The Spread of Fear and Avoidance Presented in association with N.U.I.M. Psychology Society by Sean Boyle, Postgraduate Researcher N.U.I. Maynoot h
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 Experimental Hypothesis Psychopathology Aetiology Experimental Analysis Analysis Intervention Design Test Test efficacy Basic Psychological Applied Psychological Research Research 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 Skinner’s “Verbal Behaviour” Pavlov’s “Conditioned examines Pavlov wins Journal of Reflexes” language as Nobel prize Applied behaviour and describes what for research Behavioral provides support later becomes into dog Analysis for experimental known as physiology is launched behaviour Classical analysis Conditioning 1904 1913 1927 1938 1957 1958 1968 Skinner’s “The Watson Journal of the introduces the Behaviour of Experimental Organisms” experimental Analysis of study of introduces the Behavior behaviour and concept of is launched Behaviourism Operant is born Behaviour
Gen ener eral alis isation ation of fea ear is is t the e tran ansfer er of 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 Reinforcement of Avoidance stimulus as behaviour threat & Reinforcement of avoidance as behaviour Immediate reduction in anxiety
SPIDER ALERT
Indirect Avoidance Anxiety CUE inducing threat from stimulus Reinforcement of cue as precursor to Avoidance threat behaviour & Reinforcement of avoidance as behaviour Immediate reduction in anxiety
Cognitive model Expectancy Cue Threat Anxiety Avoidance Avoidance No Threat
Behavioural model A Taught Derived B C Taken from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (1999) by Hayes, Strosahl & Wilson.
Stimulus Equivalence “SPIDER” Taught Derived SPIDER
Comparative training is smaller than is smaller is smaller than than is larger is larger than than is larger than Directly Derived - Combinatorial Derived - Mutual trained Entailment 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 100 nce e Avoidanc 80 60 age ntag 40 Percent 20 0 B1 avoid B2 avoid B1 avoid C1 avoid B2 avoid C2 avoid Phase 2 Phase 3 10 9 ies 8 ancie Mean Expectanc 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 B1 no press B2 no press B1 no press C1 no press B2 no press C2 no press 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 CS+ CS- Phase 1: Avoidanc Avoidance Conditioning Aversive Image Blank Screen Blank Screen Blank Screen & Sound CS+ CS-, DCS+ or DCS- Avoidance Avoidance Phase 2: Probes Aversive Image Blank Screen Blank Screen Blank Screen & Sound
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!
Phase 1: CS- CS+ operant conditioning Avoidance Avoidance SHOC Phase 2: CS+ CS- , DCS+ or DCS- Probes Avoidance Avoidance SHOCK Weep – Cry Fight – Brawl Soup – Broth Sick – ill
Avoidance Mean % of trials Phase Stimulus SD on which there was avoidance 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 CS+ CS- DCS+ DCS-
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 % trials on SCR which avoidance Shock Response Stimulus ( u S per cm 2 ) was/was not Expectancy produced Avoidance Learned Threat (CS+) 97 0.163 1.12 Learned Safety (CS-) 2 0.102 2.04 66 0.191 1.56 Inferred Threat (DCS+) 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).
Recommend
More recommend
