Evaluate effectiveness of aversion therapy (10)

• Mixed effectiveness

  • P: Aversion therapy has shown mixed effectiveness across studies, which challenges its reliability as a treatment.

  • E: For example, Miller (1978) found no difference in recovery rates one year after treatment among alcoholics who received aversion therapy, counselling, or a combination of both.

  • E: This suggests that aversion therapy alone may not be more effective than other psychological interventions, undermining the claim that behaviourist therapies are superior.

  However, more recent findings by Smith et al. (1997) contradict this, reporting higher abstinence rates in those treated with aversion therapy than counselling alone.

  • L: This inconsistency highlights that while aversion therapy can work for some, its overall reliability and effectiveness remain questionable.
• High drop out rate and short term

  • P: major limitation of AT is high drop out rate and limited long term effectiveness

  • E: Bancroft (1992) found up to 50% of patients either refused or dropped out of AT programmes

  • E: makes it difficult to evaluate how effective therapy really is, results may only reflect experiences of most motivated individuals. Additionally, effects of treatment don’t generalise outside clinical setting - once aversive stimulus (nausea inducing drug) is removed, undesirable behaviour may return

  • L: limits it’s long-term value of therapy and reduces its practical usefulness in treating mental illness effectively
• Conclusion

  can be effective in short term and for some individuals, it’s inconsistent results, high dropout rates, poor long-term outcomes mean it is not universally effective behaviourist treatment for mental illness