Review: Case Histories of Deviant Behavior: An Interactional Perspective

Case Histories of Deviant Behavior: An Interactional Perspective by Gloria Rakita Leon
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Wolpe stated that neurotic habits followed the principle of primary stimulus generalization. The intensity of the neurotic reaction in a given situation would then be determined by the degree of similarity → between the present stimulus and the original conditioned stimulus. Bandura (1969) cited evidence demonstrating that the emotional responses elicited by a particular stimulus often generalized to other cues on the same physical or semantic dimension as the original stimulus. As a result of this conditioning process, it would be possible for the individual to experience continual or "free floating" anxiety.

Wolpe (1969) asserted that therapy should be specifically aimed at modifying the maladaptive conditioned response. He considered the procedures of reciprocal inhibition and the counterconditioning of the anxiety response to be crucial processes for unlearning neurotic re-actions. Thus, the technique of systematic desensitization was originally based on the principle of counterconditioning a relaxation response to inhibit and take the place of the anxiety response. However, this viewpoint of how systematic desensitization functions has been challenged by other behavior therapists (e.g., Lazarus, 1971).

Knowledge of the past history of an individual is important in understanding personality development and in analyzing how a specific behavior was learned. However, that knowledge may not be particularly relevant in teaching a troubled individual alternative and more adaptive ways of dealing with the environment. The most fruitful and efficient approach to treatment may therefore be one that focuses on modifying the interaction patterns in the present environment that are maintaining the particular maladaptive behaviors. A given behavior problem can therefore be analyzed from the standpoint of how the individual's behavior determines the manner in which that person interacts with others, and conversely, how the behaviors that the person has learned to emit affect the way others respond to one.

Rx

The Antabuse treatment procedure consists of the administration of daily doses of this drug, with the dosage adjusted to an optimum level for that person. The medication usually has little overt effect on the individual as long as there is no alcohol in the bloodstream. However, the person will become violently ill if alcohol is used when the drug is present in the body, i.e., during the four or five days subsequent to the ingestion of Antabuse. The symptoms of Antabuse in combination with alcohol include nausea, vomiting, dizziness, head-ache, and heart palpitations (Strecker, Ebaugh, and Ewalt, 1955).

Antabuse treatment must be initiated in a carefully controlled setting because of the strength of the physiological reaction to the drug when alcohol is ingested. For ethical as well as safety reasons, the helping professional must make sure that the patient undergoing Antabuse treatment does so voluntarily. Further, the effects of the drug must be fully explained and demonstrated to the individual.

In order to promote this understanding of the drug's effects, the alcoholic, while in the hospital, is given a small amount of alcohol after taking Antabuse. The individual then experiences an attenuated version of the physical symptoms associated with drinking while Antabuse is present in the body. This procedure may be repeated several times during the individual's hospitalization in order to clearly demonstrate the association between Antabuse and alcohol. For many alcoholics, Antabuse treatment has been a successful means of preventing further alcohol consumption. However, Antabuse therapy may have a sup-pressive rather than an extinguishing effect, i.e., the alcoholic will not drink after taking Antabuse but may skip the medication and consume liquor when the Antabuse is no longer present in the bloodstream.

View all my reviews