A Derived Relations Analysis of Approach-Avoidance Conflict: Implications for the Behavioral Analysis of Human Anxiety

Gannon, Steven; Roche, Bryan; Kanter, Jonathan W.; Forsyth, John P.; Linehan, Conor

doi:10.1007/bf03395758

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The high ratings of the likelihood of contacting the aversive stimulus for the inferred threat cue is significant because it highlights the formation of a threat belief that stems from symbolic stimulus equivalence relations and not from directly contacting the aversive stimulus (experience). Collectively, these findings are the first to show how inferences about threat and safety can arise from relational learning processes and generate ratings of the likelihood of aversive events (Augustson & Dougher, 1997;Dymond & Roche, 2009;Dymond et al, 2007Dymond et al, , 2008Gannon et al, 2011;Roche et al, 2008). The present findings are consistent with the expectancy model of avoidance (Declercq & De Houwer, 2009b, 2011Lovibond, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Findings showed that all participants emitted the threat-avoidance response to AV3 and AV4 (indirectly related to AV2) and not to N3 and N4 (indirectly related to N2). Further studies have replicated and extended this basic effect (Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, & Rhoden, 2007Gannon, Roche, Kanter, Forsyth, & Linehan, 2011;Roche, Kanter, Brown, Dymond, & Fogarty, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Dymond

Schlund

Roche

et al. 2011

Behaviour Research and Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSymbolic generalization of avoidance may underlie the aetiology and maintenance of anxiety disorders. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate inferred threat-avoidance and safety (non-avoidance) behaviours that occur in the presence of stimuli indirectly related to learned threat and safety cues. A laboratory experiment was conducted involving two symbolic stimulus equivalence relations consisting of three physically dissimilar stimuli (avoidance cues: AV1eAV2eAV3 and neutral cues: N1eN2eN3). During avoidance learning involving aversive images and sounds, a key-press avoidance response was trained for one member of one of the relations (AV2) and non-avoidance for another (N2). Inferred threat and safety behaviour and ratings of the likelihood of aversive events were tested with presentations of all remaining stimuli. Findings showed a significantly high percentage of avoidance to both the learned and inferred threat cues and less avoidance to both the learned and inferred safety cues. Ratings in the absence of avoidance were high during training and testing to threat cues and low to safety cues and were generally lower in the presence of avoidance. Implications for associative and behavioural accounts of avoidance, and modern therapies for anxiety disorders are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Dymond

Schlund

Roche

et al. 2011

Behaviour Research and Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fact that this discrimination continued into the probe phase using generalised stimuli, simply reflects this clear discriminative control and its extension through an effective generalisation procedure. This pattern has been widely observed in the literature on symbolic generalisation (e.g., Bennett, Hermans, Dymond, Vervoort, & Baeyens, in press;Dymond et al, 2007Dymond et al, , 2008Dymond et al, , 2011Gannon et al, 2011).…”

Section: Semantic Generalisation Cognition and Emotion 2015supporting

confidence: 66%

“…This is a common observation in the literature on symbolic generalisation (e.g., Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, & Rhoden, 2007Dymond, Schlund, Roche, De Houwer, & Freegard, 2012;Gannon, Roche, Kanter, Forsyth, & Linehan, 2011). This effect is understood here to simply reflect the fact that generalisation of fear and avoidance along a merely symbolic continuum might not be expected to be as robust as the original CR.…”

Section: Semantic Generalisation Cognition and Emotion 2015mentioning

confidence: 76%

Generalisation of fear and avoidance along a semantic continuum

Boyle

Roche

Dymond

et al. 2015

Cognition and Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Directly conditioned fear and avoidance readily generalises to dissimilar but conceptually related stimuli. Here, for the first time, we examined the conceptual/semantic generalisation of both fear and avoidance using real words (synonyms). Participants were first exposed to a differential fear conditioning procedure in which one word (e.g., "broth"; CS+) was followed with brief electric shock [unconditioned stimulus (US)] and another was not (e.g., "assist"; CS-). Next, an instrumental conditioning phase taught avoidance in the presence the CS+ but not the CS-. During generalisation testing, synonyms of the CS+ (e.g., "soup"; GCS+) and CS-(e.g., "help"; GCS-) were presented in the absence of shock. Conditioned fear and avoidance, measured via skin conductance responses, behavioural avoidance and US expectancy ratings, generalised to the semantically related, but not to the semantically unrelated, synonyms. Findings have implications for how natural language categories and concepts mediate the expansion of fear and avoidance repertoires in clinical contexts.

show abstract

“…Then, participants were tested with presentations of C1 and C2, in the absence of the US. Findings showed that consistent avoidance responses were made in the presence of C1 but not C2 (because C1 is the same as B1, whereas C2 is the opposite), thus demonstrating the symbolic generalization of avoidance in accordance with complex relational networks of same/opposite (see also Bennett, Hermans, Dymond, Vervoort, & Baeyens, 2014;Gannon, Roche, Kanter, Forsyth, & Linehan, 2011;Roche, Kanter, Brown, Dymond, & Fogarty, 2008).…”

Section: Symbolic Avoidance Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 89%

Fear Generalization in Humans: Systematic Review and Implications for Anxiety Disorder Research

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fear generalization, in which conditioned fear responses generalize or spread to related stimuli, is a defining feature of anxiety disorders. The behavioral consequences of maladaptive fear generalization are that aversive experiences with one stimulus or event may lead one to regard other cues or situations as potential threats that should be avoided, despite variations in physical form. Theoretical and empirical interest in the generalization of conditioned learning dates to the earliest research on classical conditioning in nonhumans. Recently, there has been renewed focus on fear generalization in humans due in part to its explanatory power in characterizing disorders of fear and anxiety. Here, we review existing behavioral and neuroimaging empirical research on the perceptual and non-perceptual (conceptual and symbolic) generalization of fear and avoidance in healthy humans and patients with anxiety disorders. The clinical implications of this research for understanding the etiology and treatment of anxiety is considered and directions for future research described.

show abstract

A Derived Relations Analysis of Approach-Avoidance Conflict: Implications for the Behavioral Analysis of Human Anxiety

Cited by 17 publications

References 40 publications

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Generalisation of fear and avoidance along a semantic continuum

Fear Generalization in Humans: Systematic Review and Implications for Anxiety Disorder Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About