You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The behavioural therapies for phobias in the previous lesson used conditioning to remove an unwanted fear. But the same conditioning principles can be used to create an unwanted response deliberately — to make a person feel revulsion towards something they currently find attractive but wish to give up. This is the logic of aversion therapy, a treatment that uses classical conditioning to pair an undesirable behaviour, such as drinking alcohol, with an unpleasant consequence, so that the behaviour itself comes to trigger discomfort rather than pleasure. Aversion therapy is one of the most direct — and most ethically contested — applications of learning theory to real-world problems. This lesson explains how it works, examines its gentler cousin covert sensitisation, and then broadens out to the wider family of conditioning-based interventions: token economies, which use operant reinforcement to shape behaviour in institutions, and behaviour shaping itself. Throughout, the focus is on the twin questions the specification demands you can address for any application: does it work, and is it ethical? These applications show learning theory doing real work in clinics, hospitals, schools and prisons — and they raise some of the sharpest ethical questions in the whole of psychology.
This lesson addresses the Edexcel 9PS0 — Paper 1, Topic 4: Learning Theories content on the application of learning theories to real-world therapies and behaviour-change interventions. You are required to understand aversion therapy as an application of classical conditioning (for example in the treatment of alcohol dependence, using emetics or antabuse), the variant technique of covert sensitisation, and further applications of conditioning including token economies and behaviour shaping as applications of operant conditioning. In assessment-objective terms, you should be able to describe how each application uses conditioning principles (AO1), apply them to novel behaviour-change scenarios (AO2), and evaluate their effectiveness and, especially, their ethics (AO3).
Connects to…
Aversion therapy uses classical conditioning to make an undesirable behaviour or stimulus unpleasant. The person has typically formed a positive association with the target — alcohol produces pleasant relaxation, a cigarette produces satisfaction — and the aim of therapy is to overlay that with a powerful negative association, so that the stimulus comes to evoke discomfort and the behaviour is given up. It is, in effect, the deliberate creation of a mild, therapeutic aversion of exactly the kind that arises accidentally in a natural taste aversion.
The conditioning logic is the acquisition process of the first lesson, run to a clinical purpose.
| Stage | Stimulus | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Before conditioning | Emetic drug (UCS) | Nausea and vomiting (UCR) |
| Before conditioning | Alcohol (NS, currently pleasant) | Pleasure / relaxation |
| During conditioning | Alcohol (NS) taken with the emetic (UCS), repeatedly paired | Nausea (UCR) |
| After conditioning | Alcohol alone (CS) | Nausea / disgust (CR) |
Key Definition: Aversion therapy — a treatment based on classical conditioning in which an undesirable stimulus or behaviour is repeatedly paired with an unpleasant (aversive) unconditioned stimulus, so that the stimulus itself comes to produce an aversive conditioned response, reducing the behaviour.
The classic clinical use of aversion therapy is in the treatment of alcohol dependence, and it can be delivered in two related ways.
Emetic-based aversion therapy. The client is given an emetic — a drug such as disulfiram (trade name Antabuse) or apomorphine that induces severe nausea and vomiting — and then, at the point the drug takes effect, is given an alcoholic drink to see, smell, taste and swallow. The alcohol (initially a neutral or pleasant stimulus) is thereby paired with the intense nausea produced by the emetic (the UCS). After repeated pairings, the alcohol alone becomes a conditioned stimulus that produces nausea and disgust, so the client comes to feel sick at the very sight, smell or taste of a drink and is therefore less likely to consume it. Disulfiram works slightly differently in maintenance: taken regularly, it blocks the normal metabolism of alcohol so that any subsequent drinking produces a violently unpleasant reaction (flushing, palpitations, nausea), which deters drinking through the anticipation of that aversive consequence.
Electrical aversion therapy. Historically, a mild but unpleasant electric shock was used as the aversive UCS in some forms of aversion therapy, paired with the target stimulus. This method is now largely abandoned in mainstream practice, both because it proved less effective than chemical aversion for substances like alcohol and because of the serious ethical objections it raised, but it appears in the historical record of the technique and illustrates the same underlying conditioning logic.
The same principle has been applied beyond alcohol. In the treatment of smoking, a technique known as rapid smoking has been used, in which the client is made to smoke continuously and intensively — puffing every few seconds — until the experience becomes genuinely unpleasant and nauseating, so that the cigarette (the stimulus) is paired with the aversive sensations of over-smoking and comes to evoke distaste rather than satisfaction. Aversion approaches have also historically been applied to other compulsive or unwanted behaviours. In every case the conditioning logic is identical: a stimulus that currently produces pleasure is deliberately paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus so that, through classical conditioning, the stimulus itself acquires the power to produce discomfort, weakening the behaviour. What differs between applications is only the target stimulus and the aversive UCS chosen; the underlying acquisition mechanism from the first lesson of this topic is always the same.
graph TD
UCS[UCS: emetic drug] --> UCR[UCR: nausea and vomiting]
NS[Alcohol<br/>currently pleasant/neutral] --> PAIR[Alcohol taken with emetic<br/>repeatedly paired]
UCR --> PAIR
PAIR --> CS[Alcohol becomes CS]
CS --> CR[CR: nausea and disgust<br/>at sight/smell/taste of alcohol]
CR --> REDUCE[Drinking behaviour reduced]
A gentler, imagination-based variant of aversion therapy is covert sensitisation, developed as a way of achieving the same counter-association without administering any physically aversive stimulus. Instead of pairing the target behaviour with a real emetic or shock, the therapist has the client vividly imagine engaging in the undesirable behaviour and then imagine an intensely unpleasant consequence — for example, imagining picking up a drink and then imagining being violently, humiliatingly sick over themselves. The pairing is therefore entirely "covert" (in the imagination) rather than "overt" (physically induced).
Key Definition: Covert sensitisation — a form of aversion therapy in which the client imagines performing the undesirable behaviour and then imagines an aversive consequence, so that the behaviour becomes associated with disgust through imagery rather than through a physical aversive stimulus.
The rationale is that a strongly imagined aversive scene can, through the same associative mechanism, attach negative feelings to the target behaviour, while avoiding the discomfort, medical risk and ethical objections of administering real nausea or shock. Because it is less distressing and physically safer, covert sensitisation is more acceptable to many clients and practitioners, though it depends on the client's capacity to generate vivid imagery and, as with all aversion techniques, on the durability of the learned association.
| Feature | Emetic aversion therapy | Covert sensitisation |
|---|---|---|
| Aversive stimulus | Real — a nausea-inducing drug (or, historically, shock) | Imagined — a vividly pictured unpleasant consequence |
| Physical discomfort/risk | Considerable (actual vomiting; medical monitoring needed) | Minimal — nothing physically administered |
| Client requirement | Ability to tolerate the physical procedure | Ability to generate vivid mental imagery |
| Ethical/acceptability profile | More contested — real distress induced | More acceptable — no physical harm |
Aversion therapy applies classical conditioning; two further real-world applications apply operant conditioning, and together they show the breadth of learning theory's practical reach.
A token economy is a behaviour-management system, used in settings such as psychiatric hospitals, schools and prisons, that applies operant conditioning to strengthen desirable behaviour. Whenever an individual performs a target behaviour — for example, a patient making their bed, engaging in a group activity or maintaining personal hygiene — they are immediately given a token. The token has no intrinsic value, but it can later be exchanged for a desired reward or privilege (sweets, extra recreation time, a preferred activity). The token therefore functions as a secondary (conditioned) reinforcer: like money, it acquires reinforcing power through its association with the primary reinforcers it can be traded for. Because tokens can be delivered instantly and consistently the moment a target behaviour occurs, they solve the practical problem of reinforcing behaviour immediately in a busy institution, and they allow desirable behaviours to be shaped and maintained systematically.
Key Definition: Token economy — a behaviour-modification programme based on operant conditioning in which desirable behaviours are reinforced with tokens (secondary reinforcers) that can later be exchanged for rewards, used to shape and maintain behaviour in institutional settings.
A well-designed token economy has several features that reflect its operant basis. The target behaviours must be defined clearly and observably, so that staff can agree on when a token has been earned; tokens must be delivered immediately after the target behaviour, because the effectiveness of reinforcement depends on the close pairing of behaviour and consequence; and there must be a clear, consistent exchange system specifying how many tokens buy which rewards, so that the secondary reinforcer reliably delivers on its promise. Because tokens are portable and can be given on the spot without interrupting a busy ward or classroom, they overcome a practical obstacle that would otherwise make immediate reinforcement impossible — you cannot always deliver a primary reinforcer the instant a behaviour occurs, but you can always hand over a token. This is precisely why token economies became one of the most widely used behaviour-management tools in twentieth-century institutional care, and why they remain a standard illustration of operant conditioning applied at scale.
Shaping, met in the operant-conditioning lesson, is the technique of building a new, complex behaviour by reinforcing successive approximations to it — rewarding behaviour that is progressively closer to the target until the target itself is performed. In applied settings this is powerful precisely because the desired behaviour may never occur spontaneously to be rewarded. A child with severe communication difficulties might first be reinforced for any vocalisation, then only for sounds resembling a word, then only for the word itself; a token economy often uses shaping, reinforcing gradually more demanding standards of behaviour over time rather than demanding the finished behaviour at once. Shaping thus underlies not only animal training but behaviour-modification and skill-building programmes in education and clinical practice.
An AO2 stem will describe a behaviour-change problem and ask you to explain how a conditioning-based intervention would address it, naming the mechanism. Consider a man who wants to stop smoking and is offered aversion therapy. You would explain that the cigarette (currently a conditioned stimulus for satisfaction) would be repeatedly paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus — for example a drug or, in a rapid-smoking variant, being made to smoke intensively until nauseous — so that, through classical conditioning, the cigarette itself comes to produce nausea and distaste (a conditioned response), making him less likely to smoke. If the stem instead specified that he wished to avoid any physical discomfort, you would recommend covert sensitisation, in which he vividly imagines smoking and then imagines a repellent consequence, achieving the same aversive association through imagery.
The key AO2 discrimination is to identify which conditioning mechanism a scenario requires. If the goal is to attach disgust to an existing pleasurable stimulus (drinking, smoking), the mechanism is classical conditioning and the intervention is aversion therapy or covert sensitisation. If the goal is to increase a desirable behaviour through reward, the mechanism is operant conditioning and the intervention is a token economy (using secondary reinforcers) and/or shaping (reinforcing successive approximations). A worked institutional example makes this concrete: to improve self-care on a psychiatric ward, staff might operate a token economy in which patients earn tokens for target self-care behaviours and exchange them for privileges, and might shape more demanding standards over time — here the tokens are secondary reinforcers and the whole system is operant. A strong answer names the mechanism, identifies the stimuli or reinforcers involved, and — for full credit — comments on effectiveness and ethics, rather than merely describing the procedure.
Aversion therapy can be effective in the short term, which is a genuine strength, but its benefits often fail to last. There is evidence that pairing an addictive substance with an aversive consequence can reduce consumption immediately after treatment, and disulfiram in particular can support abstinence while it is being taken. This matters because any reduction in a harmful, life-threatening behaviour such as alcohol dependence has real clinical value. However, the standing difficulty is relapse: the conditioned aversion frequently extinguishes once the person leaves the clinical setting and encounters the substance without the aversive UCS, so the learned disgust fades and old drinking or smoking habits return. The implication is that aversion therapy is better seen as a possible component of treatment — useful for producing an initial reduction that other, longer-term support can build on — than as a stand-alone cure, and its effects are often not durable enough to justify it alone.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.