Question 20. about exposure therapy: you can't break any associations between the CS and the US, you rather develop new stronger inhibitory responses to those stimuli and weaken the unwanted association. At least that's how I understood it, maybe double check it :)
Our tutor drew sth on the board which came from the course coordinator and there it literally said the goal of inhibitory learning is to break the US CS association. In addition the therapy can add response prevention to get rid of the CR. But I also think and that's also what the article says, that you cannot actually break an association because biologically it will always be there you can just override it
Psycho Resit people, please help me out!
Task 5 about eating disorders:
There are these two articles, both by Stice et al. one from 2006 and one from 2005 and both describe exactly the same studies with the same or similar outcomes. What is the point? They both say "the findings are not in line with dietary theory" (this theory hasn't been mentioned positively before)
Also if you think about it, the book chapters are quite general and requires remembering a lot of things by heart like heritability etc., which I doubt they will ask us about specifically since the case is the same in almost all psychiatric disorders (that there is a genetic vulnerability but no specific gene has been found and not enough empirical research and so on).
There are two strategies used to deepen the extinguished relationship between two stimuli.
1) Extinguishing multiple stimuli separately. E.g. you expose your phobic patient to a small spider, to a bigger one, a tarantula, etc, so that every fear evoking stimulus is extinguished.
2) You can pair the extinguished stimulus with something postive. E.g. present the (already extinguished) spider together with the favorite song of the patient (or even a neutral stimulus)
The aim is to prevent spontaneous recovery of the disorder.
imagine you were a soldier and experienced sth very bad while you were in a war zone. you may develop intrusions (you re-experience this specific traumatic event again and again). example: you saw your colleague dying, because she was killed in a car by an explosion -> a few months after you returned, you again live in maastricht and drive with your friend to the city in a car. now you develop intrusions, that is, you think about what happened to your colleague in the war zone and BASED ON THESE THOUGHTS you make reasons ->intrusion-based reasoning. the other way of emotion-based reasoning is that you reason based on your experienced emotions, but not really on your thoughts. (extra information: emotions are the physical experiences of a stimulus like faster heart beating when seeing a snake-> reasoning based on this would be an example for emotion-based reasoning) hope it is clear now
updated 2 years ago
You interpret an intrusion (an unwanted stimulus) as evidence that danger is impending, regardless of objective danger information; I interpret this as a """superstition""" :)
So what? Everyone is using her summaries anyways without having paid for them. They are being sent around on whatsapp/facebook and so on and noone seems to care. But beware of uploading it to studydrive, where almost everyone has them already, anyways (just like you, for example). Then all of a sudden people start lamenting. So hypocritical