Transformation of Avoidance Response Functions in Accordance With Same and Opposite Relational Frames

Abstract

Research on the emergence of human avoidance behavior in the absence of direct contact with an aversive event is somewhat limited. Consistent with work on derived relational responding, the present study sought to investigate the transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with the relational frames of Same and Opposite. Participants were first exposed to nonarbitrary and arbitrary relational training and testing in order to establish Same and Opposite relations among arbitrary stimuli. The training tasks were; Same-A1-B1, Same-A1-C1, Opposite-A1-B2, Opposite-A1-C2. Next, all possible combinatorially entailed (i.e., B-C and C-B) relations were tested. During the avoidance-conditioning phase, one stimulus (B1) from the relational network signaled a simple avoidance response that cancelled a scheduled presentation of an aversive image and sound. All but one of the participants who met the criteria for conditioned avoidance also demonstrated derived avoidance by emitting the avoidance response in the presence of C1 and the nonavoidance response in the presence of C2. Control participants who were not exposed to relational training and testing did not show derived avoidance. Implications of the findings for understanding clinically significant avoidance behavior are discussed.

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

“…To illustrate, if choosing Stimulus X in the presence of Stimulus A is taught (i.e., A-X), and choosing Stimulus Y in the presence of Stimulus A (i.e., A-Y) is also taught, it is likely that untrained relations will emerge between X and A, Y and A ("symmetry"), X and Y, and Y and X ("equivalence"), in the absence of any feedback. When this occurs, a stimulus equivalence relation is said to have formed among the relata (Dymond & Roche, 2013;Hayes & Hayes, 1992). The emergence of untrained verbal relations such as these may, it is claimed, help explain the patterns of indirect, nonperceptually based fear generalization often seen in anxiety disorders and which arise in the apparent absence of a conditioning history with the feared object or event (Dymond & Roche, 2009;.…”

“…Fear and avoidance responses conditioned to one of these stimuli may then alter or transform the functions of other, untrained relations in terms of "same" and "opposite." Dymond et al (2007Dymond et al ( , 2008) exposed participants to a signaled avoidance task, during which responding in the presence of the stimulus B1 cancelled a scheduled US presentation. Another stimulus, B2, was never followed by the US.…”

“…It shows how semantic-like, symbolic categories may be readily formed in language-able humans and how "meaning" or, in this instance, conditioned fear and avoidance functions, alter and spread to networks of related stimuli. The relational basis of this view of psychopathology forms the basis of relational frame theory (RFT; Dymond & Roche, 2013;Dymond, Roche, & Bennett, 2013), a functional contextual account of human language and cognition that informs several third-wave behavior therapies such as acceptance and commitment therapy (Hayes, Levin, Plumb-Vilardaga, Villate, & Pistorello, 2013).…”

The interfering effect of emotional stimulus functions on stimulus equivalence class formation: implications for the understanding and treatment of anxiety

“…Moreover, many behavior analysts now agree that verbal processes are likely involved in the acquisition of complex forms of anxiety (e.g., Augustson & Dougher, 1997;Dougher, 1998;Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000;Dymond & Roche, 2009;Forsyth, 2000;Forsyth & Eifert, 1996;Friman, et al, 1998;Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999;Hayes & Wilson, 1993Tierney & Bracken, 1998). The role of verbal behavior in behavior-analytic accounts of anxiety has been revisited with a view to addressing gaps in our understanding of the processes involved in the development, maintenance, and treatment of clinical anxiety (e.g., Dougher, Hamilton, Fink, & Harrington, 2007;Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, & Rhoden, 2007;Wray, et al, 2009).…”

“…The avoidance response was shown to transfer to the other members of the particular equivalence class and not to members of the other equivalence class (A2-B2-C2-D2). The authors used the observed transfer of function across stimulus equivalence classes to help explain, at least in part, the aetiologies of avoidance responses that appear to have emerged in the absence of any explicit history of reinforcement for avoidance in the natural environment, while acknowledging that as a mere experimental analogue the levels of conditioned responding observed were not clinically significant (see also Dougher, et al, 2007;Dymond, et al, 2007;Friman, et al, 1998;Roche, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Barnes-Holmes, & McGready, 2000).…”