MODIFICATION OF ESCAPE RESPONDING IN HUMANS BY INCREASING THE MAGNITUDE OF AN AVERSIVE EVENT.

The team tested adults in a lab game. Each button press could win points or lose points.

They made the point-loss bigger across rounds. Then they watched if players escaped the loss or avoided it early.

When the loss stayed small, players let it happen and then escaped. When the loss grew, players hit the avoid button sooner.

Bigger aversive cost flipped the pattern from escape to avoidance.

Ono et al. (2021) ran the same point-loss game decades later. They also saw more avoidance when the warned loss was larger. The 1964 finding still holds.

CHARNEY et al. (1965) pushed further. They showed escape can stay strong even when it costs food rewards. Together the two papers say: size of the aversive drives the form of the response.

King et al. (1990) used the same currency but tracked aggression. Escape and avoidance both kept aggressive button presses high. The contingency matters more than the topography.

If your client keeps escaping a consequence, try upping the cost before the behavior occurs. A larger response cost or shorter time to it can flip the person into avoidance, which may look like better self-management. Test in small steps and watch for emotional side effects.