ABA Fundamentals

The conditioning of dyspneic suffocation fear. Effects of carbon dioxide concentration on behavioral freezing and analgesia.

Mongeluzi et al. (2003) · Behavior modification 2003
★ The Verdict

Stronger scary air makes stronger learned fear—watch for dose when you plan exposure.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who treat medical or dental phobias, or anyone using exposure with kids who gag or shut down.
✗ Skip if Clinicians working only with skill-building or reinforcement programs where fear is not a factor.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Scientists paired rats with short bursts of carbon dioxide gas. They used three gas strengths: 10 %, 20 %, or 40 % CO2. Each burst lasted 30 seconds and came every 90 seconds.

After ten pairings, the team moved the rats to a new cage. No gas here—just the same smell and lights. They watched how long the rats froze and how little they flinched from a heat probe.

02

What they found

Stronger CO2 made stronger fear. Rats that got 40 % gas froze almost twice as long as the 10 % group. They also ignored the heat probe longer—a built-in pain block called analgesia.

The results lined up like stairs: 10 % < 20 % < 40 %. More aversive air equals more freezing and more analgesia.

03

How this fits with other research

Brown et al. (1968) first showed that pairings alone can shape behavior. Pigeons pecked a key just because light always came before food. The CO2 study uses the same Pavlovian rule, but with scary air instead of free grain.

Hartmann et al. (1979) proved that a simple tone can control pecking even when pecking cancels the food. Their work and the CO2 paper both show one core idea: stimulus-outcome pairings drive behavior, good or bad.

Martinez-Perez et al. (2024) tested different shock levels and saw dose effects on resurgence. The CO2 paper mirrors that pattern—turn the aversive dial up, behavior changes in step.

04

Why it matters

If a client gags during tooth brushing or panics at the smell of a mask, those reactions may be classically conditioned. This study tells you the stronger the original scare, the tougher the fear. Start exposure low and build slow, just like the CO2 steps. Track freezing, flinching, or heart rate—they are built-in data sheets.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Start your next exposure session one step below the client’s last calm level—then inch up, just like the CO2 stairs.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
other
Population
other
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Previous studies in our laboratory have shown that a single exposure to 100% carbon dioxide (CO2) can serve as an effective unconditioned stimulus (US) in a Pavlovian aversive-context conditioning paradigm in rats. Although the US exposure parameters employed in the initial studies were sufficient for producing a context-specific enhancement of behavioral freezing and analgesia, it had yet to be determined whether variations of these CO2 conditioning procedures would produce other conditioning effects. Thus, the purpose of the following experiment was to investigate the intensity of the US on the conditioned response (CR). The findings confirm that variations in CO2 concentrations produce changes in the CR that are consistent with principles of Pavlovian conditioning. The findings lend additional support to the tenability of a dyspneic suffocation fear theory of panic disorder, a theory that postulates that at least one type of panic attack could be a consequence of Pavlovian conditioning.

Behavior modification, 2003 · doi:10.1177/0145445503256316