Abstract

Anxiety and stress are adaptive responses to threat that promote harm avoidance. In particular, prior work has shown that anxiety induced in humans using threat of unpredictable shock promotes behavioral inhibition in the face of harm. This is consistent with the idea that anxiety promotes passive avoidance-that is, withholding approach actions that could lead to harm. However, harm can also be avoided through active avoidance, where a (withdrawal) action is taken to avoid harm. Here, we provide the first direct within-study comparison of the effects of threat of shock on active and passive avoidance. We operationalize passive avoidance as withholding a button press response in the face of negative outcomes, and active avoidance as lifting/releasing a button press in the face of negative outcomes. We explore the impact of threat of unpredictable shock on the learning of these behavioral responses (alongside matched responses to rewards) within a single cognitive task. We predicted that threat of shock would promote both active and passive avoidance, and that this would be driven by increased reliance on Pavlovian bias, as parameterized within reinforcement-learning models. Consistent with our predictions, we provide evidence that threat of shock promotes passive avoidance as conceptualized by our task. However, inconsistent with predictions, we found no evidence that threat of shock promoted active avoidance, nor evidence of elevated Pavlovian bias in any condition. One hypothetical framework with which to understand these findings is that anxiety promotes passive over active harm avoidance strategies in order to conserve energy while avoiding harm.

Highlights

  • The psychological and physiological responses to uncertain, unclear, and potentially imagined stressors or threats—­defined here as ‘anxiety’—­are key to the dynamics of mood and anxiety disorders (Adamec et al, 1998; Blanchard & Blanchard, 2008)

  • Consistent with our predictions, we showed that Threat of Shock (TOS) promoted passive avoidance

  • We showed that threat of shock modulated the performance of actions (Valence × TOS × Action) such that individuals were selectively impaired at approaching to avoid losses under threat conditions, perhaps due to increased passive avoidance under threat

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

The psychological and physiological responses to uncertain, unclear, and potentially imagined stressors or threats—­defined here as ‘anxiety’—­are key to the dynamics of mood and anxiety disorders (Adamec et al, 1998; Blanchard & Blanchard, 2008). In a slightly different task designed to measure the same avoidance behavior but using response time distributions as the dependent variable, threat of shock was shown to promote inhibition of approach responses in the face of harm (Mkrtchian, Roiser, et al, 2017). We used the same task and anxiety induction as Mkrtchian, Roiser, et al, (2017), but expanded the press/no-p­ress approach (i.e., passive avoidance) condition to encompass the lift/no-­lift withdrawal (i.e., active avoidance) condition from Gorka et al, (2016) Studying both types of avoidance (active and passive) within the same paradigm will allow us to directly compare participants’ accuracy and response times when the required response is an active withdrawal (releasing a key) compared to a passive withdrawal (refraining from pressing any key). That this would be driven by elevated reliance on participants’ Pavlovian bias, as parameterized by previously used reinforcement learning models (Mkrtchian, Aylward, et al, 2017), for both task (press/lift) conditions

| Participants
| DISCUSSION
Findings
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.