PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9210312

Antecedent influences on behavior disorders.

R G Smith·B A Iwata
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The influence of antecedent events on behavior disorders has been relatively understudied by applied behavior analysts. This lack of research may be due to a focus on consequences as determinants of behavior and a historical disagreement on a conceptual framework for describing and interpreting antecedent variables. We suggest that antecedent influences can be described using terms derived from basic behavioral principles and that their functional properties can be adequately interpreted as discriminative and establishing operations. A set of studies on assessment and treatment of behavior disorders was selected for review based on their relevance to the topic of antecedent events. These studies were categorized as focusing on assessment of antecedent events, antecedent treatments for behavior disorders maintained by either positive or negative reinforcement, and special cases of antecedent events in behavior disorders. Some directions for future research on antecedent influences in the analysis and treatment of behavior disorders are discussed.

Explore related subjects

Aversive TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersReinforcement, PsychologyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R G Smith, B A Iwata. 1997. Antecedent influences on behavior disorders.. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-343

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Aversive smoking for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Aversion therapy pairs the pleasurable stimulus of smoking a cigarette with some unpleasant stimulus. The objective is to extinguish the urge to smoke. OBJECTIVES: This review has two aims: First, to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking and other aversive methods in helping smokers to stop smoking; Second, to determine whether there is a dose-response effect on smoking cessation at different levels of aversive stimulation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies which evaluated any technique of aversive smoking. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials which compared aversion treatments with 'inactive' procedures or which compared aversion treatments of different intensity for smoking cessation. Trials must have reported follow up of least six months from beginning of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the study population, the type of aversion treatment, the outcome measure, method of randomization and completeness of follow up. The outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at maximum follow up, using the strictest measure reported by the authors. Subjects lost to follow up were regarded as smokers. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials met the inclusion criteria. Twelve included rapid smoking and nine used other aversion methods. Ten trials included two or more conditions allowing assessment of a dose-response to aversive stimulation. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence following rapid smoking compared to control was 1.98 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.36 to 2.90). Several factors suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously. A funnel plot of included studies was asymmetric, due to the relative absence of small studies with negative results. Most trials had a number of serious methodological problems likely to lead to spurious positive results. The only trial using biochemical validation of all self reported cessation gave a non-significant result. Other aversion methods were not shown to be effective (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.82). There was a borderline dose-response to the level of aversive stimulation (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.78). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing studies provide insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking, or whether there is a dose-response to aversive stimulation. Milder versions of aversive smoking seem to lack specific efficacy. Rapid smoking is an unproven method with sufficient indications of promise to warrant evaluation using modern rigorous methodology.

Aversive Therapy↗
PubMed2000

Aversive smoking for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Aversion therapy pairs the pleasurable stimulus of smoking a cigarette with some unpleasant stimulus. The objective is to extinguish the urge to smoke. OBJECTIVES: This review has two aims. First, to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking and other aversive methods in helping smokers stop smoking. Second, to determine whether there is a dose-response effect on smoking cessation at different levels of aversive stimulation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for studies which evaluated any technique of aversive smoking. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials which compared aversion treatments with 'inactive' procedures or which compared aversion treatments of different intensity for smoking cessation. Trials must have reported follow-up of least 6 months from beginning of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the study population, the type of aversion treatment, the outcome measure, method of randomisation and completeness of follow-up. The outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at maximum follow-up, using the strictest measure reported by the authors. Subjects lost to follow-up were regarded as smokers. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty four trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten included rapid smoking and ten used other aversion methods. Ten trials included two or more conditions allowing assessment of a dose-response to aversive stimulation. The odds ratio for abstinence following rapid smoking compared to control was 2.08 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 3.12). Several factors suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously. A funnel plot of included studies was asymmetric, due to the relative absence of small studies with negative results. Most trials had a number of serious methodological problems likely to lead to spurious positive results. The only trial using biochemical validation of all self reported cessation gave a non significant result. Other aversion methods were not shown to be effective (odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.83). There was a borderline dose-response to the level of aversive stimulation (odds ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.78). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The existing studies provide insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking, or whether there is a dose-response to aversive stimulation. Milder versions of aversive smoking seem to lack specific efficacy. Rapid smoking is an unproven method with sufficient indications of promise to warrant evaluation using modern rigorous methodology.

Aversive Therapy↗