Pharmacological aversive counterconditioning to alcohol in a private hospital; one-year follow-up.

Wiens, Arthur N.; Montague, John; Manaugh, Thomas S.; English, C.J.

doi:10.15288/jsa.1976.37.1320

Cited by 42 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Emetic subjects received a treatment regimen very similar to one employed in private alcohol aversion therapy hospitals (Raleigh Hills Hospitals, Note 1). This regimen, which has been reported to be effective in uncontrolled clinical trials (e.g., Lemere & Voegtlin, 1950;Weins et al, 1976), consists of five sessions in which a variety of alcoholic flavors are paired with nausea and vomiting. Shock subjects received a treatment similar to one employed in one of the more favorable assessments of shock aversion therapy (Vogler, Lunde, Johnson, & Martin, 1970).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Determining whether an alcohol aversion therapy procedure produces measurable alcohol aversions is an essential step in evaluating its efficacy, but a question of greater clinical importance is whether the procedure increases subsequent abstinence rates. A number of uncontrolled clinical studies report impressive abstinence rates following emetic aversion therapy (Kant, 1945;Lemere & Voegtlin, 1950;O'Hollaren & Lemere, 1948;Thimann, 1943Thimann, , 1949Voegtlin, 1940Voegtlin, , 1947Voegtlin & Broz, 1949;Voegtlin & Lemere, 1942;Voegtlin, Lemere, Broz, & O'Hollaren, 1941;Weins, Montague, Manaugh, & English, 1976). Unfortunately, methodological problems such as the absence of a control group make these reports of questionable value (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emetic and electric shock alcohol aversion therapy: Six- and twelve-month follow-up.

Cannon¹,

Baker²,

Wehl³

1981

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six-and 12-month follow-up data are reported for 20 male alcoholics who received either a multifaceted inpatient alcoholism treatment program alone (controls) or emetic or shock aversion therapy in addition to that program. Results indicated that emetic treatment exerted a modest beneficial effect at the 6-month mark, but control and emetic subjects did not differ at the 12-month mark. Both emetic and control subjects compiled more days of abstinence than shock subjects at both the 6-and 12-month follow-up intervals. Analysis of the relationship between inpatient measures of the strength of alcohol aversions and posttreatment drinking revealed an inverse relationship between heart rate response to alcohol and number of days of drinking. Implications of these results for further research on aversion therapy are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emetic and electric shock alcohol aversion therapy: Six- and twelve-month follow-up.

Cannon¹,

Baker²,

Wehl³

1981

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Emetic aversion therapy. Procedures used in emetic aversion therapy sessions were essentially the same as those used in emetic conditioning studies reporting positive outcomes (e.g., Lemere & Voegtlin, 1950;Weins, Montague, Manaugh, & English, 1976). The treatment regimen, described in greater detail elsewhere (Baker & Cannon, 1979;Weins et al, 1976; Raleigh Hills Hospitals, Note 2), consisted of five conditioning sessions scheduled at least 48 hours apart.…”

Section: Aversion Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emetic and electric shock alcohol aversion therapy: Assessment of conditioning.

Cannon¹,

Baker²

1981

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty male alcoholic volunteers were randomly assigned to an emetic aversion conditioning group (n -7), a shock aversion conditioning group (n = 7), or a control group (n = 6) receiving no experimental treatment. All subjects received standard inpatient alcoholism treatment in addition to any aversion therapy. All subjects participated in psychophysiological assessment sessions and taste-test sessions before and after conditioning. Dependent measures across attitudinal, behavioral, and psychophysiological response systems all suggested that only emetic subjects acquired aversions to alcohol. Results are discussed with respect to their theoretical and clinical significance.Alcohol aversion therapy is one of the oldest behavior therapy techniques, the first reports appearing in the literature in the early 1940s (e.g., Thimann, 1943;Voegtlin, 1940). The unconditioned stimulus (UCS) in these early studies was, with only one exception (Kantorovich, 1929), an emetic. Although early investigators such as Voegtlin (1940) viewed the pairing of alcohol with an emetic as Pavlovian conditioning, such a conditioning procedure would now be labeled taste aversion conditioning (Garcia, Hankins, & Rusiniak, 1974;Seligman, 1970).Early clinical reports of the use of emetic aversion therapy for alcoholics were usually quite positive (e.g.

show abstract

“…In the chemical aversion treatment of alcoholism, therapeutic alcohol aversions are produced by making patients sick after they consume alcoholic beverages (Boland, Mellor, & Revusky, 1978;Lemere & Voegtlin, 1950, Voegtlin, Lemere, & Broz, 1940Wiens, Montague, Manaugh, & English, 1976). Because this treatment is similar to the conditioning of flavor aversions in the animal laboratory, some animal experimentation has been concerned with validating techniques of chemical aversion therapy (Elkins, 1974;Revusky, 1973;Revusky & Gorry, 1973;Revusky, Parker, Coombes, & Coombes, 1976;Revusky & Taukulis, 1975;Revusky, Taukulis, Parker, & Coombes, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%