Evaluate aversion therapy (10)

• Effectiveness: inconsistent and not last long term

  • P: aversion therapy shows mixed evidence for effectiveness, + any benefits may not be long-lasting

  • E: e.g, Miller (1978) found no diff in recovery between those treated with aversion therapy, counselling, or both, suggesting aversion therapy may no offer no added benefit. Although Smith et al (1997) found higher abstinence rates for alcoholics treated with aversion therapy, these findings not consistently replicated. Additionally, positive effects may not generalise outside clinical setting, as once unpleasant stimulus (shocks or nausea-inducing drugs) is removed, learned association can be extinguished, as pavlov’s classical conditioning research suggests

  • E: calls the question of long-term utility of aversion therapy, especially as relapse rates are high + therapy treats surface behaviours than underlying causes

  • L: some support for short term effect, lacks consistency
• Ethical issues: undermine acceptability

  • P: aversion therapy faces major ethical criticism due to distress caused + controversial historical use

  • E: for instance, AT was used unethically to ‘treat’ homosexuality using nausea-inducing drugs + disturbing settings, which led to physical harm + in 1 case (Billy Clegg-Hill, 1962) death. even in modern cases, Bancroft (1992) found dropout rates of up to 50% likely due to unpleasant + punitive nature of treatment

  • E: issues raise concerns about informed consent and psychological harm. Modern approaches like covert sensitisation less invasive, but ethical stigma around og method affects rep + use today

  • L: therefore, while AT may be last resort, ethical flaws limit its widespread application + acceptance
• Conclusion

  • AT can be effective for some individuals in short term, but mixed evidence, high drop out rates, questionable long-term success, significant ethical concerns limit its overall value

  • rarely used today and replaced by more humane and holistic approaches