What is ‘Aversion Therapy’?

Aversion therapy is a powerful behaviour-altering technique derived from the behaviourist school of psychology. The technique involves the use of classical conditioning to elicit a fear response in an individual towards a specific stimulus. As the aim of behavioural psychology is to control behaviour, the desired end result of aversion therapy is to prevent an individual from engaging in whatever non-conformist or apparently undesirable behaviours for which treatment was initially sought (Jarvis, 2000). It is important to note that while aversion therapy might be sought by an individual, it is also extremely common for family members or certain states to coerce individuals into this form of therapy under the pretence of correcting supposedly ‘deviant’ behaviours; and as such its usage is wide-open to abuse.

Aversion therapy, as a method of emotional conditioning, has its origins in Watson & Rayner’s (1920) study of Little Albert. This study was an experimental piece of research which involved a little boy being deliberately and needlessly conditioned to fear white mice. Nowadays conducting such a study would be considered highly unethical, but aversion therapy, which has its roots in this research, nonetheless continues to be practised, and remains one of the most controversial practices in psychology today (Banyard, 1999). This is because aversion therapy can have devastating emotional effects on individuals, which has led to overwhelming numbers of former ‘patients’ experiencing severe trauma and life-long mental illness, while many others have committed suicide.

How does ‘Aversion Therapy’ actually work?

Aversion therapy is a form of psychological treatment in which the patient is exposed to a specific stimulus while simultaneously being subjected to some form of pain. This conditioning is intended to cause the patient to associate the stimulus with negative sensations and feelings in order to stop the specific behaviour from occurring again.

There are a number of ways in which aversion therapy can be practiced, which include:

Applying electric shocks to the body in response to negative stimulus;

Inducing vomiting with the use of drugs in response to a negative stimulus;

Introducing foul smelling odours in response to a negative stimulus;

Burning or freezing part of the body in response to a negative stimulus; and

‘Correctively raping’ or inducing non-electrical pain (for example, beating someone) to make them averse to the behaviour or situation in future.

The ‘corrective rape’ of either sex can involve either physical rape, or rape with objects. Corrective rape is commonly used under the pretext of “fixing” lesbian women and gay men. This is illegal worldwide, but its illegality is routinely ignored in countries which have anti-LGBT laws and policies. It has been highlighted as a particular problem in India and South Africa. The sadistic theory behind ‘corrective rape’ is that a female will ‘enjoy’ the experience and subsequently become adverse to their lesbianism, while a male will painfully remember the brutality of the experience and become averse to ever engaging in homosexual intercourse again.

What is the problem with ‘Aversion Therapy’?

They key problem with aversion therapy is that it is physically, mentally and emotionally harmful; and where sexual issues are involved in the process, it is sexually harmful too. The extent of the harm inflicted varies depending on circumstances, but it is often extreme.

The extent of harm depends upon a multitude of factors, such as: the age of the individual; the method or methods used; the length of the sessions; the frequency and duration of the treatment; the intensity of the method(s) used; the consent or non-consent of the individual; the ability to stop sessions or withdraw from treatment altogether; the reasons motivating treatment; and whether the treatment is de facto punishment or not. It is also important to consider whether the individual has been institutionalized or is treated on an out-patient basis, as institutionalization creates its own problems separate from any supposed therapeutic process (Goffman, 1961).

Another key problem with aversion therapy is that it is often used against specific minority groups, or groups socially perceived as problematic. In particular, it has been used against gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals in fraudulent efforts to make them heterosexual, and upon minors who cannot legally refuse or object to such treatment – especially in the United States – due to the appallingly high standard of “parental rights” which provides a cover of legitimacy for multiple abuses (Hicks, 1999). Please see the documentary below on aversion therapy being used on LGBT minors in the United States:

‘Hiding Out’ produced by George Michael.

It is also worth noting that singer-songwriter Lou Reed was subjected to aversion therapy as a minor via electric shocks being applied to his brain as ‘treatment’ for his bisexuality. He reported serious memory problems after having been subjected to this ‘therapy’, which plagued him for the rest of his life. Lou Reed actually penned and performed a song about his experience called “They’ll Kill Your Sons“. That – in itself – sums up the problem with aversion therapy extremely well. You can read the lyrics to the song here.

Can ‘Aversion Therapy’ ever be useful and ethical?

There have been some instances in which aversion therapy could be considered to be both useful and ethical, but these examples are rarities among the numerous case studies on the subject.

In very general terms, aversion therapy has been used to try and help people stop smoking. In controlled environments, medical practitioners conditioned smokers to associate a bad taste with putting a cigarette in the mouth, in the hope of inducing a repulsion that would prevent the smoker from lighting up.

This could be considered useful and ethical for the following reasons: treatment was freely sought; patients gave informed consent; all expressed a desire to stop smoking for legitimate health reasons; the ‘bad’ taste was unpleasant but not terrible; and the ‘bad taste’ wore off progressively over a relatively short period of time. As a result of this, no lasting psychological damage was caused by the experience; although, the success rate in getting patients to stop smoking via this method was negligible. It must also be stated that there are other more effective methods in achieving this very same end result.

However, aversion therapy has been used in more serious cases too; such as in the case of treating child-molesters. In one study by Marshall and Barbaree (1988) researchers used smelling salts and penile electric shocks in tandem with positive and negative stimuli. Penile electric shocks punished arousal to images of children, while the smelling salts acted as a form of positive relief from the arousal. The idea was that the offenders would come to associate penile pain with child-based arousal, while the smelling salts would act as way of diffusing that arousal or the process leading up to arousal. The researchers did actually report statistically significant success in their study – as only 13% re-offended compared with 34% in the control group.

While this form of treatment may seem horrendous even for convicted sex offenders, it is important to note that this treatment was both voluntary and informed; it could be stopped at any time, and most importantly, it was supported by thorough counselling. The researchers’ intention behind this last element was to create a positive, therapeutic, and rehabilitative course of therapy which would not be perceived as pure punishment on the part of the offender (Jarvis, 2000). This is certainly in stark contrast to other forms of practising aversion therapy which have been used sadistically against innocent individuals. Nevertheless, none of these more ethical improvements used by some researchers make aversion therapy either a safe or unproblematic treatment option.

What is the connection between ‘Aversion Therapy’ and the Troubled Teen Industry?

Although aversion therapy is not as openly advertised as it was in the 1980s and 90s by numerous programs, it nonetheless continues to be used in some form within the Troubled Teen Industry.

The most devastatingly clear-cut example is the abuse of teens with electric shock devices at the Judge Rotenberg Center, for such terrible disobediences such as refusing to remove a coat. It sounds unbelievable, but you can watch the video below and see for yourself:

Please remember that the Judge Rotenberg Center fought for 8 years to keep this video from the public, because the truth is bad for business.

If you’re wondering if the JRC has been shut down, or if its use of aversion therapy has been banned – then the answer is no, to both questions. Why not? Because it’s effectively legal to institutionally abuse and torture minors in United States. If it were not the case, this website would not exist.

However, this is not the only example of aversion therapy being used within the TTI. There have been allegations of IcyHot cream being applied to the genitals of actual or perceivably gay boys at one Utah-based program, and allegations of another openly gay boy being subjected to a ‘corrective rape’ at another program by a teacher, which was justified as being a way of stopping him gaining future pleasure from anal intercourse in order to ‘save his soul’…

It is also certain from survivor testimony that similar tactics have been used in multiple other programs.

Conclusions

The conclusions which can be drawn are very basic.

First, aversion therapy is not an ethical treatment method. Second, careful and considered alterations to existing methods are not sufficient to outweigh the potential harms aversion therapy can induce. Third, aversion therapy should never be performed on minors. And finally, it is probably time to ban the use of aversion therapy completely. It is not a ‘therapeutic’ treatment method.

References:

Banyard, P. (1999) Controversies in Psychology. London: Routledge.

Cave, S. (1999) Therapeutic Approaches in Psychology. London: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Anchor Books.

Hicks, K.A. (1999) ‘”Reparative” Therapy: Whether Parental Attempts to Change a Child’s Sexual Orientation Can Legally Constitute Child Abuse.’ American University Law Review. 49 (2) 505-547.

Jarvis, M. (2000) Theoretical Approaches in Psychology. London: Routledge.

Marshall, W.L. & Barbaree, H.E. (1988) ‘The long-term evaluation of a behavioural treatment programme for child molesters.’ Behaviour Research and Therapy 26 (6) 499-511.

Watson, J.B. & Rayner, R. (1920) ‘Conditioned emotional responses’. Journal of Experimental Psychology 3 (1) 1-14.