Content uploaded by Sara Sagui-Henson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sara Sagui-Henson on May 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
C
Cognitive Avoidance
Sara J. Sagui-Henson
University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC, USA
Synonyms
Avoidance;Avoidance coping;Avoidance
motivation;Avoidance goals
Definition
Approach and avoidance represent two funda-
mental aspects of motivation that guide human
behavior. Approach-oriented motivation often
guides behavior toward positive or desirable
events or outcomes, whereas avoidance-oriented
motivation guides behavior away from negative
or undesirable events or outcomes. Conceptual-
ized as orientations that underlie aspects of
personality and drive stress-coping efforts, the
proclivity to approach is considered adaptive and
associated with positive psychological and
physical health outcomes, while the proclivity to
avoid is associated with negative health outcomes
and considered maladaptive. These two motiva-
tional tendencies can be further delineated into the
affective, cognitive, and behavioral methods used
to approach or avoid a situation. Cognitive
avoidance is a term that represents several strate-
gies, such as distraction, worry, and thought sup-
pression, aimed at avoiding or escaping thoughts
about undesirable situations or problems.
Introduction
The facilitation and inhibition of human behavior
is thought to be governed by two fundamental
motivational systems. The biopsychological
theory of personality (Gray 1990) posits that the
behavioral activation system (BAS) facilitates
behavior and generates positive effect, leading to
an approach orientation. In contrast, the behav-
ioral inhibition system (BIS) inhibits behavior and
generates negative affect, leading to an avoidance
orientation. Because the BIS creates a sensitivity
toward negative experiences, individuals with
high BIS activity are motivated to avoid those
experiences, sometimes through cognitive
means. Therefore, cognitive avoidance represents
a dynamic form of self-regulation that underlies
goal attainment, enabling individuals to shift
away from negative experiences via psychologi-
cal distancing processes. Within the context of
individual differences, cognitive avoidance is
thought to underlie aspects of personality, and in
coping literature it is thought to drive stress-
coping efforts in mostly maladaptive, but occa-
sionally adaptive ways. Finally, cognitive avoid-
ance is viewed as a critical feature in several
#Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_964-1
psychological disorders, leading researchers and
practitioners to incorporate ways to manage
avoidance in new forms of behavioral therapy.
Cognitive Avoidance and Personality
Approach and avoidance motivations have been
argued to underlie basic dimensions of personal-
ity. Greater BAS activation and approach motiva-
tion is related to higher levels of the personality
trait extraversion, while greater BIS activation is
related to higher levels of the trait neuroticism
(Elliot and Thrash 2002). The inhibitory processes
associated with cognitive avoidance may contrib-
ute to greater neuroticism, which is characterized
by worry proneness, emotional instability, and
insecurity. Individuals higher in neuroticism are
also thought to utilize more avoidance coping
strategies to handle emotional distress than those
higher in extraversion, or personality traits linked
with the BAS.
Cognitive Avoidance Coping
In the context of behavioral medicine, cognitive
avoidance is often examined as a disengagement
coping strategy. Coping broadly refers to
affective, cognitive, or behavioral efforts to han-
dle, manage, or remove a threatening or harmful
situation, or reduce the impact it has on a person.
Disengagement coping is aimed at avoiding
confrontation with a threat or avoiding stress-
related emotions (Skinner et al. 2003), and while
it may help an individual with well-being in the
short-term, it is generally ineffective at reducing
long-term distress. Cognitive avoidance is one of
the several disengagement coping strategies
focused on shifting attention away from a stressful
stimulus, leaving the threat’s existence and
eventual impact to be processed at a later time, if
at all. This increases exposure to the adverse
health consequences of stress and for this reason,
higher levels of avoidance coping typically
predict negative outcomes, such as more anxiety
and depression, less positive affect, and poorer
psychological adjustment and physical health
(Penley et al. 2002). Although cognitive
avoidance is generally considered maladaptive,
some research suggests that a distancing approach
can provide individuals with time to develop
effective stress-management skills and resources.
It may also be adaptive when a stressor is highly
intense and immediate processing would be diffi-
cult, or the stressor is uncontrollable, such as the
loss of a loved one (Folkman and Moskowitz
2004).
Cognitive Avoidance in Psychological
Disorders
Cognitive avoidance strategies have also been
studied as critical features of psychological
disorders, including depression, social phobia,
generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and
obsessive compulsive disorder (Barlow 2014).
Cognitive avoidance can manifest as habitual
thought patterns involving worry, which serve to
“brace”an individual for something bad to happen
or shift attention toward future negative
outcomes. In this way, the repetition and rein-
forcement of cognitive avoidance serves to
down-regulate negative emotions and enables
one to avoid internal experiences (Borkovec et
al. 2004). Cognitive avoidance strategies often
operate outside an individual’s awareness and, if
automatically selected, are considered a maladap-
tive way to cope with or gain control over
seemingly uncontrollable future events.
Acceptance-based behavior therapy (ABBT) is
sometimes used to treat the habitual worrying
associated with GAD and focuses on the manage-
ment of cognitive avoidance (Barlow 2014).
Grounded in behavioral learning theory, ABBT
incorporates psychoeducation about the use of
worry as a strategy to avoid more distressing
internal experiences. This therapeutic technique
also focuses on mindfulness and acceptance
practices to promote present moment awareness
and nonjudgmental compassion surrounding
negative events, which serve to increase the
acceptance of and willingness to confront internal
experiences.
2 Cognitive Avoidance
Cross-References
▶Avoidance Coping Strategies
▶Emotion-Focused Coping
▶Passive Coping Strategies
References
Barlow, D. H. (Ed.). (2014). Clinical handbook of psycho-
logical disorders: A step-by-step treatment manual
(5th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Borkovec, T. D., Alcaine,O. M., & Behar, E. (2004). Avoid-
ance theory ofworry and generalized anxiety disorder. In
R. G. Heimber, C. L. Turk, & D. S. Mennin (Eds.),
Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in research
and practice (pp. 77–108). New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance
motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance
temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls
and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
745–774.
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both
emotion and cognitive. Cognitive and Emotion, 4,
269–288.
Penley, J. A., Tomaka, J., & Wiebe, J. S. (2002). The
association of coping to physical and psychological
health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 25, 551–603.
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., &
Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of
coping: A review and critique of category systems for
classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin,
129, 216–269.
Cognitive Avoidance 3