Abstract
Danaher and Lichtenstein's (1973) comments on aversion therapy are briefly evaluated. It is suggested that they underestimate the importance of conditions of original training relative to the modification of smoking behavior using the “rapid smoking” method, confound the issues of endogenous cues and topographial similarity, blur important distinctions among various kinds of placebo control groups, incorrectly imply that attention to the qualitative aspects of aversive stimuli necessitates a psychophysiological methodology, and erroneously evaluate the clinical utility of parametric studies. It is emphasized that most of these issues can be empirically resolved if investigators utilize more precise experimental designs.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
