The Spread of Fear and Avoidance Presented in association with - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Spread of Fear and Avoidance

Presented in association with N.U.I.M. Psychology Society by Sean Boyle, Postgraduate Researcher N.U.I. Maynooth

Sean Boyle, M.Sc., B.A. (Psychology)

• B.A. (Hons) Psychology, N.U.I.M. 2012

Symbolic generalisation of fear and avoidance: Testing a behavioural model of anxiety

• M.Sc. Psychology, N.U.I.M. 2014

Examining the transfer of fear and avoidance response functions through real-world verbal relations

Experimental Psychopathology

Test efficacy Aetiology Experimental Design Hypothesis Test Analysis Analysis Intervention

Basic Psychological Research Applied Psychological Research Experimental Psychopathology

Leslie and O’Reilly (1999) cautioned that the experimental analysis of behaviour and applied behaviour analysis are the “science and technology of behaviour”

Experimental behaviour analysis

Pavlov wins Nobel prize for research into dog physiology Watson introduces the experimental study of behaviour and Behaviourism is born Pavlov’s “Conditioned Reflexes” describes what later becomes known as Classical Conditioning Skinner’s “The Behaviour of Organisms” introduces the concept of Operant Behaviour Skinner’s “Verbal Behaviour” examines language as behaviour and provides support for experimental behaviour analysis Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is launched Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis is launched

1904 1913 1927 1938 1957 1958 1968

Gen ener eral alis isation ation of fea ear is is t the e tran ansfer er

• f fea

ear bet etwee een ph physic ically ly sim imil ilar or categor egorica icall lly y rel elated ed obje jects cts or even ents.

Fear is a natural occurring physiological response, however the resulting behaviour can become problematic e.g., Phobias and anxiety disorders.

The Problem With Generalisation

Avoidance

Anxiety inducing threat from stimulus Avoidance behaviour Immediate reduction in anxiety Reinforcement of avoidance as behaviour Reinforcement of stimulus as threat &

SPIDER ALERT

Indirect Avoidance

Anxiety inducing threat from stimulus Avoidance behaviour Immediate reduction in anxiety

Reinforcement of avoidance as behaviour Reinforcement of cue as precursor to threat &

CUE

Cognitive model

Expectancy

Cue Threat Anxiety

No Threat

Avoidance Avoidance

Behavioural model

B C A

Taught Derived

Taken from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (1999) by Hayes, Strosahl & Wilson.

Stimulus Equivalence

SPIDER “SPIDER”

Taught Derived

Comparative training

is larger than Directly trained Derived - Mutual Entailment

is smaller than is smaller than

is larger than is larger than is smaller than Derived - Combinatorial Entailment

DERIVED RELATIONS, FEAR AND AVOIDANCE

2013: Dymond , S., Schlund, M., Roche, B. & Whelan, R. (2013): The Spread of Fear: Symbolic Generalization Mediates Graded Threat-Avoidance in Specific Phobia. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, DOI:10.1080/17470218.2013.800124 2012: Dymond, S., Schlund, M. W., Roche, B., De Houwer, J., & Freegard, G. (2012). Safe from harm: Learned, instructed, and symbolic generalization pathways of human threat-avoidance. PLoS ONE 7(10): e47539. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047539. 2011: Dymond, S., Schlund, M. W., Roche, B., Whelan, R., Richards, J., & Davies, C. (2011). Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49, 614-

• 621. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2011.06.007

2009: Rodriguez Valverde, M., Luciano, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Transfer of aversive respondent elicitation in accordance with equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 85-111. 2007: Dougher, M.J., Hamilton, D.A., Fink, B.C. & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 179-197. Roche, B., Kanter, J. W., Brown, K., Dymond, S. & Fogarty, C. (2008). A comparison of “direct” versus “derived” extinction of avoidance. The Psychological Record, 58, 443-464. Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J.P., Whelan, R. & Rhoden, J. (2007). Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 88, 249-262. 2000: Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behaviour: The transformation of stimulus

• functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239-254

1997: Augustson, E.M. & Dougher, M.J. (1997). The transfer of avoidance evoking functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of behavioural therapy and experimental Psychiatry, 28, 181-191. 1994: Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M. R., & Green- way, E. E. (1994). The transfer of respondent elicit- ing and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351.

n = 25

AVOIDANCE V EXPECTANCIES

20 40 60 80 100 B1 avoid B2 avoid B1 avoid C1 avoid B2 avoid C2 avoid Percent ntag age e Avoidanc nce Phase 2 Phase 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 B1 no press B2 no press B1 no press C1 no press B2 no press C2 no press Mean Expectanc ancie ies Phase 2 Phase 3

Implications

• Stimulus equivalence can facilitate a derived (i.e., not

learned) transfer of threat function between arbitrary stimuli.

• Lack of memory of various derived relations would

makes it difficult to treat original basis of an acquired phobia in a real world setting (and encourages cognitive theorising),

• The causal status of cognitive process in avoidance is

questioned given this new model of anxiety.

CATEGORICAL CONDITIONING & FEAR GENERALISATION

“higher order cognitive systems interact with basic conditioning mechanisms” - Dunsmoor et al., 2012

Experiment 1 Fruit vs Furniture

Avoidanc Avoidance

CS- CS+

Aversive Image & Sound Blank Screen Blank Screen Blank Screen Avoidance Avoidance

CS-, DCS+ or DCS- CS+

Aversive Image & Sound Blank Screen Blank Screen Blank Screen

Phase 1:

Conditioning Phase 2: Probes

Results - Avoidance

Possible confounds

Parameter Possible confound

• No pre-training

No pre-training

• Categorically related Stimuli

Not sufficiently related

• Aversive images

Not sufficiently aversive

• Avoidance

Avoidance

DaH-DaH-DaaaaaaH!

SHOC

Avoidance Avoidance

CS- CS+

Avoidance Avoidance

CS-, DCS+ or DCS- CS+

Phase 1:

• perant

conditioning Phase 2: Probes

Weep – Cry Fight – Brawl Soup – Broth Sick – ill

Avoidance

CS+ CS- DCS+ DCS-

Phase Stimulus Mean % of trials

• n which there

was avoidance SD 2: Probes CS+: Learned Threat 97.12 10.786 CS-: Learned Safety 1.92 9.806 DCS+: Inferred Threat 66.35 44.126 DCS-: Inferred Safety 0.96 4.903

Avoidance comparison

Untrained relations (current study) Trained equivalence relations (Dymond et al., 2011).

Mean percentage avoidance demonstrated by participants in the current study using synonym pairs and those recorded by Dymond et al. 2011 who employed pairs of stimuli from laboratory established derived equivalence

• relations. (DCS+/- refers to an untrained stimulus probe)

Avoidance v SCR v Expectancy

Response Stimulus % trials on which avoidance was/was not produced SCR (uS per cm2) Shock Expectancy Avoidance Learned Threat (CS+) 97 0.163 1.12 Learned Safety (CS-) 2 0.102 2.04 Inferred Threat (DCS+) 66 0.191 1.56 Inferred Safety (DCS-) 1 0.129 2.20 No Avoidance Learned Threat (CS+) 3 0.163 4.69 Learned Safety (CS+) 98 0.102 1.19 Inferred Threat (CS+) 34 0.191 3.27 Inferred Safety (CS+) 99 0.129 1.31

Self reported expectancies

Expectancies that did NOT control behavior as effectively as experimental contingencies

Implications

• Avoidance provides a more reliable indication of threat

appreciation than either physiological or self report measures.

• No significant relationship between experimentally

measured physiological fear levels or anxiety trait measures and overt avoidance

• Possible disconnect between fear levels and threat

appreciation

Possible disconnect

• Fear (SCR) does not correlate with avoidance (Me; Szpiler et

al., 1976)

• Expectancy does not correlate with avoidance (Me; Dymond

et al., 2011; Declercq & DeHouwer, 2009)

• Expectancy does not correlate with fear (Schwerdtfeger, 2004)
• Anxiety propensity does not correlate with fear or avoidance

(Me; Derakshan et al., 2007)

• Neural areas involved in threat appreciation different to those

involved in activation of SNS (LeDoux, 2014).

Advantages of a behavioural explanation

• Fear, appreciation of fear, threat assessment, avoidance may

all be “by-products” of underlying behaviour (Dymond et al., 2011).

• Stimulus equivalence and RFT research provides almost 25

years of research supporting the behaviour.

• Treatments involving merely extinction of fear would leave

the underlying behavioural patterns intact.

• Recent study shows (Luciano et al. 2013) acceptance based

intervention provides for a lack of avoidance and fear.

From here?

1.

Parameters and processes involved in overt avoidance.

2.

Role of individual differences and coping strategies in propensity to avoidance.

3.

Prototype of assessment instrument or computer based analog to identify propensity to avoid.

4.

Ultimately, by understanding the processes, contribute to effective interventions to address dysfunction.

Thank You

sean.boyle@nuim.ie