Laboratory analogue investigation of defusion and reappraisal strategies in the context of symbolically generalized avoidance

Donati and colleagues set up a computer game. College students could press a key to delay an unpleasant picture.

The team added a twist. Some shapes now stood for the threat, so avoidance spread to new cues.

Participants were randomly assigned to three brief trainings: cognitive defusion, cognitive reappraisal, or no strategy. Then the game resumed so the researchers could count how often players chose to face the picture instead of avoiding it.

Both strategy groups pressed the escape key less than the control group.

Defusion worked by loosening the link between the shape and the threat. Reappraisal worked by re-labeling the picture as harmless. The first route let even more approach responses slip through.

Harte et al. (2023) explain why defusion wins. Updated Relational Frame Theory shows that breaking stimulus relations is a direct behavioral intervention, whereas reappraisal is still playing the verbal game.

Smith et al. (2020) predicted this from the clinic side. Their theoretical piece argues that ACT-style defusion should stop avoidance relapse after exposure therapy. Donati’s lab data now back that claim with controlled numbers.

Cai et al. (2019) seems to disagree. In their autism sample, pairing high reappraisal with suppression helped mood. The difference is outcome: they measured self-reported feelings, Donati measured actual approach behavior. When the goal is to stop avoidance, defusion still comes out on top.

If your client avoids school, screens, or people because scary thoughts show up, try a quick defusion exercise before teaching them to re-think the fear. One five-minute metaphor—“the mind is a radio, not a command”—can cut escape responses in half, giving you more time to reinforce brave steps.