Chronic hospitalized alcoholics were subjects in a study designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of behavior modification techniques in changing drinking and related behaviors, and achieving moderation. The following procedures were studied: videotaped self-confrontation of drunken behavior, discrimination training for blood alcohol concentration, aversion training for overconsumption, discriminated avoidance practice, alcohol education, alternatives training, and behavior counseling. All of the techniques were applied to Group 1 (n = 23), and only the last three techniques were applied to Group 2 (n = 19). After 1 year of follow-up, significant decreases in alcohol intake were observed for both groups, but Group 1 decreased significantly more than Group 2. Favorable changes were also observed in drinking companions, choice of alcoholic beverage, and drinking environment. It is concluded that some chronic alcoholics learned to drink in a controlled manner as a result of the techniques used and the program orientation.

Previous studies suggest the utility of electrical aversion conditioning, but have failed to include adequate controls. Pseudoconditioning (random shock delivery), sham conditioning (no shock), and ward controls (routine hospital treatment) were compared with two conditioning groups. Conditioning-only (contingent shock) and booster 5s (additional conditioning sessions after release from hospital) were shocked for drinking and reinforced by shock termination for spitting out the alcohol. Sessions were run in a simulated bar setting. Fifty-one of 73 chronic male alcoholics completed treatment and were available for follow-up. The technique significantly increased time to relapse when compared with control groups, among which no significant differences were found. The results suggest the possible usefulness of booster sessions and the potential long-term effectiveness of the technique for some Ss.The potential effectiveness of electrical aversion conditioning methods in treating alcoholics is apparent in reports by Hsu (1965) and Blake (1965Blake ( , 1967. A drawback of these studies was the absence of control groups, making it difficult to determine the

Alcoholics were exposed to behavior counseling alone (N =10), or behavior counseling with either videotape self-confrontation (N = 10) or role-modeling (N = 10), and compared to alcoholics receiving standard inpatient treatment (N =10). Immediate alternation of drinking topographies and posttreatment follow-up drinking dispositions served as dependent variables. Subjects receiving videotape self-confrontation achieved greater positive changes in posttreatment drinking analysis sessions than did other treatment groups. Follow-up probes suggested superiority of the experimental treatments in general, and particularly videotape self-confrontation. Performance in the posttreatment analysis sessions was predictive of follow-up drinking status (p less thann .05).

Stimrnary.-A comparison of cooperative and noncooperative response rate data for some Ss indicated that reinforcement influenced both rates in the same proportion during acquisition and extinction periods, even though reinforcement was contingent upon the cooperative class of behavior only.An unambiguous demonstration of reinforcement control over cooperative behavior should show that changes in cooperative rate could not be interpreted as artifact, the result of reidorcement control over generalized responding. Several studies of cooperatior: do not report noncooperative response rate (e.g.,Azrin & Lindsley, 1956; Cohen, 1962;Hingtgen, Sanders, & DeMyer, 1963; Weingold & Webster, 1964) which precludes a comparison of the effect of reinforcement on cooperative response rate with noncooperative response rate. Such a comparison would determine whether selective reinforcement control was obtained over cooperative rate or whether noncooperative rate was also influenced by reinforcement, and the relative magnitude of the effect of reinforcement on the two rates.In the srudy reported here both cooperative and individual noncooperative responses were recorded. The study closely resembled the one by Azrin and Lindsley (1956) except that the response was more difficult since the latency (not the duration) of the response was restricted to 0.05 sec. and the age range of Ss was 4 through 9, as compared with 7 through 12 in the Azrin and Lindsley sample. Ss were seated at opposite sides of a table with three holes and a stylus before each child. Ss were given non-specific instructions about the relationship between their behavior and reinforcement. The first six channels of a 20-channel Esterline Angus recorder were used to record individual noncooperative responses from each of the six holes in the table. The seventh channel recorded only cooperative responses, i.e., i t recorded only when both styli were inserted into any one pair of the three aveilable pairs of opposite holes within 0.05 sec. of each other.Seven of 12 pairs of Ss failed to develop cooperation as judged by very low cooperative rates (Coop. Rs/min. < 3 ) after 20 min. of continuous reinforcement and were terminated. Four of the remaining five pairs of Ss failed to cievelop cooperative rates which were clearly independent of noncooperative rates. Characteristic of these four pairs are the data for the pair presented in Fig. 1, 'This paper is based on a thes3 entitled "Analysis of a cooperative response" submitted to the Deparunent of Psychology of the University of Arizona in partial fulfillment of requirements for the M.A. degree. The author wishes to express his gratirude to Dr. Ralph J. Wetzel for his invaluable assistance and advice in carrying out the study. 'Now at Pomona College, Clarernonc, California.

Problem drinkers in the community were subjects in a study that evaluated the therapeutic potential of learning techniques in changing abusive drinking patterns and achieving moderation. The following procedures were studied: videotaped self-confrontation of drunken behavior, aversion training for overconsumption, discrimination training for blood alcohol concentration, alternatives training, behavior counseling, and alcohol education. All the techniques were applied to Group 1 (» = 23), the last four to Group 2 (« = 19), alcohol education only to Group 3 (n = 21), and the last three to Group 4 (n = 17). During the first year of follow-up, significant decreases in alcohol intake were found for all groups, and the percentage of moderate drinkers changed from .0% to 62.5%. Significant differences between groups were not found. The effects on outcome of a large variance in pretreatment subject characteristics such as alcohol intake, as well as the amount of possible change in alcohol intake, the program's learning orientation, and blind follow-up are discussed as factors that may partially account for the lack of differential treatment effects. These issues are considered when comparing the results of this study with the results obtained in a similar study at Patton Hospital with chronic alcoholics. We conclude that moderation is a more attainable and feasible goal for problem drinkers than for chronic alcoholics.Evidence is mounting that drinking usually begins during adolescence and that social