The Role of Experiential Avoidance in the Performance on a High Cognitive Demand Task

Full reference: López, J. C., Ruiz, F. J., Feder, J., Barbero Rubio, Á., Suárez Aguirre, J. J., Rodríguez, J. A., & Luciano, C. (2010). The role of experiential avoidance in performance on a high cognitive demand task. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10(3), 475–488.

Study type: Quasi-experimental study with comparison groups

Context and objectives

Experiential avoidance refers to a pattern of verbal regulation based on deliberate attempts to avoid or escape from private events (affects, thoughts, memories, bodily sensations) experienced as aversive. This type of regulation is not problematic per se but becomes dysfunctional when maintained as an inflexible pattern that prevents the person from engaging in valued actions. A series of recent studies had analyzed the role of experiential avoidance in experimental tasks, comparing participants with high and low levels, finding that those with high experiential avoidance showed greater emotional reactions, more discomfort, and worse performance on various tasks. However, no previous study had analyzed the role of experiential avoidance in performance on high cognitive demand tasks while participants experience discomfort. The present study aimed to analyze the relationship between experiential avoidance and other coping strategies with performance on a working-memory task in both a neutral and a highly aversive emotional context.

Method

Participants/Models

Twenty-four participants (17 females, 7 males; mean age = 26.5 years, SD = 8.7) were selected from a total of 34 who responded to the AAQ-II, based on having a score one standard deviation above or below the non-clinical population mean. Thirteen participants had high scores in experiential avoidance (M = 44, SD = 4.98) and 11 had low scores (M = 23.09, SD = 2.17). All received a canteen voucher exchangeable for breakfast or a snack.

Design

Quasi-experimental within-subject design with a grouping variable (high vs. low AAQ-II). The procedure consisted of three phases: Phase 1 (participant selection and coping strategy questionnaire administration), Phase 2 (viewing a neutral video followed by mood state inventory, working-memory task, and concentration/interference measures), and Phase 3 (identical to Phase 2 but with a highly discomforting video).

Materials

An experimental task programmed in Visual Basic 6.0 was used. Two 90-second videos were employed: a neutral video (desert landscape with shrubs) and a discomforting video (surgical leg amputation). The working-memory task consisted of 10 trials in which participants had to remember the exact sequence of 6 figures (selected from a pool of 9 geometric figures: white square, gray square, black square, white triangle, gray triangle, black triangle, white pentagon, gray pentagon, and black pentagon). Each figure remained on screen for 2 seconds. Participants earned points based on correct selection order (+1 to +6 per figure), with a 4-point bonus for perfect trials and a -3 point penalty for each error.

Self-report instruments included: AAQ-II (Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II; 10 items, 1-7 Likert scale), WBSI (White Bear Suppression Inventory; 15 items, 1-5 Likert scale), Accepting without Judgment scale of the KIMS (Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills; 9 items, 1-5 Likert scale), Problem Solving and Cognitive Reappraisal scales of the CSI (Coping Strategies Inventory; 5 items each, 1-5 Likert scale), and a Mood State Inventory based on Gross (1998) with 15 items assessed on a visual scale.

Procedure

In Phase 1, participants responded to the AAQ-II and selected participants completed the WBSI, KIMS, and CSI. In Phase 2, participants viewed the neutral video, responded to the mood state inventory, performed the working-memory task (during which they had to press the space bar whenever a thought about the video came to mind), and reported their concentration level and perceived interference from the video. Phase 3 was identical to Phase 2 but used the discomforting video.

Analyses

Correlations were calculated between coping strategy measures (AAQ-II, KIMS-acceptance, WBSI, CSI) and experimental variables (negative emotions, task score, concentration, interference, thought intrusions). High and low AAQ-II groups were compared on experimental variables using the Mann-Whitney U test. A mediation analysis following Baron and Kenny's (1986) method with three independent regression analyses evaluated whether concentration mediated the effect of experiential avoidance on task performance.

Results

Experiential avoidance (AAQ-II) and accepting without judgment (KIMS) scores were the coping strategies showing the highest correlations with experimental variables. After viewing the neutral video, AAQ-II correlated with negative emotions (r = .42, p < .05) and KIMS-acceptance negatively (r = -.35, p < .05). The CSI problem-solving scale correlated with reported interference (r = -.50, p < .01). AAQ-II, KIMS-acceptance, and WBSI correlated with the number of thought intrusions during the task (AAQ-II: r = .41; KIMS-acceptance: r = -.34; WBSI: r = .42; all p < .05).

After viewing the discomforting video, KIMS-acceptance correlated negatively with negative emotions (r = -.52) and with task points (KIMS-acceptance: r = .52, p < .01). AAQ-II correlated negatively with task points (r = -.40, p < .05) and concentration (r = -.44, p < .05). For reported interference, AAQ-II (r = .62, p < .01), KIMS-acceptance (r = -.42, p < .05), and WBSI (r = .61, p < .01) showed significant correlations. Thought intrusions correlated with AAQ-II (r = .47), KIMS-acceptance (r = -.44), and WBSI (r = .51).

In group comparisons, after the neutral video, high AAQ-II participants rated their mood state more negatively (High: M = 3.06, SD = 1.96; Low: M = 1.26, SD = 1.45; U = 35.0, p = .018). Task performance was similar in both groups (High: mean score = 69.3; Low: mean score = 67.1; t = 1.43, p = .89). After the discomforting video, negative emotions increased in both groups (High: M = 5.58, SD = 1.96; Low: M = 3.02, SD = 2.17; U = 27.0, p = .004). Low AAQ-II participants reported higher concentration (Low: M = 6.00, SD = 2.28; High: M = 3.84, SD = 2.85; U = 39.5, p = .031), lower interference (Low: M = 3.09, SD = 2.77; High: M = 7.08, SD = 2.50; U = 23.0, p = .002), and fewer thought intrusions (Low: M = .91, SD = 1.81; High: M = 5.00, SD = 6.98; U = 36.0, p = .02). The high experiential avoidance group obtained significantly worse task scores (High: M = 5.85, SD = 11.12, final score = 58.5; Low: M = 9.27, SD = 12.47, final score = 92.7; t = 2.24, p = .015).

At the intra-subject level, 6 of 11 low AAQ-II participants (55%) improved their performance from Phase 2 to Phase 3, while only 2 of 13 high AAQ-II participants (15%) improved and 6 (46%) showed a decrease in performance.

The mediation analysis revealed that experiential avoidance significantly predicted concentration (β = -.44, p = .015) and task points (β = -.40, p = .026). When both variables were included as predictors, concentration significantly predicted task points (β = .59, p = .002) but experiential avoidance was no longer a significant predictor (β = -.14, p = .26), indicating that the effect of experiential avoidance on working-memory task performance was mediated by the level of concentration.

Discussion and conclusions

The results demonstrate that experiential avoidance plays a relevant role in performance on high cognitive demand tasks when participants are experiencing discomfort. Participants with high experiential avoidance did not improve their performance on the memory task after the discomforting video (despite having previously practiced with the neutral video), while participants with low experiential avoidance did. The mediation analysis suggests this effect occurs through decreased concentration: while experiencing discomfort, participants with high experiential avoidance likely employ control strategies (thought suppression, distraction, etc.) that are incompatible with attending to the task's relevant cues, preventing relevant stimuli from acquiring their specific function. The authors note as limitations the reduced sample size, the use of non-standardized videos, the lack of a validated Spanish translation for some questionnaires (KIMS), and the absence of a pre-experiment mood evaluation. Results are consistent with previous data on the negative effect of experiential avoidance on demanding tasks and suggest that modifying coping strategies for discomfort could improve performance. Additionally, the procedure used could serve as a behavioral measure of experiential avoidance and to evaluate the effect of intervention protocols.

Significance and contribution

This study provides the first explicit experimental data on the negative effect of experiential avoidance on performance on high cognitive demand tasks conducted in an emotionally aversive context. By demonstrating that this effect is mediated by concentration level, the study provides an explanatory mechanism: discomfort avoidance strategies compete with the attentional resources required for the task. These findings are relevant for understanding how experiential avoidance can affect performance in real-life contexts that combine high cognitive demands with emotional discomfort (such as sports competitions, exams, or job performance under stress), and provide experimental support for contextual models emphasizing acceptance as a functional alternative to avoidance.

---