Comparisons of extinction, counterconditioning, and novelty-facilitated extinction within ABA vs. ABC renewal designs.

The expression of an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) can be weakened by presenting the CS by itself (extinction [Ext]), pairing it with an appetitive US (counterconditioning [CC]), or pairing it with a neutral stimulus (novelty-facilitated extinction [NFE]). The present research tested whether NFE is less susceptible to ABC renewal than Ext and CC. In two experiments, participants viewed streams of rapid trials. After each stream, participants rated how likely it was that the target CS would be followed by the target US (i.e., predictive learning) as well as the valence of the target CS (i.e., evaluative conditioning). A stream was composed of two phases: Phase 1 established an association between the target CS and target US while Phase 2 aimed at disrupting the expression of this association through Ext, CC, or NFE. Phase 1 occurred in Context A while Phase 2 occurred in Context B. Prediction and valence ratings occurred in either Context A, B, or C. Neither Experiment 1 nor Experiment 2 found differences across interference conditions with predictive testing, regardless of test context. In Experiment 2, better controlled for context effect, CC and NFE altered the CS valence (CC more than NFE) when testing occurred in B, but the difference disappeared when testing occurred in either A or C. The present data do not support the hypothesis that NFE is less susceptible to ABC renewal than either Ext or CC. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).