A dimensional measure of safety behavior: A non-dichotomous assessment of costly avoidance in human fear conditioning

Abstract

Safety behavior prevents the occurrence of threat, thus it is typically considered adaptive. However, safety behavior in anxiety-related disorders is often costly, and persists even the situation does not entail realistic threat. Individuals can engage in safety behavior to varying extents, however, these behaviors are typically measured dichotomously (i.e., to execute or not). To better understand the nuances of safety behavior, this study developed a dimensional measure of safety behavior that had a negative linear relationship with the admission of an aversive outcome. In two experiments, a Reward group receiving fixed or individually calibrated incentives competing with safety behavior showed reduced safety behavior than a Control group receiving no incentives. This allowed extinction learning to a previously learnt warning signal in the Reward group (i.e., updating the belief that this stimulus no longer signals threat). Despite the Reward group exhibited extinction learning, both groups showed a similar increase in fear to the warning signal once safety behavior was no longer available. This null group difference was due to some participants in the Reward group not incentivized enough to disengage from safety behavior. Dimensional assessment revealed a dissociation between low fear but substantial safety behavior to a safety signal in the Control group. This suggests that low-cost safety behavior does not accurately reflect the fear-driven processes, but also other non-fear-driven processes, such as cost (i.e., engage in safety behavior merely because it bears little to no cost). Pinpointing both processes is important for furthering the understanding of safety behavior.

Spontaneous instrumental avoidance learning in social contexts

“…These results are consistent with the idea that the subjective motivational value associated with the action outcome is a crucial determinant of instrumental avoidance (Pittig et al, 2020). In line with this, a recent study has shown that the more a stimulus predicting a CS+ acquired negative valence throughout the task, the stronger the CS-avoidance (Wong & Pittig, 2021). We also observed that response repetition after avoidance feedback (often labelled win-stay) and switch after approach feedback (lose-shift) correlated with both the learning rate and the weighting parameter, confirming that win-stay and lose-switch are proxies of individual sensitivity to positive and negative feedback, respectively (Bari et al, 2010;Estes, 1950, p. 195;Paulus et al, 2002;St.…”

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly—Chances, Challenges, and Clinical Implications of Avoidance Research in Psychosomatic Medicine

“…In contrast to animal studies allowing a comprehensive evaluation of avoidance from subtle to excessive behaviors (117,118), this complex phenomenon is often reduced to simple button presses indicating an evaluative decision to avoid or not to avoid an imminent outcome in human research (46). Attempts to overcome this lack of face validity have been made by including behavioral measures such as eye (119) and motion tracking (120) or by implementing a gradual admission of aversive outcomes (121).…”

Experimental models in psychopathology research: The relation between Research Domain Criteria and Experimental Psychopathology

“…Overall, EPP fear conditioning research has started to adopt more transdiagnostic and dimensional approaches to psychopathology. Examples include a transdiagnostic approaches examining fear conditioning across fear-related disorders [41,42], as well as dimensional approaches with respect to self-reported symptoms [43][44][45][46], or to avoidance behaviors [47,48].…”