Behavioural Intentions Flashcards
Aversion Therapy and Covert Sensitisation
Behavioural intentions
Any treatment based on behaviourist principles of learning.
Aversion therapy.
Behavioural intervention for addiction based on classical conditioning.
Principle.
An addiction can develop through repeated associations between substance/behaviour and the pleasurable state of being arousal caused by it.
Therefore it follows that the addiction can be reduced by exploiting the same classical conditioning process, but by associating the substance/behaviour with an unpleasant state (counterconditioning).
Aversion therapy for alcohol addiction.
A client is given an aversive drug such as disulfiram; this interferes with the normal bodily process of metabolising alcohol into harmless chemicals. This means that someone who drinks alcohol while taking disulfiram will experience severe nausea and vomiting.
Aim of aversion therapy for alcohol addiction.
For a client to learn a new association.
In classical conditioning terms, disulfiram and alcohol separately do not produce nausea/vomiting but together they do.
So, through association, they become conditioned stimuli (CSs) producing an expectation of nausea/vomiting (a conditioned response, Cr).
The client soon expects to experience the CR when they drink.
Other forms of aversion therapy associate an electric shock with the addiction.
This has proved useful in treatment of behavioural addictions and for people whose medical conditions might be worsened by frequent vomiting. The shocks used do not cause permanent damage but are painful.
Aversion therapy for gambling addiction.
An addicted gambler thinks of phrases that relate to their gambling behaviour and writes them down on cards. The client reads out each card. When they get to a gambling-related phrase they are given a two-second shock via a device attached to their wrist. The intensity and duration of the shock are preselected by the client.
After repeated pairings, the pain (UCR) becomes associated with gambling-related behaviours (was NS, now CS), the client’s cravings subside and they stop gambling.
Limitation.
P: The studies of aversion therapy have methodological problems.
E: Hajek and Stead (2001) reviewed 25 studies of aversion therapy for nicotine addiction. They concluded it was impossible to judge the effectiveness of aversion therapy because most of the studies had ‘glaring’ methodological problems. For example, there was a failure to ‘blind’ the procedures, so the researchers knew which participants received therapy or placebo.
E: This may have influenced the researcher’s judgements of the therapy’s success.
L: Therefore, this research may tell us little about the value of aversion therapy.
Covert Sensitisation.
A form of aversion therapy based on classical conditioning.
A client imagines an unpleasant stimulus and associates this with a maladaptive behaviour (in contrast with aversion therapy where the unpleasant stimulus is actually experienced).
Covert Sensitisation.
A form of aversion therapy based on classical conditioning.
A client imagines an unpleasant stimulus and associates this with a maladaptive behaviour (in contrast with aversion therapy where the unpleasant stimulus is actually experienced).
Covert Sensitisation in practice
Client is first of all encouraged to relax.
Therapist then reads from script instructing client to imagine an aversive situation.
Client sees themselves smoking, followed by imagining the most unpleasant consequences.
The more vivid this imaginary scene the better.
1 unpleasant technique is for client to imagine being forced to smoke cigarettes covered in faeces; sometimes, for added unpleasantness, the therapy will incorporate aversive stimuli chosen by the client.
Strength.
P: There is research support for covert sensititisation.
E: McConaghy et al (1983) compared covert sensitisation and electric shock aversion therapy for gambling addiction. After 1 year, those with covert sensitisation were significantly more likely to have reduced their gambling.
E: Covert sensitisation participants also reported experiencing fewer and less intense gambling cravings.
L: This suggests that covert sensitisation is a highly promising behavioural intervention.
Limitation.
P: Many studies of covert sensitisation do not include a suitable comparison group.
E: For example, such studies often omit non-behavioural therapies as a comparison group. Instead they just compare covert sensitisation with aversion therapy.
E: Addiction has many non-learning cues. Non-behavioural therapies address these whether neither covert sensitisation nor aversion therapy do.
L: This means that the benefits of covert sensitisation may be exaggerated.
