Behav. Res. k Therapy. 1967. Vol. 5. pp. 263 to 273. Pcrgamon Press Ltd. Printed in England.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COUNTERCONDITIONING

PROCEDURE IN ELIMINATING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR*

EILEEN GAMBRILLt

University of Wisconsin, Madison

(Received 27 February 1967)

Summary-Data were obtained on the effectiveness of three forms of counterconditioning+zach differing

in the degree to which competing responses were introduced. Counterconditioning was also compared with
an extinction procedure in eliminating an instrumental avoidance response. Only the counterconditioning
procedure which evoked and reinforced another conditioned response during extinction of the avoidance
response, was significantly more effective than a traditional extinction procedure in achieving a decrement
in avoidance responding and this was only on the first session on which such procedures were in effect.
When the opportunity to perform the competing response was removed, only Ss in this group evidenced a
significant increase in avoidance responding.
All procedures were equally effective over sessions in eliminating avoidance behavior. A delay in
effectiveness occurred to the degree to which a procedure introduced a competing response. It was in terms
of the immediacy of response reduction and achievement of a very low rate of responding with very few
responses being performed, that the counterconditioning procedure was superior to the extinction procedure.
The implication of these results for behavior theory and therapy were elaborated.

INTRODUCTION
BEHAVIORAL therapists conclude from follow-up studies (Wolpe, 1958) that the counter-
conditioning procedure is effective in eliminating phobic behavior which may be concept-
ualized as instrumental avoidance behavior (Metzner, 1961). This procedure is thought to
be more effective than the extinction procedure in achieving such elimination (Bandura,
1961; Wolpe, 1958). However, in experiments frequently cited as indicating the effectiveness
of the counterconditioning procedure (Wolpe, 1958; Masserman, 1943) no instrumental
avoidance response was established whereby S could prevent the UCS. Fear responses
were established by pairing the CS with a noxious stimulus such as.airblast or shock, and
fear was measured only indirectly by the degree to which eating (Wolpe) or the performance
of a previously established conditioned response reinforced with food (Masserman) was
supressed. One study (Wojtczak and Jaroszowa, 1962) which did employ an instrumental
avoidance response, thus allowing precise monitoring of this response, showed that the
counterconditioning procedure did not succeed in eliminating instrumental avoidance
behavior. The avoidance response recurred when the CS (originally associated with shock
and later followed by food) was presented, but was no longer followed by food, when Ss
were satiated, and when this CS was presented during the act of eating. These authors cite
l This paper is based on a dissertation submitted to the graduate school of the University of Michigan

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. The author would especially like to thank
Dr. David Birch for his guidance throughout the course of this research and also Dr. Edwin J. Thomas
for his comments on the manuscript.
t Now at School of Social Work, University of Michigan, AM Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.

263
A
244 EILEEN GAMBRILL

data from other studies which, they say, show that when such a CS was presented against
its previous experimental background, it evoked the avoidance response even after prolonged
food training.
Since the counterconditioning procedure is widely used by behavioral therapists and
since clinical and experimental data are not fully in accord as to its effectiveness, further
systematic investigation is indicated. The aim of the present study was 3-fold: to provide
further data regarding the effectiveness of the procedure in eliminating instrumental
avoidance behavior; to compare its effects with that of an extinction procedure; and to
investigate the relative contribution of components of the competing response in eliminating
avoidance behavior.
The common factor in all counterconditioning procedures is the evocation of a compet-
ing response in the presence of cues associated with the avoidance response. Two aspects
of the competing response were selected for investigation; whether the competing response
was a conditioned one and if so whether it was reinforced during the extinction of the
avoidance response. It has been suggested (Wolpe, 1958) that eating responses may inhibit
fear responses, which have been postulated to maintain avoidance behavior (Mowrer, 1947).
Therefore, if eating responses are performed in the presence of cues associated with the
avoidance response, fear should be “inhibited” and the avoidance response reduced in
frequency. If performance of such eating responses is particularly effective in achieving a
decrement in avoidance responding, then resistance to extinction of Ss not reinforced
should be greater than for those who are reinforced.
The design of the present experiment allows comparison of the extinction performance
of five groups of Ss. Three groups underwent counterconditioning .procedures expected
to have decreasing degrees of effectiveness in reducing the resistance to extinction of an
instrumental avoidance response. Ss in Group I had the opportunity of performing a
competing conditioned response during extinction and were reinforced with food for such
responses; Ss in Group 11 had the same opportunity but were not reinforced and Ss in
Group III had no other conditioned response available during extinction but the
avoidance situation was modified by the inclusion of familiar stimuli to encourage
competing responses. A fourth group was included to assess the effects of merely establish-
ing the competing response and a fifth group underwent a traditional extinction procedure.

METHOD
Subjects
The Ss were forty-three male hooded rats, 120-180 days old at the beginning of the
experiment, thirty from the Windsor Biological Laboratory and thirteen from the colony
maintained by the Psychology Department of the University of Michigan. Ten of the
thirteen Michigan animals had a history of being placed in an operant conditioning chamber
for I hr during which their basal resistance level was measured. The remaining three had
been placed on a food deprivation schedule between 75 and 150 days of age, being on ad
libitum before and for 30 days after this interval.
Prior to the first experimental session, Ss received 2 weeks of daily handling, at least
5 mm/day, and spent 30 min/day in a trough together with about six other Ss.
During the course of the experiment three Ss had to be discarded due to disease and
two died. Thirteen Ss did not meet the criterion set for efficiency of avoidance performance
(described below under procedure). A final N of 5 for each of the five groups was used.
 THE COUNTERCONDITIONING PROCEDURE IN ELIMINATING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR 265

Apparatus
The experimental chamber used for avoidance sessions was 14 x 11 x 10 in., was made
of varnished plywood and was equipped with a grid floor composed of 4 in. brass rods + in.
apart measured from center to center. A one-way mirror, 6 x 12 in., was built into one wall.
The ceiling contained a circular piece of white, translucent plexiglass 4 in. in diameter,
permitting illumination of the chamber by a bulb mounted on the outside of the chamber.
The illumination could be changed by means of a variac. The chamber opened from the
top which could be securely latched by means of a hook.
A removable, cylindrical, ridged, plastic, wheel, 2 in. long and I+ in. dia., was mounted
on the right side of the wall opposite the one way mirror. This was so positioned that the
Ss had to stand in order to reach it. It was placed 6 in. from the grid floor and 13 in. from
the adjacent wall and protruded 1 in. into the chamber. Attached to the axle of the wheel
on the outside of the chamber was a plastic disc with four prongs, each of which triggered
a microswitch on one full revolution of the wheel. This microswitch was wired to a cumula-
tive recorder (Ralph Gerbrands, Model C-3).
The shock source delivered brief (0.3 set) shocks of 0.5 mA. This shock source did not
provide a constant current but the current did not vary more than 25 per cent once set.
A timer controlled the interval between shocks and a silent, manually controlled switch
was used to apply a short across the grid to eliminate unscheduled shock.
The chamber was modified for the conditioning of the other response established in
the experiment in order to make it as different as possible from the avoidance chamber.
This modified chamber will be referred to as the lever chamber. Solid masonite covered
the grid, a wooden partition bolted to the masonite floor reduced the floor area to 10 x 11 in.
and except for the plexiglass in the ceiling and a 53 x 6+ in. portion of the one way mirror,
the walls and ceiling were covered with sheets of white plexiglass, 4 in. thick, held in place
by screws.
A removable lever, 2 in. long, + in. thick, was mounted on the left side of the wall
opposite the one way mirror. The lever was 13 in. above the floor, 13 in. from the adjacent
wall, protruded 1 in. into the chamber and was 7 in. from the insertion point of the wheel.
A lever movement upward of + in. triggered a pellet dispenser (Ralph Gerbrands) and
operated a cumulative recorder (Ralph Gerbrands, Model C-3). A food cup was mounted
on the wall 3 in. to the right of the lever and next to the cup a water bottle nozzle was
inserted.
Procedure
The procedure consisted of the following four main phases:
1. An instrumental avoidance response was first established in all Ss using a Sidman
procedure with a shock-shock interval of 5 set and a response-shock interval of 15-20
sec. The Ss were required to turn a wheel, producing at least one click of the microswitch,
in order to avoid the next scheduled shock. Only the wheel was present in the chamber
and dim illumination was produced by operating a 25 W, 115 V bulb at 36 V. The Ss were
maintained on ad libitum food and water. Sessions were 40 min in duration, occurred on
alternate days, and Ss were placed in a wire cage in the darkened experimental room for
a 5-min period prior to each avoidance session to permit dark adaptation. Avoidance
sessions were begun by placing S in the middle of the chamber, facing the wall with the
wheel, and after 20 set experimental contingencies started. The operant level of the wheel
turning was observed during a IO-min period just prior to the first avoidance session.
Avoidance sessions for each S continued until the selected criterion of 100 per cent efficiency
266 EILEBN GAMBRILL

in avoiding shocks during 10 consecutive min in any one session was met. The Ss were
matched as closely as possible on the basis of rate at which the avoidance response was
maintained, session upon which the criterion was met, and number of shocks received
during this session and assigned on a random basis to one of five groups.
2. After the criterion avoidance session, food was removed from the home cages and
Ss were placed on a deprivation schedule. The Ss in four of the groups, Groups I, II, IV,
and III, received six 40-min sessions in the lever chamber during which Ss in the former three
groups were conditioned to raise the lever with their nose. They were reinforced on a
continuous schedule with Krummette pellets. The Ss in Group III were merely exposed to
the lever chamber. They were not trained to raise the lever and no food was dispensed.
High illumination was produced by operating a 25 W, 115 V bulb at 84 V during all sessions
in the lever chamber. Three avoidance sessions were interspersed between sessions in the
lever chamber. These occurred on the third, sixth, and eighth days. The Ss in the extinc-
tion group remained in their home cages between these three avoidance sessions. The Ss
were deprived of food for approximately 22 hr before each session in the lever chamber,
were fed at least 1 hr after these sessions, and received a double ration of food when an
avoidance session was scheduled on the next day in order to decrease their deprivation
level during avoidance sessions.
3. On the day following the last session in the lever chamber or home cage, extinction
of the avoidance response was initiated. Shocks were no longer administered for failure
to perform the avoidance response. These sessions were 20 min in duration and occurred
on alternate days. Ss were deprived of food for 22 hr preceeding each session, were fed at
least 1 hr after each session and continued to be maintained at 85 per cent of their ad
libitum weight. To permit dark adaptation, Ss were placed in a wire cage in the experimental
room for a 5-min period prior to each extinction session.
Groups were exposed to different conditions for the first three sessions. For Ss in
Groups I, II, and III avoidance conditions prevailed (dim illumination, grid, wheel, etc.)
but the lever, food-cup, and water-nozzle were also present in the chamber. The Ss in
Group I were reinforced with food upon performance of the lever response during the first
three extinction sessions and the Ss in Group II were not reinforced. This permitted the
later assessment of any differences in the degree of domination and elimination of the
avoidance response depending upon whether eating responses occurred in the presence of
cues for the avoidance response. The Ss in Group III had previously been exposed to the
lever chamber but were not trained to raise the lever. No food was dispensed during
extinction sessions for these Ss. This group showed the effect of exposure to the lever cham-
ber plus the effect of inclusion of the lever, cup, and nozzle in the avoidance situation,
upon frequency of avoidance responding during extinction sessions.
Avoidance conditions (dim illumination, grid, wheel) prevailed on all extinction sessions
for the Ss in the remaining two groups. The Ss in the extinction group had not received
any special treatment prior to the initiation of extinction sessions nor did they receive any
special treatment during these sessions. The purpose of this group was to ascertain the
resistance to extinction of the avoidance response under a traditional extinction procedure.
Previous to the introduction of the extinction sessions, the Ss in Group IV were treated in
an identical manner to those Ss in Groups I and II. Whereas the latter two groups had the
opportunity of performing the lever response during the first three extinction sessions,
the Ss in Group IV did not. This group showed the effect of aquisition of the lever response
upon the frequency of avoidance responding during extinction sessions.
 THE COUNTERCONDITIONING PROCEDURE IN ELlMINATINC AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR 267

4. The purpose of the final stage of the ex~~ment was to assess the relative degree to
which procedures in effect during the first three extinction sessions had succeeded in elimin-
ating the avoidance response. On the fourth through the tenth extinction sessions, all Ss
were placed in the avoidance chamber with only the wheel present. Thus the opportunity
of performing the lever response while in the avoidance chamber was now removed.
Latencies of responses were recorded by means of a stopwatch during all sessions.
In addition, cumulative records of both lever responses and avoidance responses were
obtained. During extinction sessions only, times of avoidance responding were recorded by
means of a stopwatch.

RESULTS
The number of responses emitted by each S during the first 20 min of the last pre-
extinction avoidance session was obtained from the cumulative records since times of
avoidance responding were not recorded by means of a stopwatch during these sessions.
A count for each S was made of the number of discrete responses during the 20-min period.
When continuous wheel turning occurred for 5 set or more, an avoidance response was
counted for the initial response and for each successive 5-see period during such responding.
The number of responses emitted during the 20-min period ranged from 79 to 162. An
analysis of variance indicated that there was no significant difference among groups regard-
ing pre-extinction rate of avoidance responding ,F(4, 20) =0*839, P>Oa25.
Ss in three groups had been conditioned to raise the lever. The number of lever responses
performed during the last session in the lever chamber ranged from 75 to 105. An analysis
of variance indicated that there was no significant difference among the groups regarding
base rate of lever responding, F(2, 12) = t-84, P>O-IO. By the fifth lever response session
and usually before this, all Ss were raising the lever at a stable rate.
Figure 1 presents mean number of lever responses and mean number of avoidance
responses over the first three extinction sessions for Ss in Groups 1, II, and III. Counter-
conditioning depends upon dominating the avoidance response, and, on the first extinction
session, domination {defined here as the performance of a greater number of leverresponses
than avoidance responses) occurred in four Ss in Group 1, three Ss in Group II, and not
at all in Group III. On extinction sessions 2 and 3, domination took place in all Ss in Groups
1 and II, and not at all in Group III.
Figure 2 presents the mean number of avoidance responses over the ten extinction
sessions for ail five groups. The mean rate of pre-extinction responding for each group
is noted on the extreme left of the figure. Figure 2 shows a group of curves which drop
differentially from points of pre-extinction responding and, except for Group I, continue
to drop over extinction sessions 2 and 3. An analysis of variance of avoidance responding
on the last pre-extinction avoidance session and the first extinction session over all groups,
revealed a significant interaction\getween groups and sessions, F(4, 20)=4-27, P<O*O25,
as well as a significant group effect, F( I, 20) =20*06, PC OXKN, and a sessions effect, Ffl, 20)
25964, PC O*OOl. The significant interaction between groups and sessions showed that
there were differential decrements in avoidance responding on the first session. Further
analysis of the differences in avoidance responding between the last pre-extinction avoidance
session and the tist extinction session, employing the Sheffts method (as given in Hays,
1963), indicated that only one pairwise comparison between groups was significant; that
between the mean difference of Group I and the mean difference of the extinction group.
268 EILEEN GAMBRILL

10 -

60

Avoidance respon%&
-r-Group I
SO- -*-Group I7
,i:.- Group ill

40-

30 -

ZO-

IO-’

I J
Extinction scsslons
Fro. I. Mean number of avoidance responses and mean number of lever responses over first
t&e extinction sessions for Groups 1. II and IIf.

-A- GroupI
--A-- Group n
- -3. - Group !X
-.-o-‘- Group Ill
-a- Fstmction

Extlnctlon sessions
FIO. 2. Mean number of avoidance responses on last pre-extinction avoidance session and
over ten extinction sessions for all groups.
 THE COUNTERCONDITIONING PROCEDURE IN ELIMINATING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR 269

Thus the only condition which was significantly more effective than a traditional extinction
procedure in achieving a decrement in avoidance responding on the first extinction session,
was one that not only provided the opportunity for performance of another conditioned
response but also provided reinforcement for performance of this response. Decrements
from baseline responding were significant only in Group I, r(4) = 10.3, P<O*OOl , and Group
II, t(4)=3*71, P<O*O5.
To determine the immediacy of the effect of the various procedures upon avoidance
responding on the first extinction session, an analysis of variance of avoidance responding
during the first 2 min of the last pre-extinction avoidance session and the first 2 min of the
first extinction session was carried out. This showed a significant interaction between
groups and sessions, F(4, 20) =4* 15, PC 0.025, and a significant session effect, F( 1, 20)
=23-41, P<O.OOl. The main effect for groups was not significant, F(4,20)=2-48, P>O-05.
The significant interaction showed that there were differential decrements in avoidance
responding during the very first 2 min of the first avoidance session. Further analysis of
the differences in avoidance responding between the first 2 min of the last pre-extinction
avoidance session and the first 2 min of the first extinction session, employing the Scheffe
method, indicated that no pairwise comparisons between groups were significant. Decre-
ments from baseline responding during the first 2 min of the first extinction session were
significant only in Group I, t(4)=4W, P<O-02, and Group II, t(4)=5*71, P<OWl.
Thus the only groups showing an immediate significant decrement in avoidance respond-
ing (during the first 2 min of the first extinction session) as well as a significant decrement
considering the entire first extinction session, were those Ss which had been conditioned to
lever raise and who had access to the lever during this session.
In analyzing avoidance responding over the first three extinction sessions, difference
scores for each S on each extinction session were computed in order to control for differences
in base rates of avoidance responding. The number of avoidance responses emitted on
each extinction session was subtracted from the number emitted during the first 20 min
of the last pre-extinction avoidance session. An analysis of variance of these difference
scores over the first three extinction sessions showed a highly significant trial effect, F(4,20)
=35-49, P<O401, and a significant trial x group interaction, F(8, 40)=3X), PtO$lO5.
The main effect for groups was not significant, F(4, 20)=2.54, P>O*O5.
Since the above analysis indicated a significant interaction between trials and groups,
separate analyses of variance of the difference scores on extinction sessions two and three
were carried out. There were no significant differences between groups either on session two,
F(4,20) = 2.71, P> 0.05, or on session three, F(4,20) =0409, P> 0.25. Thus when controlled
for base rates of avoidance responding the different conditions which the groups were
exposed to prior to extinction and during the first three extinction sessions resulted in
significant differences in the amount of avoidance responding on the very first extinction
session only. By the third session the differences were negligible.
On session 4, Ss in Groups I, II, and III were returned to the experimental chamber
with just the wheel present and Ss in Group IV and in the extinction group continued
sessions with just the wheel present. An analysis of variance of avoidance responding on
sessions 3 and 4 over all groups, showed a significant difference among groups, F(4, 20)
=4*51, P<O-01, and a significant interaction between sessions and groups, F(4,20) =4-09,
P<O-025. Trial effect was not significant, F( 1, 20) = l-95, P> O-10. The significant inter-
action between groups and sessions showed that there were differential changes in avoidance
270 EILEEN GAMBRILL

responding among groups from session 3 to session 4. Further analysis of the differences,
employing the Sheffe method, indicated that only one pairwise comparison between groups
was significant, that between the mean difference of Group 1 and the mean difference of
the extinction group. On session 4, Ss in the extinction group continued their trend of
emitting fewer avoidance responses over extinction sessions whereas the Ss in Group I,
when the lever was removed, evidenced an increase in the frequency of avoidance responding.
The Ss in Group I showed a significant increase in avoidance responding on session 4,
r(4)=3@, P-CO-05. All Ss in this group evidenced an increased frequency of avoidance
responding when first placed in the experimental chamber with the lever removed. No other
group showed significant changes in avoidance responding from session 3 to 4.
The very condition which was significantly more effective than a traditional extinction
procedure in achieving a decrement in avoidance responding on the first extinction session,
one which not only provided the opportunity for performance of another conditioned
response but also provided reinforcement for this response, produced a significant increase
in frequency of avoidance responding when the opportunity to perform the lever response
was removed.
On the first three extinction sessions four Ss in the extinction group and all five Ss in
Group IV showed very short latencies of avoidance responding. Ss in Groups I and 11
showed longer latencies with more variability between Ss on latency of avoidance responding.
Three Ss in Group III showed brief latencies over the first three extinction sessions. Ss
which underwent very similar procedures were combined for purposes of analysis. Ss in
Group IV and the extinction group underwent a traditional extinction procedure and so
were combined into one group and Ss in Groups I and II had the opportunity of performing
another conditioned response during the first three extinction sessions and were combined
into another. Ss in Group III did not undergo either of these procedures and were not
included in the analysis of the latency data.
In order to control for differences in pre-extinction session latencies, difference scores
for each S on each extinction session were computed by subtracting the latency of the
first response on each extinction session from the latency of the first response during the
last pre-extinction avoidance session. Since there was wide variability in latencies of respond-
ing, a nonparametric test was employed in analyzing latency data. Latencies over the
first three extinction sessions for Ss in Groups I and II were compared with latencies of
Ss in Group IV and in the extinction group using a median test and the Fisher-Yates
significance tables (Fimrey, 1948). Ss undergoing a counterconditioning procedure evidenced
significantly longer latencies of avoidance responding over the first three extinction sessions
than did those Ss subjected to a traditional extinction procedure.

DISCUSSION
Only the counterconditioning procedure which evoked and reinforced another condi-
tioned response during extinction of the avoidance response was significantly more effective
than a traditional extinction procedure in achieving a decrement in avoidance responding
and this was only on the first session on which such procedures were in effect. This form
of the counterconditioning procedure resulted in the sharpest decrement in avoidance
responding as compared with any of the other procedures. The extinction procedure and
the other forms of counterconditioning were almost equally effective over sessions but
suffered from a delay in achieving their effects. This delay occurred to the degree to which
 THE COUNTERCONDITIONING PROCEDURE IN ELIMINATING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR 271

a procedure introduced a competing response. It was greatest in those groups undergoing

extinction pro,zdures in which no other competing response was deliberately introduced.
The performance of a smaller number of avoidance responses by Ss in Group IV as
compared to the extinction group over the first three extinction sessions. showed that
acquisition of the lever response had an effect upon avoidance responding during extinction.
Thus it is probable that part of the decrement evidenced by Ss in Groups 1 and II was due
to the acquisition of the lever response and the handling which this entailed. The charac-
teristics shared by the avoidance and lever chambers and the association of these with an
approach response during lever sessions, may have counterconditioned the responses
associated with these stimuli with the result that some competing responses were established
in this group. The great similarity between rates of avoidance responding during extinction
by Ss in Groups III and IV, indicated that the procedure of lever response acquisition was
almost as effective in reducing avoidance responding during the first three extinction
sessions as was the inclusion of familiar stimuli encouraging competing responses.
The smaller decrement in avoidance responding evidenced by Ss in Group II as com-
pared with Ss in Group I over the first three extinction sessions, reflected theeffect ofproviding
reinforcement for the conditioned response evoked in the avoidance situation. Even though
eating responses were not performed, there was an immediate substantial decrement in
avoidance responding. The greater frequency of avoidance responding by Ss in Group IV
as compared with Ss in Group II, showed that the opportunity to perform the conditioned
response even when this response was not reinforced was effective in reducing avoidance
responding during extinction.
The significant increase in avoidance responding in Group I on the fourth extinction
session, indicated that the counterconditioning procedure which consisted of the evocation
and reinforcement of another conditioned response, although most effective in achieving
an immediate decrement in avoidance responding, was most liable, compared to the other
forms of counterconditioning, to result in an increase in avoidance responding when the
opportunity to perform the competing response was removed. However, even with this
increase, the frequency of avoidance responding was fairly low as it was in all groups on
session four.
It has been asserted that extinction is likely to be less effective and more time-consuming
than counter~nditioning for e~minating unadaptive behavior (Bandura, 1961). The. present
study showed that these procedures were equally effective over sessions in eliminating
avoidance behavior. In fact, only the extinction procedure produced a response rate that
was below the operant level. With the other procedures, avoidance responses continued
to be performed at rates above the operant level even after 200 min of extinction sessions.
The results indicate that the consequences of the counterconditioning procedure which
consists in the evocation and reinforcement of another conditions response during extinc-
tion, are very similar to those of punishment combined with an extinction procedure
(Estes, 1944). Both produce an immediate, marked suppression in rate of responding,
but the response rate observed during the imposition of either procedure is in neither case
a reliable index as to the true state of the strength of the response. In both cases, when
special procedures are removed and extinction sessions initiated, an increase in responding
OCCUIS.

And, neither punishment nor counterconditioning increase susceptibility to extinction.

That is, the time required for extinction of the response is unaffected by the prior application
272 EILEEN GAMBRiLL

of these special procedures. This is in contrast to the effects of procedures such as flooding
(Polin, 1959) and gradual emergence (Rimble and Kendall, 1953) which have been found
significantly to increase susceptibility to extinction of an avoidance response. Thus a
distinction should be made between response suppression and extinction of the response
when either a punishment or a counterconditioning procedure is employed.
It should be noted that the counterconditioning procedures employed in the present
study differ from the one most frequently used by behavioral therapists. In the present
study, gradual emergence of the stimuii associated with the avoidance response was not
employed whereas this is used by behavioral therapists. In view of the demonstrated
superiority of gradual emergence as compared with extinction in increasing susceptibility
to extinction (Kimble and Kendall, 1953), and that no such increased susceptibility was
found in the present study, gradual emergence may be a very important aspect of the
procedure employed clini~ly. Its purpose, as stated by behavioral therapists, is to prevent
an “anxiety response” from occurring in the presence of stimuli associated with the response
(Wolpe, 1958).
The effectiveness of the extinction procedure in achieving a decrement in avoidance
behavior has been illustrated by this study as well as by others (e.g. Moyer, 1958). The
question must be raised as to why phobic behavior, which may be conceptualized as instru-
mental avoidance behavior, evidences suc,h persistence when apparently an extinction
procedure is in effect. For example, Freeman and Kendrick (1960) report the case of a
woman who “experienced a traumatic event” involving her cat. After this event, the woman
refused to leave home for years for fear of encountering cats. Why should such phobic
behavior persist, even though no further presentations of the UCS have apparently occurred,
when it is evident from the literature (e.g. Sidman, 1955) that further presentations of the
UCS are required to maintain avoidance behavior at a high rate ?
There are many possible explanations for such persistence of phobic behavior one of
which is that an extinction procedure may not actually be in effect. The individual may
receive occasional presentations of the UCS which maintain the avoidance behavior.
Boren and Sidman (1957) found that 70 per cent of the UCSs can be eliminated without
resulting in a decrement in the rate of avoidance responding. This is supported by the
performance of some of the Ss in the present study. For example, one S prior to the initia-
tion of extinction sessions, maintained a very high rate of avoidance responding over three
4&min sessions, receiving only four shocks during this time. Thus it may require only
occasional presentations of the UCS to maintain such phobic behavior at a high rate. Also,
the individual may not expose himself to the CS associated with the avoidance response,
as would seem to be the case with the cat phobia mentioned above. That is, the avoidance
response would be so developed as to greatly decrease the possibility of ever encountering
the CS. In neither instance would an extinction procedure be in effect.
Further, the individual may receive “random” presentations of the UCS, i.e. not
specifically associated with performance or nonperformance of the avoidance response.
Sidman, Herrnstein and Conrad (1957) have illustrated that such random presentations
increase rate of avoidance responding both during acquisition and extinction. Also,
accidental pairings of the CS with other aversive UCSs may serve to maintain the avoidance
response.
Since it is possible that phobic behavior does not persist in the face of an extinction
procedure, but rather that such a procedure is not in effect, it would seem that it has been
unduly neglected as a possible useful clinical procedure. The relative effectiveness of the
 THE ~OUNTERCONDITlONiNG PROCEDURE IN ELIMINATING AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR 273

extinction procedure may only hold in instances where an intensely aversive UCS was not
employed.
Judgement of the clinical effectiveness of a procedure depends upon what criteria are
employed in assessing it and different criteria may be called for for different unadaptive
avoidance responses. For exampte, performance of an avoidance response may entail
negative consequences. In this case, a procedure such as counterconditioning, which effects
an immediate decrement in avoiddnce responding and which achieves a decrement with
very few responses being performed, would be the procedure of choice. This would also
be the procedure of choice when the theraputic goal was not only the elimination of the
avoidance response but the conditioning of a specific other response to the CS. In other
instances, the emission of many avoidance responses in the process of achieving a decrement
in avoidance responding may not be an important factor. Nor may the theraputic goal
include association of the CS with a specific other response. In such cases, given that both
achieve a similar decrement in avoidance responding over the same number of sessions, the
extinction procedure may be preferred to the counterconditioning procedure, if it is easier
to arrange for the former.
A persistent feature of the effects of procedures used to eliminate avoidance behavior
is the occurrence of wide individual differences. Whereas a given procedure such as extinc-
tion combined with punishment (Solomon, Kamin and Wynne, 1953) may be very ineffective
in eliminating an avoidance response with most subjects, it may be very successful with a
few subjects. Individual differences in the effectiveness of procedures were also found in
the present study. The existance of such individual differences points out the advisability
of considering these in applying procedures in the clinical situation, and the need for further
investigations to determine the variables controlling such differences so that methods may
be applied with greater precision.

REFERENCES
BANDURAA. (1961) Psychotherapy as a learning process. Psychol. &tfi. !%, 143-I 59.
BOREN J. and SIDMAN M. (1957) Maintenance of avoidance behavior with intermittent shocks. Con. J.
Psychol. 11, 185-192.
ESTESW. K. (1944) An experimental study of punishment. Psychol.Mottogr. 57, Whole No. 263.
FINNFYD. (1948) Fisher-Yates significance tests for 2 x 2 contingency tables. Biometrica 35, 145-l 56.
FREEMAN H. J. and KENDRICK D. C. (1960) A case of cat phobia. Br. Med. J. 2,497-x)2.
HAYSW. L. (1963) Stutistics fir Psychoiogist~. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
KIMBLE G. A. and KENDALLJ. W. (I953) A comparison of two methods of producing experimental cxtinc-
tion. J. exp. Psychol. 45, 87-89.
MASSERMAN J. H. (1943) Behavior und Neurosis. University of Chicago Press.
METZNERR. (1961) Learning theory and the therapy of neurosis. Br. /. Psyc/~o/. Monogr. Suppl.
University Press, Cambridge.
MOWRER 0. H. (1947) On the dual nature of learning-A re-interpretation of “conditioning” and “problem-
solving’*. J&TV.e&c. Rev. 17, 102-148.
MOYERK. E. (1958) Effect of delay between training and extinction on the extinction of an avoidance
response. J. camp. physioi. Psychof. 5X, 116-l 18.
POLINA. T. (1959) The effect of flooding and physical suppression as extinction techniques of an anxiety
motivated avoidance locomotor response. J. Psycho/. 47, 245-253.
SIDMANM. (1955) On the persistence of avoidance behavior. J. nbnorm. SOC.Psychol. SO, 217-220.
SIDMANM., HERRNSTEIN R. and CONRADD. (1957) Maintenance of avoidance behavior by unavoidable
shocks. J. camp. physiol. Psychoi. 50, 553-557.
SOILWINR. L., KAMINL. J. and WYNNEL. C. (19.53) ~rau~ticavoi&n~ learning: the outcomes of several
extinction procedures with dogs. J. ub?rorm.SOC.Psychol. 48, 291-302.
WINERB. J. (1962) Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. McGraw-Hill, New York.
WOJTCZAK -. and JAR~~ZO~A-. (1962) Properties of transformed CSs. Acre Biof. exp. 22, No. 3.
WOLPE J. (1958) Psychotherapy b.v Reciprocal Inhibition. Stanford University Press, Stanford.