1. Consequences for Avoiding Bad Things

2. Extinction of Avoidance Behavior Through Response-Blocking and CS-Alone Exposure
Avoidance behavior can be very persistent
It is difficult to extinguish avoidance behavior
Avoidance behavior removes aversive situations
It is successfully preventing an aversive outcome
Situations that produce fear & expectancy of threat motivate avoidance
A good thing if it is truck coming at you
However, avoiding school is maladaptive
Similar to procrastination
aversive activities are difficult to start

3. Extinction of Avoidance Behavior Through Response-Blocking and CS-Alone Exposure
Response Blocking “Flooding”
Extensive exposure to the CS (fear signal) and prevent avoidance of the CS
Also called “Response Prevention with Extinction” (RPE)
Longer exposure to the CS produces more extinction
Schiff (1972)
Avoidance of shock in response to a CS tone by running to the safe side
Prevent avoidance by blocking access to the safe compartment
Independent groups given different amounts of blocking time
Testing with CS presentation and barrier removed
Record number of trials to extinguish avoidance Figure 10.6

4. FIGURE 10.6
Trials to an extinction criterion for independent groups of animals that previously received various durations of blocked exposure to the CS. (From “Extinction on Avoidance in Rats as a Function of Duration and Number of Blocked Trials” by R. Schiff, N. Smith, and J. Prochaska, 1972, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 81, pp. 356–359.)
The Principles of Learning and Behavior, 7e by Michael Domjan
Copyright © 2015 Wadsworth Publishing, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

5. Flooding with Response Blocking
Bravo-Rivera (2015)
behavioral conflict study with hungry rats
pressing a lever for food with occasional foot shock
avoid shock by jumping on a platform
but can not get any food while on the platform
RPE (flooding): Removal of the platform (no shocks delivered)
initially increased fear-related freezing that subsequently extinguished
returning the platform to the cage (but no shock)
return of shock-avoidance responses, despite complete fear extinction
Avoidance behavior is persistent and difficult to extinguish
An important part of exposure-based treatments (flooding)
identify and neutralize avoidance behaviors
If children are skipping school what are they doing instead?
To improve extinction of the fear or anxiety

6. Flooding with Response Blocking
Low-Cost Avoidance Behaviors are Resistant to Fear Extinction in Humans. Vervliet and Indekeu 2015
Procedure using pictures presented on a computer screen
Conditioning procedure was explained extensively
Fear conditioning: 2 trials each
Lamp with blue light for 9 sec followed 0.5 sec later by shock
Lamp with yellow light for 9 sec with no shock
Produced a higher fear rating to blue light
Avoidance conditioning: clicking on red button prevented shock
8 trials with blue and eight trials with yellow
More avoidance behavior (push red button) for blue light
Fear rating for blue light becomes extinguished
RPE (flooding): 8 trials of blue and 8 trials of yellow but no red button, no shock
Return of high fear rating for blue light
Then extinction of fear to blue light
Avoidance test: 4 trials of blue and 4 trials of yellow with return of the red button
More avoidance behavior to blue light
Fear rating only back up a small amount then decreases

7. Nondiscriminated (Free-Operant) Avoidance
Two process theory: warning signal motivates avoidance
Nondiscriminated Avoidance (Sidman avoidance)
Avoidance procedure without a warning signal
rats given shocks according to a shock-shock (S-S) interval
Can make a response to delay the shock according to a response-shock (R-S) interval ; see procedure diagram Figure 10.7
Characteristics
extensive training periods for establishment of steady-state performance
never get good enough to avoid all shocks
large individual differences in responding
decreasing the S-S interval increases learning
increasing the R-S interval increases learning
relative values of S-S and R-S are important
R-S needs to be greater than the S-S
With extensive conditioning they learned the temporal pattern

8. FIGURE 10.7
Diagram of the nondiscr iminated, or free-operant, avoidance procedure. Each occur rence of the response initiates a period without shock, as set by the R–S interval. In the absence of a response, the next shock occurs a fixed period after the last shock, as set by the S–S interval. Shocks are not signaled by an exteroceptive stimulus and are usually brief and inescapable.
The Principles of Learning and Behavior, 7e by Michael Domjan
Copyright © 2015 Wadsworth Publishing, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

9. Demonstrations of Free-Operant Avoidance Learning
Lejuez (1998)
Exposure to carbon dioxide as the aversive stimulus with college students
Experimental condition:
S - S interval of 3 seconds
pull a plunger response to avoid carbon dioxide
R - S interval of 10 seconds
Control condition
had no avoidance contingency
delivery of carbon dioxide every six minutes
Results see Figure 10.8
Response rates are higher during the avoidance condition than the control condition
students 1 and 2 figured out the avoidance contingency immediately while students 3 and 4 were given a hint after the fifth session
students 3 and 4 never clearly discriminated between avoidance and control conditions
student 1 has clear separation between avoidance and control condition
once the avoidance contingency was discovered all the students did a pretty good job of avoiding CO2 presentation

10. The Principles of Learning and Behavior, 7e by Michael Domjan
Copyright © 2015 Wadsworth Publishing, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

11. Free-Operant Avoidance and the Two-Process Theory
Can Free-Operant Avoidance be explained by two-process theory?
No explicit, external CS to elicit fear
there is an internal cue
Passage of time since the last shock elicits fear
Termination of time signals reinforce responding through fear reduction
Concentration at end of R-S interval because temporal cues elicit greatest fear at this point

12. Alternative Theoretical Accounts of Avoidance Behavior
1. Positive Reinforcement Through Conditioned Inhibition of Fear or Conditioned Safety Signals
Safety signals: ‘Feedback’ cues from avoidance responding are spatial, tactile and proprioceptive cues associated with avoidance
Safety signal hypothesis
Feedback cues can produce conditioned inhibitory properties
Feedback cues could be a source of positive reinforcement.
Distinctive stimulus (light) presented after avoidance response will facilitates avoidance
Can explain free-operant avoidance
If sensations from movements during R-S (safety period) develop conditioned inhibitory properties.

13. Alternative Theoretical Accounts of Avoidance Behavior
2. Reinforcement of avoidance Through Reduction of Shock Frequency
reduction in shock frequency with avoidance responses
Reduction in shock frequency could reinforces avoidance behavior
Some experiments have shown that avoidance behavior will still occur even if the shock frequency is not altered
this can be done by delaying the shock delivery

14. Alternative Theoretical Accounts of Avoidance Behavior
3. Avoidance and Species-Specific Defense Reactions (SSDRs)
In natural environment, avoidance learning better occur quickly
Interested in form of response
Various defensive behaviors (SSDRs) can occur in response to aversive stimuli (e.g., running, freezing, defensive fighting, approaching walls, etc.)
Which defensive behavior engaged in depends on environment
If ‘chosen’ SSDR works, keep using it; if it does not, punishment occurs, and another SSDR employed
Attributes instrumental avoidance to punishment rather than reinforcement
Consistent with SSDR predictions, certain behaviors more conducive to learning in avoidance experiments (i.e., running more appropriate that standing on hind legs)
Some issues with SSDR theory explaining experimental findings
Punishment sometimes facilitates (rather than suppresses) ineffective defensive responses

15. Predatory imminence and Defensive and Recuperative Behaviors
Predatory imminence continuum:
response based on predator threat potential see Figure 10.9
rats are reasonably safe in their borrow
but have to occasionally go out to find food
when predators are in the area level of danger increases
when predators are close enough to strike “circa strike” danger is at its peak
Animals make behavioral adjustments to the level of danger
for example when predator is detected rats go out less often but eat larger meals when they go out
Animals can also adjust their defensive behaviors within the imminence is low rats may freeze holding still so that there are less likely to be detected
when the predator gets close and actually makes contact the rat can leap into the air as an “circa strike response” to escape
Defensive behaviors are guided by unconditioned responses
The behavior will be adjusted by encounters with predators
Predator cue to predator encounter temporal pattern determines type of behavioral adjustment

16. FIGURE 10.9
The predatory-imminence continuum (based on “Neurobiological and neuroethological perspective on fear and anxiety” by V. Rau and M. S. Faneslow, in L. J. Kirmayer, R. Lemelson, and M. Barad [Eds.], Understanding trauma; Integrating biological, clinical, and cultural perspectives [pp. 27–40]).
The Principles of Learning and Behavior, 7e by Michael Domjan
Copyright © 2015 Wadsworth Publishing, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

17. Expectancy Theory of Avoidance
Experiments with non-human animals such as rats
Unconscious associative conditioning processes
Might have some elements of expectancy
Experiments with humans
form associations that do not require conscious awareness
can also have conscious expectancy of the contingency
Threat appraisal to determine possibility of aversive events
which will influence conditioning and extinction rates
Can explain persistent avoidance behavior
Expectancy of no aversive if response is preformed
“pushing the button when I see a blue square will prevent the shock to my finger”
Is this the primary cause of persistent avoidance in humans?

18. The Avoidance Puzzle: Concluding Comments
Two-Process theory
How can not getting something act as a motivator?
conditioned inhibition reinforcement
shock frequency-reduction reinforcement
SSDR and Predatory imminence