Since the last article on Behavioralism, we have received a number of comments. I thought I'd try to clarify as few points or add some to the discussion:
Behavior therapy has so many dimensions (and has gone through at least three phases) that it is difficult to assess as a single approach. I tend to side with Bandura in his cognitive emphasis and note that Ellis and Beck are given a chapter of their own. This would tend to indicate that there is a need to separate the approaches, yet Corey is not helpful to me in this attempt. It would seem that REBT is a subdivision of behavior therapy, yet the term "behavior therapy" produces quite a different affective response in me than does REBT. One way to approach this is that behavior can be changed through alterations in cognition, while behaviorists tend to believe that cognition can be changed through changes in behavior. Since cognition is a behavior, the two approaches belong together although the emphasis is different.
One generally thinks of Skinner when behaviorism is mentioned, yet Corey devotes very little space to him even though he is as important as a founder of the approach as Freud is to psychoanalysis. Perhaps this is because adherents of the school wish to distance themselves from him. I know that the general public, to the extent that it is familiar with Skinner (operant), associates him with conditioning in a Pavlovian sense (classical). While such a perception is incorrect, it is nonetheless damaging as people do not like to consider themselves merely a set of conditioned responses.
The unique contribution is the focus on behavior as opposed to feelings. Perhaps this is why the approach is popular with those in authority from governmental agencies to HMOs -- the concern is not with how the individual feels but with how he or she behaves. All that is necessary is to change troubling or inconvenent behavior.
The problem is that this may get to the symptoms, but not the disease. It does not get to the root of the problem. It becomes tempting to treat the "presenting" problem rather than the one underlying it. Sometimes this may be the only approach. To use a personal example, I once went to a doctor in Illinois who had graduated from the University of Vienna (as I remember) for a severe cold. He said "I can treat the symptoms but not the disease -- I want you to know that." I told him that I understood the nature of viruses and that, in this particular case, I did not mind the virus -- just the symptoms. Then he gave me several prescriptions and we had a general discussion on the epidemiology of the cold virus. The symptoms vanished soon and, I assume, the virus ran its course. The point is that in some cases, it may be quite sufficient to treat the symptoms and leave it go at that.
In addition, with many behavior problems such as alcoholism, if the symptom of over-consumption is treated, the client's environment will change. That is to say, people may begin to treat him or her differently, he or she may be able to more effectively deal with reality and thus remove some of the conditions that led to the over-consumption in the first place.
3.d.: Concepts and techniques I want to incorporate.
The basic idea that we tend to indulge in behavior that is rewarded or which removes us from situations we find unpleasant is sound. I would add, however, that it is our perception of what is rewarding or pleasant that is key here. Some people may find emotionally laden and vitriolic confrontations unpleasant (I know I do). Yet others seem to thrive on them and I know of several who seem to feel that such confrontations give them a sense of identity and achievement.
The techniques are very powerful and helpful. Corey describes a relaxation exercise in great detail in the manual and also talks about desensitization. I can see myself using any and all of the techniques where appropriate.
3.e.: Personal application.
As I mentioned in other CAPS papers, I tend to modify my own behavior by first changing my cognition concerning that behavior. I can also be fairly stubborn -- that is to say, when I know some sort of attempt is being made to condition me, I become very resistant. To some extent, this supports the contentions of the behaviorists. In other words, attempts to condition me, when I am aware of them, tend to reinforce the original behavior by giving it a kind of validation.
3.f.: Questions to pursue further.
I have not even mentioned Lazarus so far. This is because I would like to conduct a more systematic study of his "multi-modal" approach. I have seen the questionnaire which does seem a bit overwhelming in its scope. How willing are client's to fill out such an extensive document? Are all the questions needed? Could a more Rogerian styled fact-finding approach be used? What is the difference between the BASIC-ID approach and a "wholistic" approach? Do people tend to advertise themselves "behaviorists" because it is popular with agencies and HMOs? Is this one of the reasons for the elusive nature of it now as opposed to strict operant conditioning? Am I, in fact, a behaviorist even though I do not realize it? Since cognition is a behavior and I think that our perceptions of things determine our feelings toward events and behavior in response to them, I certainly could so categorize myself even though I see grave abuses possible. A major contribution is ethical neutrality -- in other words, the client decides on what behavior needs to be changed. But suppose the government becomes the client and the individual is merely a commodity to be "fixed." Where would a behaviorist stand? If the behaviorist complies with the government's directive because it is financially rewarding, is not the therapist as well a victim of behavioral conditioning (positive reinforcement)?
No comments:
Post a Comment