ndash;343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.04.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDymond, S., Dunsmoor, J. E., Vervliet, B., Roche, B., \u0026amp; Hermans, D. (2015). Fear Generalization in Humans: Systematic Review and Implications for Anxiety Disorder Research. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(5), 561\u0026ndash;582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.10.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDymond, S., \u0026amp; Roche, B. (2009). A contemporary behavior analysis of anxiety and avoidance. \u003cem\u003eThe Behavior Analyst\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392173\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDymond, S., Schlund, M. W., Roche, B., \u0026amp; Whelan, R. (2014). The Spread of Fear: Symbolic Generalization Mediates Graded Threat-Avoidance in Specific Phobia. \u003cem\u003eQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67\u003c/em\u003e(2), 247\u0026ndash;259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.800124\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDymond, S., Schlund, M. W., Roche, B., Whelan, R., Richards, J., \u0026amp; Davies, C. (2011). Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(10), 614\u0026ndash;621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2011.06.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlores, A., L\u0026oacute;pez, F. J., Vervliet, B., \u0026amp; Cobos, P. L. (2018). Intolerance of uncertainty as a vulnerability factor for excessive and inflexible avoidance behavior. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e104\u003c/em\u003e, 34\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.02.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoa, E. B., \u0026amp; Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e(1), 20\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeston, M. H., Rh\u0026eacute;aume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., \u0026amp; Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 791\u0026ndash;802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGangemi, A., Mancini, F., \u0026amp; Van Den Hout, M. (2012). Behavior as information: \u0026ldquo;If I avoid, then there must be a danger.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1032\u0026ndash;1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.04.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGazendam, F. J., Kamphuis, J. H., \u0026amp; Kindt, M. (2013). Deficient safety learning characterizes high trait anxious individuals. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e92\u003c/em\u003e(2), 342\u0026ndash;352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.11.006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGentes, E. L., \u0026amp; Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of the relation of intolerance of uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive\u0026ndash;compulsive disorder. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 923\u0026ndash;933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.05.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrupe, D. W., \u0026amp; Nitschke, J. B. (2011). Uncertainty is associated with biased expectancies and heightened responses to aversion. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 413\u0026ndash;424. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022583\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenry, J. D., \u0026amp; Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(2), 227\u0026ndash;239. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X29657\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunt, C., Cooper, S. E., Hartnell, M. P., \u0026amp; Lissek, S. (2019). Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty facilitate associations between generalized Pavlovian fear and maladaptive avoidance decisions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e(4), 315\u0026ndash;326. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000422\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaeger, B. C., Edwards, L. J., Das, K., \u0026amp; Sen, P. K. (2017). An \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e statistic for fixed effects in the generalized linear mixed model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Statistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1086\u0026ndash;1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2016.1193725\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenkinson, P. M., Baker, S. R., Edelstyn, N. M. J., \u0026amp; Ellis, S. J. (2008). Does autonomic arousal distinguish good and bad decisions? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychophysiology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 141\u0026ndash;149. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803.22.3.141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P. A., Korten, A. E., \u0026amp; Rodgers, B. (2000). Predicting anxiety and depression from personality: Is there a synergistic effect of neuroticism and extraversion? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e109\u003c/em\u003e, 145\u0026ndash;149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.1.145\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKloos, T., van Vliet, C., Riecke, J., Meulders, A. (2022). Indoor or Outdoor? Generalization of Costly Pain-Related Avoidance Behavior to Conceptually Related Contexts. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Pain, 23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 657\u0026ndash;668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2021.10.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumle, L., V\u0026otilde;, M. L. H., \u0026amp; Draschkow, D. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods, 53\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2528\u0026ndash;2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01546-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruschke, J. (2015). \u003cem\u003eDoing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan\u003c/em\u003e (second ed.). Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruschke, J. K., \u0026amp; Liddell, T. M. (2018). The bayesian new statistics: hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a bayesian perspective. \u003cem\u003ePsychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 178\u0026ndash;206. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423- 016-1221-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLazarus, R. S., \u0026amp; Folkman, S. (1984). \u003cem\u003eStress, appraisal and coping.\u003c/em\u003e New York: Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J. C., Hayes, B. K., \u0026amp; Lovibond, P. F. (2018). Peak shift and rules in human generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: \u003cem\u003eLearning, Memory and Cognition,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1955\u0026ndash;1970. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000558\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J. C., Lovibond, P. F., \u0026amp; Hayes, B. K. (2019). Evidential diversity increases generalisation in predictive learning. \u003cem\u003eQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(11), 2647\u0026ndash;2657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819857065\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevita, L., Hoskin, R., Champi, S. (2012). Avoidance of harm and anxiety: A role for the nucleus accumbens. \u003cem\u003eNeuroImage\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(1), 189\u0026ndash;198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.059\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissek, S., Kaczkurkin, A. N., Rabin, S., Geraci, M., Pine, D. S., \u0026amp; Grillon, C. (2014). Generalized Anxiety Disorder Is Associated With Overgeneralization of Classically Conditioned Fear. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(11), 909\u0026ndash;915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.07.025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissek, S., Levenson, J., Biggs, A. L., Johnson, L. L., Ameli, R., Pine, D. S., \u0026amp; Grillon, C. (2008). Elevated Fear Conditioning to Socially Relevant Unconditioned Stimuli in Social Anxiety Disorder. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e165\u003c/em\u003e(1), 124\u0026ndash;132. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06091513\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissek, S., Powers, A. S., McClure, E. B., Phelps, E. A., Woldehawariat, G., Grillon, C., \u0026amp; Pine, D. S. (2005). Classical fear conditioning in the anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1391\u0026ndash;1424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.10.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissek, S., Rabin, S., Heller, R. E., Lukenbaugh, D., Geraci, M., Pine, D. S., \u0026amp; Grillon, C. (2010). Overgeneralization of Conditioned Fear as a Pathogenic Marker of Panic Disorder. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e167\u003c/em\u003e(1), 47\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09030410\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocey, M. L., Jones, B. A., \u0026amp; Rachlin, H. (2011). Real and hypothetical rewards in self- control and social discounting. \u003cem\u003eJudgment and Decision Making,\u003c/em\u003e 6, 522\u0026ndash;564.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLovibond, P. F., Mitchell, C. J., Minard, E., Brady, A., Menzies, R. G. (2009). Safety behaviours preserve threat beliefs: Protection from extinction of human fear conditioning by an avoidance response. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(8), 716\u0026ndash;720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.04.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeulders, A. (2020). Fear in the context of pain: Lessons learned from 100 years of fear conditioning research. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e131\u003c/em\u003e, 103635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103635\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMertens, G., Boddez, Y., Krypotos, A. M., \u0026amp; Engelhard, I. M. (2021). Human fear conditioning is moderated by stimulus contingency instructions. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e158\u003c/em\u003e, 107994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107994\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcEvoy, P. M., \u0026amp; Mahoney, A. E. (2012). To Be Sure, To Be Sure: Intolerance of Uncertainty Mediates Symptoms of Various Anxiety Disorders and Depression. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(3), 533\u0026ndash;545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.02.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorriss, J., Macdonald, B., \u0026amp; van Reekum, C. M. (2016). What Is Going On Around Here? Intolerance of Uncertainty Predicts Threat Generalization. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(5), e0154494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154494\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorriss, J., Saldarini, F., van Reekum, C. M. (2019). The role of threat level and intolerance of uncertainty in extinction. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychophysiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e142\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.05.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorriss, J., Saldarini, F., Chapman, C., Pollard, M., \u0026amp; van Reekum, C. M. (2019). Out with the old and in with the new: The role of intolerance of uncertainty in reversal of threat and safety. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 204380871983445. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043808719834451\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorth, C. S., Pfefferbaum, B., Tivis, L., Aya, K., Reddy, C., \u0026amp; Spitznagel, E. L. (2004). The course of posttraumatic stress disorder in a follow-up study of survivors of the Oklahoma city bombing\u003cem\u003e. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 209\u0026ndash;215. https://doi. org/10.1080/10401230490522034.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePittig, A., \u0026amp; Dehler, J. (2019). Same fear responses, less avoidance: Rewards competing with aversive outcomes do not buffer fear acquisition, but attenuate avoidance to accelerate subsequent fear extinction. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e112\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePineles, S. L., Orr, M. R., \u0026amp; Orr, S. P. (2009). An alternative scoring method for skin conductance responding in a differential fear conditioning paradigm with a long-duration conditioned stimulus. \u003cem\u003ePsychophysiology\u003c/em\u003e, 46(5), 984\u0026ndash;995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00852.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePittig, A. (2019). Incentive-based extinction of safety behaviors: Positive outcomes competing with aversive outcomes trigger fear-opposite action to prevent protection from fear extinction. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e121\u003c/em\u003e, 103463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103463\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePittig, A., Schulz, A. R., Craske, M. G., \u0026amp; Alpers, G. W. (2014). Acquisition of behavioral avoidance: Task-irrelevant conditioned stimuli trigger costly decisions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e123\u003c/em\u003e(2), 314\u0026ndash;329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036136\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePittig, A., Treanor, M., LeBeau, R. T., \u0026amp; Craske, M. G. (2018). The role of associative fear and avoidance learning in anxiety disorders: Gaps and directions for future research. \u003cem\u003eNeuroscience \u0026amp; Biobehavioral Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e, 117\u0026ndash;140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.03.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePittig, A., Wong, A. H., Gl\u0026uuml;ck, V. M., \u0026amp; Boschet, J. M. (2020). Avoidance and its bi-directional relationship with conditioned fear: Mechanisms, moderators, and clinical implications. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e126\u003c/em\u003e, 103550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103550\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSatterthwaite, F. E. (1941). Synthesis of variance. Psychometrika, 6, 309\u0026ndash;316. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF022 88586\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchlund, M. W., Brewer, A. T., Magee, S. K., Richman, D. M., Solomon, S. D., Ludlum, M. D., \u0026amp; Dymond, S. (2016). The tipping point: Value differences and parallel dorsal\u0026ndash;ventral frontal circuits gating human approach\u0026ndash;avoidance behavior. \u003cem\u003eNeuroImage\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e136\u003c/em\u003e, 94\u0026ndash;105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.070\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShihata, S., McEvoy, P. M., Mullan, B. A., \u0026amp; Carleton, R. N. (2016). Intolerance of uncertainty in emotional disorders: What uncertainties remain? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e, 115\u0026ndash;124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.05.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWake, S., van Reekum, C. M., Dodd, H. (2021). The effect of social anxiety on the acquisition and extinction of low-cost avoidance. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e146\u003c/em\u003e, 103967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103967\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWinter, B. (2013). Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. arXiv:1308.5499. [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5499.pdf] \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong, A. H. K., \u0026amp; Beckers, T. (2021). Trait anxiety is associated with reduced typicality asymmetry in fear generalization. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e138\u003c/em\u003e, 103802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103802\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong, A. H. K., \u0026amp; Pittig, A. (2021). A dimensional measure of safety behavior: A non-dichotomous assessment of costly avoidance in human fear conditioning. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(1), 312\u0026ndash;330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01490-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong, A. H. K., \u0026amp; Lovibond, P. F. (2018). Excessive generalisation of conditioned fear in trait anxious individuals under ambiguity. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e107\u003c/em\u003e, 53\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.05.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong, A. H. K., \u0026amp; Lovibond, P. F. (2020). Breakfast or bakery? The role of categorical ambiguity in overgeneralization of learned fear in trait anxiety. \u003cem\u003eEmotion, 21\u003c/em\u003e(4), 856\u0026ndash;870. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000739\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWong, A. H. K., Aslanidou, A., Malbec, M., Pittig, A., Wieser, M. J., \u0026amp; Andreatta, M. (2023). A systematic review of the inter-individual differences in avoidance learning. \u003cem\u003eCollabra\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77856 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"psychological-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"prpf","sideBox":"Learn more about [Psychological Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/426)","snPcode":"426","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/426/3","title":"Psychological Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Safety behavior generalization, Trait anxiety, Intolerance of uncertainty, Threat ambiguity, Typicality asymmetry","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4021599/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4021599/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackground and objectives:\u003c/em\u003e Typicality asymmetry in generalization refers to the enhanced fear generalization when trained with typical compared to atypical exemplars. Typical exemplars are highly representative of their category, whereas atypical exemplars are less representative. Individual risk factors, such as trait anxiety, attenuate this effect, due to the high level of threat ambiguity of atypical exemplars. Although recent research provided evidence for generalization of safety behavior, it is unclear whether this generalization also follows typicality asymmetry. This study examined 1) whether participants exhibited typicality asymmetry in the generalization of safety behavior and 2) whether this effect would be attenuated by individual risk factors, such as intolerance of uncertainty and trait anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethods:\u003c/em\u003e Participants were trained with either typical (Typical group, n = 53) or atypical (Atypical group, n = 55) exemplars in a fear and avoidance conditioning procedure. Participants acquired differential conditioned fear and costly safety behavior to the threat- and safety-related exemplars. In a following Generalization Test, the degree of safety behavior to novel exemplars of the same categories was tested.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults:\u003c/em\u003e The Atypical group showed greater differential safety behavior responses compared to the Typical group. Higher trait anxiety was associated with lower differential safety behavior generalization, driven by an increase in generalized responding to novel safety-related exemplars. \u003cem\u003eLimitations:\u003c/em\u003e This study used hypothetical cost instead of real cost.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConclusions:\u003c/em\u003e Training with atypical exemplars led to greater safety behavior generalization. Moreover, individuals with high trait anxiety show impaired safety behavior generalization.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The effect of typicality training on costly safety behavior generalization","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-03-11 19:56:43","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4021599/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-04-18T11:04:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-04-15T09:26:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"3dc8edb7-e65b-4ca7-9a21-263778a0b4b2","date":"2024-03-27T04:00:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-03-25T22:02:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-03-22T07:26:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-03-07T15:00:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Psychological Research","date":"2024-03-06T15:16:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"psychological-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"prpf","sideBox":"Learn more about [Psychological Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/426)","snPcode":"426","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/426/3","title":"Psychological Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0a9a0a61-d5e2-4db9-a64e-41dbd033cb88","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 11th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-07-26T19:05:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4021599","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01979-0","journal":{"identity":"psychological-research","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Psychological Research"},"publishedOn":"2024-06-01 19:05:52","publishedOnDateReadable":"June 1st, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-03-11 19:56:43","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00426-024-01979-0","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01979-0","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4021599","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4021599","identity":"rs-4021599","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}