Avoidance conditioning: what it is, and characteristics

Conditioning is one of the most basic forms of learning that exist, both in humans and in many other species.

Within this methodology there are important concepts to take into account, and one of them is avoidance conditioning. Below we will see in depth what it is based on and how this type of response is generated to various stimuli.

• Related article: "Behaviorism: history, concepts and main authors"

What is avoidance conditioning

Avoidance conditioning is a form of response that can be generated in operant conditioning processes, when the individual is able to give a certain response to avoid a certain aversive stimulus, since he has learned that through this behavior he achieves the non-appearance of said unpleasant stimulus.

To properly understand the concept, we must first know the logic of instrumental or operant conditioning. In this form of learning by association, it is sought that a subject increases or decreases certain behavior through reinforcements (stimuli that make it more likely to behavior) or punishments (stimuli that make the behavior less likely), either by applying them (positive) or eliminating them (negative) when he exercises the behavior that we seek.

Focusing now on negative reinforcement, we would obtain a type of stimulus that, when withdrawn (that is what negative) would increase the probability that the individual would show the desired behavior (hence it is reinforcement and not punishment). Once we are clear about these basic concepts, it is easier to understand what avoidance conditioning consists of.

• You may be interested in: "Associative learning: types and characteristics"

Common mistakes: reinforcements and incentives

Here it is convenient to highlight an issue that many times leads to error, and that is that we are talking about negative reinforcement and aversive stimulus. Many people mistakenly believe that all reinforcements must be stimuli that are pleasant to the subject, but We have already seen that reinforcement only refers to the increase in the probability of the response we seek, neither more nor less.

On the other hand, it is also important to bear in mind that whenever we talk about aversive stimuli (or rewards, in the opposite case), they acquire that condition by the perception that the individual has in particular of them, it is not an intrinsic characteristic of the stimuli, although sometimes it can look like it.

And it is that, what is pleasant for one person or animal may well be unpleasant for another, or it may even vary depending on the circumstances. For example, a food will be a pleasant stimulus for an individual as long as it is no longer satiated, likes the taste, does not have allergies, etc.

It is very important to take these issues into account because if we cannot have difficulty understanding the foundations of both avoidance conditioning and operant conditioning processes in general.

Avoidance versus escape

With negative reinforcement we can obtain two clearly differentiated behaviors, which are escape and avoidance. What is the difference between them? Both have to do with the elimination of a stimulus that is aversive for the subject, but the key here would be at the moment of the application of said stimulus.

If the aversive stimulus is applied first and the individual emits the behavior we seek in order to eliminate said stimulus, we would be talking about escape conditioning. However, if the subject has learned that by emitting the behavior he manages not to apply the unpleasant stimulus (which would come later), it would be avoidance conditioning.

Faced with the dilemma of escape and avoidance, the key to differentiating both types of response would be to visualize the timeline of events and discover If, thanks to the answer, the person manages to end the unpleasant event or, on the contrary, it ensures that it never takes place (This second case being the avoidance conditioning that we are studying).

Discriminatory stimulus

One may wonder how it is possible that the subject anticipates that unpleasant event that is the aversive stimulus is going to take place and therefore so much so that it is capable of emitting the adequate response to avoid it before it takes place and, therefore, the conditioning of the avoidance.

This is achieved through what is known as a discriminative stimulus, a stimulus that is itself neutral but precedes the one that is aversive, so that the individual becomes aware of what is going to happen and therefore can make the decision to give the answer to avoid it.

In this case, the subject's behavior will increase since he achieves the objective that the person seeks, which is none other than achieving that he does not reach present the unpleasant stimulus for him, and that he already knows that it always occurs after the discriminative stimulus, unless he performs that behavior in question.

Faced with discriminated avoidance, which would be the one that uses the discriminative stimulus to "warn" the subject that the stimulus aversive will make its appearance imminently, there is another methodology to try to achieve the conditioning of avoidance. It is known as indiscriminate avoidance or Sidman's free operant avoidance procedure.

This other way of working with avoidance, instead of using a signal that prevents the individual from the aversive stimulus, what it does is to apply this stimulus following a pattern temporary, so that it always appears from time to time, unless the individual emits a certain behavior, the consequence of which would be to postpone the next application of the stimulus aversive.

However, the results clearly indicate that Sidman's methodology obtains much worse results than those obtained with discriminated avoidance conditioning. To begin with, learning takes much longer in the first case than in the second. On the other hand, the avoidance responses that are achieved lack stability, an element that, however, is manifested in the second method.

By last, avoidance behavior through Sidman's method is very easily extinguished, forgetting soon after to stop presenting the aversive stimulus. On the contrary, when the discriminative stimulus is used, the avoidance conditioning is strong and therefore difficult to extinguish, taking a long time to achieve it.

Practical example

Let's look at a practical example to better understand the implications of the conditioning of the avoidance and also to be able to compare the methodologies of discriminated avoidance and avoidance indiscriminate. One of the typical studies is the one that has been carried out with laboratory mice and rats., which is introduced into the so-called avoidance box.

This box consists of two different rooms, separated by a hinged door. One of the compartments has elements to transmit electricity, a stimulus that is applied from time to time. However, this electrical discharge affects only one compartment, but not the other.

In the first of the studies, the one that uses discriminated avoidance, each of these discharges will be preceded by a discriminative stimulus, which in this case will be an auditory signal, which seeks to alert the mouse of the imminent shock it is going to receive, unless it immediately leaves the unsafe compartment and goes to the insurance.

In the second study, this type of auditory cue is not appliedTherefore, the only clue that the mouse receives about the electrical shocks that are applied to the first compartment is the periodicity of the shock itself, offering it a stable temporal pattern.

The results are conclusive. In the former case, the mouse needs only a few trials to find the pattern and quickly flee to the safe compartment of the box as soon as the audible signal sounds, achieving in a short time that none of the downloads.

On the other hand, mice that are not warned by this beep have it much more complicated and, even after many repetitions, they continue to suffer numerous shocks because they do not they are able to find the relationship between the time pattern between current and current, so a good avoidance conditioning is not achieved, not as in the first case.

As we anticipated in the characteristics of these methodologies, it is found that the response with the first method turns out to be immensely more stable, it is learned much earlier and is more durable, complicating extinction. In the opposite case, that of the Sidman method, the opposite happens. Learning is slow and chaotic, there is no stability in the responses and this pattern is easily lost.

It is clear, therefore, that the use of a discriminative stimulus is vital to achieve quality avoidance conditioning, since The results obtained are much more satisfactory than those of the study in which this anticipation of the aversive stimulus is renounced by means of a sign.

Bibliographic references:

• Domjam, M. (2007). Principles of learning and behavior. Madrid. Auditorium.
• Domjan, M., Santos, J.M.R. (2002). Bases of learning and conditioning. Del Lunar.
• Pérez-Acosta, A.M., González, A.P. (1998). Avoidance behavior: acquisition and extinction. Psychological Sum.