Evidence for the interchangeability of an avoidance behavior and a negative occasion setter

Abstract

290Avoidance behavior is an instrumental response that prevents the occurrence of an aversive event. It is a common phenomenon in life, since a great deal of our activity is performed to avoid the occurrence of negative or aversive stimuli. In a typical study of avoidance learning, a warning signal (A) is presented and followed by an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US), unless the participant performs a designated response (R). For example, a tone (A) is presented and is followed by an electric shock (US), unless the participant presses a certain key (R). Recently, a new theoretical approach was proposed by De Houwer, Crombez, and Baeyens (2005; see Gray, 1987;Lovibond, 2006;Mowrer, 1947;and Seligman & Johnston, 1973, for other accounts of avoidance learning). Their cognitive theory was based on the observation that avoidance behavior and negative occasion setting are quite similar at the structural level (for a review on the literature of occasion setting, see Holland, 1992, or Schmajuk & Holland, 1998. In negative occasion setting, the occasion setter signals whether a certain stimulus (also called the target) will be followed by the US. If the occasion setter is presented together with the target, the US will not follow, but it will if the occasion setter is not presented. Avoidance behavior, in its turn, also involves a feature negative discrimination: If the avoidance response is performed, the warning signal will not be followed by the US, but it will be if the avoidance response is not performed. From this structural perspective, avoidance learning and negative occasion setting are similar. The only difference is that in the former the occasion setter is a behavior, whereas in the latter the occasion setter is a stimulus (e.g., a tone).De Houwer et al. (2005) investigated whether avoidance behavior is similar to negative occasion setting at a functional level as well. According to Holland (1992), an occasion setter possesses three properties. First of all, it modulates responding to the target. In the case of negative occasion setting, the participants learn that the presence of the US after the presentation of the target is less probable when the occasion setter is presented, whereas the absence of the occasion setter indicates that the US will be presented after the target. This implies that conditioned responding to the target will be stronger when the occasion setter is absent than when it is present. Whereas the property of modulation is not unique to occasion setters (e.g., even presenting a novel stimulus together with a target can modulate responding to the target), the other two properties are. The first of these unique properties is that a negative occasion setter modulates responding to the target independent of its own relation with the US. This means that even when there is a positive contingency between the negative occasion setter and the US, this contingency has no effect on the modulation of the negative occasion setter. In the literature, this property is called resistance against coun...

Avoidance behaviour performed in the context of a novel, ambiguous movement increases threat and pain-related fear

“…This finding is in line with the results reported by Vervliet and Indekeu, 33 who found that avoidance behaviour can reoccur after successful fear extinction, when the avoidance response became available again. Also, the return of the availability to avoid may have acted as a negative occasion setter as described by De Houwer et al 5,6 Regarding our fourth hypothesis, we found that more frequent avoiders reported higher pain expectancies and pain-related fear during the free-choice test phase. This result suggested that not only acquired avoidance behaviour by itself can increase pain expectancy and pain-related fear but also the frequency of performing the avoidance behaviour has an effect on those measures.…”

Avoidance learning: a review of theoretical models and recent developments

“…Despite subsequent replication and extension of those findings (Declercq and De Houwer, 2008 ), more recent evidence (e.g., Declercq and De Houwer, 2011 ) argues against the negative occasion setting account, as the property of selective transfer could also be explained by the lesser reinforcement of C compared to A and B during the first phase of the experiment. Still, despite this limitation, insights from the negative occasion setting account could prove clinically important.…”

“…Informational factors also play an important role in the avoidance learning theory of De Houwer and colleagues (De Houwer et al, 2005 ; Declercq and De Houwer, 2008 ). According to those authors, an avoidance response serves as a signal that a CS is not going to be followed by an aversive event, which in associative learning language is called a “negative occasion setter” (see Holland, 1992 ; Schmajuk and Holland, 1998 , for reviews on occasion setting).…”

Avoidance behavior in chronic pain research: A cold case revisited

“…However, the tone in itself does not predict the presence or absence of the US. Particularly interesting for the present topic is that Declercq and De Houwer (2008) recently found that a behavioral response in the form of avoidance can have occasion-setting properties. Translating this to our patient Simon, he believes lifting heavy things (the CS) predicts spinal injury (the US), unless he keeps his back straight (subtle avoidance behavior; feature X).…”