Counterconditioning reduces contextual renewal in a novel context but not in the acquisition context

As extinction is a context-dependent form of learning, conditioned responses tend to return when the conditioned stimulus (CS) is encountered outside the extinction context, known as contextual renewal. Counterconditioning is a technique that may lead to a more persistent reduction of the conditioned response. However, the effects of aversive-to-appetitive counterconditioning on contextual renewal in rodent studies are mixed. Further, research in humans is sparse, particularly direct statistical comparisons between counterconditioning and standard extinction techniques within the same study. Using a causal associative learning framework (the allergist task) implemented online, we compared the effectiveness of counterconditioning to standard extinction in preventing the renewal of judgements on the allergic properties of different food items (CSs). In a between-subjects design, 328 participants first learned that particular food items (CSs) lead to an allergic reaction in a specific restaurant (context A). Next, one CS was extinguished (no allergic reaction) while another CS was counterconditioned (positive outcome) in restaurant B. Causal judgements of the allergic properties of food items occurred in either the response acquisition context (ABA group, N = 112), the response reduction context where extinction and counterconditioning had occurred (ABB group, N = 107), or a novel context (ABC group, N = 109). Results showed that counterconditioning, compared to extinction, diminished the renewal of causal judgements to the CS in a novel context (ABC group). Still, casual judgements returned for both counter-conditioned and extinguished CSs in the response acquisition context (ABA group). Counterconditioning and extinction were similarly effective at preventing recovery of causal judgements in the response reduction context (ABB group); however, only in context B did participants choose the counter-conditioned CS as less likely to cause an allergic reaction in comparison to the extinguished CS. These findings indicate scenarios in which counterconditioning is more effective than standard extinction at diminishing the return of threat associations, with implications for improving the generalization of safety learning.