Reality Cheque: Different Methods of Eliciting Fear-Related Beliefs Reveal Multiple Representations of Threat

Influential models of fears and phobias suggest that irrational threat beliefs underpin excessive fear. Yet, many fearful individuals recognize their fear is not justified. Drawing on memory competition/multiple representations theory, we developed a novel, fear-relevant procedure, which reveals conflicting representations of threat. In three experiments (Experiment 1, <i>N</i> = 49, Experiment 2, <i>N</i> = 47, Experiment 3, <i>N</i> = 75), fearful and non-fearful participants not only provided Probability Ratings for fear-related outcomes in a fear-relevant exposure task, but placed Bets, with payoffs depending on what happened in reality. Fearful participants displayed much higher Probability Ratings than Low fear participants. However, Bets revealed far less consistent group differences, even when proximal to threat (Experiments 1 and 2), and differences between High and Low fear participants' Bets disappeared when they could not be anchored to previous Probability Ratings (Experiment 3). A Neutral Betting task also showed that general betting strategies were comparable between groups. We suggest that these findings may reflect the multi-representational nature of belief, in which both adaptive and maladaptive representations of a feared object may exist in parallel, with personal and contextual factors determining which form of representation is retrieved or expressed. This perspective can provide insights into the complex interplay of adaptive and maladaptive beliefs that is a central focus of currently dominant therapies.