What the Research Actually Shows About Avoidance

There was a period when I was cancelling things. Each one had a reason. I was tired. I had taught all week. The drive was long. I framed it to myself as protecting my energy, and the language was available - capacity, nervous system, rest.

By the third or fourth cancellation I noticed the relief was no longer relief. It was flatter than that. The next invitation produced a tightness that had not been there before. My world had got smaller, and I had taken what looked like good decisions to arrive there.

I hear a version of this from women I work with almost every week. They have spent years learning the language of self-care, and they are asking the same question I had to ask myself: how do I know whether I am honouring my limits, or retreating from my own life?

The behaviours can be identical. The interior experience can be ambiguous. The difference is rarely visible in a single moment.

What the Research Actually Shows About Avoidance

The clinical literature on avoidance is more interesting than the popular conversation suggests. Steven Hayes and colleagues (Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology) introduced the concept of experiential avoidance - the tendency to escape or alter unwanted internal experiences, including thoughts, feelings, memories, and bodily sensations. Their finding was that avoidance, considered across time, predicts a wide range of psychological difficulty. Anxiety. Depression. Reduced quality of life. The act of avoiding, repeated, becomes the problem more reliably than the original distress that prompted it.

Michelle Craske and her team at UCLA pushed this further with their work on inhibitory learning theory (Craske, Treanor, Conway, Zbozinek, & Vervliet, 2014, Behaviour Research and Therapy). They showed that what allows the nervous system to update a fear response is not the absence of the feared situation but a new, contradictory experience inside it. Avoidance prevents that update. The system keeps predicting threat because nothing has happened to revise the prediction.

This has a clinical implication that matters. A nervous system that has learned to expect danger does not get less reactive through rest alone. It gets less reactive through encountering the feared thing and discovering that the feared outcome did not happen, or was survivable. Rest restores capacity. It does not, by itself, recalibrate threat.

A 2019 review by Pittig and colleagues in Clinical Psychology Review confirmed something that surprises many people: even brief, self-imposed avoidance reliably increases the strength of a fear response over subsequent encounters. The avoidance feels protective. The system reads it as confirmation that the threat was real.

Why Self-Care Looks the Same From Outside

The complicating factor is that genuine self-care also involves declining things, slowing down, and choosing rest over engagement. Restoration is real. The body needs it. After sustained stress, after illness, after a period of high demand, withdrawal is the work of returning to baseline.

Research on allostatic load (McEwen, 1998, New England Journal of Medicine) describes the cumulative cost of repeated stress activation on the body. The recovery from this load requires periods of low demand. Without them, the system stays elevated, and the consequences are physical and psychological.

So both things are true. The body needs rest. The body also needs to encounter what it fears, in tolerable doses, in order to update.

The question is which one is operating, on which day, in which decision.

The Marker That Actually Distinguishes Them

After fifteen years of clinical work, the marker I find most reliable is not how the decision feels in the moment. Feelings in the moment are unreliable here. Fear can present as fatigue. Genuine fatigue can present as dread. The body's signals at the threshold of a difficult thing are often ambiguous.

The marker that distinguishes self-care from avoidance is what happens to the territory of your life over weeks.

Self-care restores. After it, you return - to people, to work, to movement, to contact with the world that demands something of you. The recovery is followed by re-engagement. The threshold for the next encounter is lower, not higher.

Avoidance contracts. After it, the next similar encounter feels harder. The relief is followed by a subtle increase in dread. The list of things you no longer do grows. The justifications become more sophisticated as the territory narrows.

This is what Hayes and colleagues' research captures statistically. The single act is not the issue. The pattern across time is.

What This Looks Like in Practice

A woman who skips a difficult dinner one week and goes to the next one the following week is regulating. A woman who skips three in a row, then finds the fourth invitation produces a tightness that was not there before, has crossed into something else. The behaviours are similar. The trajectory is opposite.

The same is true of larger decisions. Leaving a job that was depleting you and returning to work in a different form six months later is recovery. Leaving the same job and finding that the idea of returning to any work has become unbearable is something else, and it is worth being honest about.

Why High-Functioning Women Get This Wrong

Women who have spent years over-functioning - who learned early that being useful, capable, available was the price of belonging - tend to swing hard when they finally start protecting themselves. The relief of saying no is so unfamiliar, so corrective of a long pattern, that it feels uncomplicatedly healthy.

For a while, it is. The early no's repair something. They demonstrate to the system that the world does not collapse when you decline.

What I see clinically, and what I have noticed in myself, is that this phase has a shelf life. The no's that initially restored agency can, if they are not examined, become a different kind of constraint. The vocabulary of self-care - boundaries, capacity, nervous system regulation, protecting peace - can be deployed against engagement itself.

This is a predictable second movement in the work. The first movement is learning that you are allowed to decline. The second is learning to tell the difference between a decline that is right and a decline that is fear in better clothing.

Marsha Linehan's work on dialectical behaviour therapy holds this tension explicitly. She argues that wisdom lies in the capacity to hold opposites - acceptance and change, validation and movement, rest and engagement - without collapsing into either one. The collapse into rest is as much a problem as the collapse into striving.

The Honest Diagnostic

The questions that actually help, in my experience, are these.

Across the last three months, has the range of things I do been widening or narrowing? Am I returning to encounters, or moving further from them? When I imagine the next similar invitation, do I feel more capacity or less? When I decline, is the relief followed by recovery, or by a heightened threshold for the next time?

These questions cannot be answered in a single moment. They require honesty about a pattern.

The harder layer underneath: am I willing to be wrong about this? Am I willing to discover that something I have been calling self-care has, somewhere along the way, become a slow retreat? And am I willing to discover the opposite - that something I have been calling avoidance was, in fact, exactly what my body needed?

Both discoveries are uncomfortable. Both are necessary.

What Changes When You Track This Honestly

The clients I work with who get traction on this stop trying to identify, in the moment, whether a particular decision is fear or care. They accept that the moment is too small a unit of measurement.

Instead, they track the shape of their life over weeks. They notice which decisions are followed by re-engagement and which are followed by further withdrawal. They develop a more accurate read of their own patterns, which is different from a stricter one.

What I have seen is that the binary itself loosens. Fewer decisions need to be diagnosed. The body, asked the right question over the right time scale, becomes more reliable.

The question is not "is this self-care or avoidance." The question is "is my life getting larger or smaller, and is that what I want."

com/subscribe