Modification of Smoking Behavior, Essay Example

The act of smoking is a habitual practice for many across an array of cultures. While the medical dangers of this habit are commonly known, many still find it difficult to modify their lives in order to break with their dependency on cigarettes. A habit is an action one completes so often that it appears almost to be part of their nature. Habits can be negative or positive, and are often hard to dispel. Operant conditioning is a practice in which participants are made to associate an action they choose with a direct result. Aversion therapies build an association between the undesired practice and unpleasant consequences. For the issue of smoking, numerous clinical studies have been conducted seeking to pinpoint an effectual method of conditioning to break the habit in regular smokers.

To systematically break a habit that has transformed into an addiction can be an oppressive task. For many, cigarettes seem a necessary aspect of functioning normally on a daily basis and the thought of relinquishing this habit can seem at times terrifying. While numerous distinct studies have reduced the urge to smoke, there is not yet a clear way to modify the smoking behavior. The ability to peruse this topic is limited, however, as all smokers operate on different levels of dependency and engrained behavior. Also, not all individuals are prone to addiction to the same degree; hereditary and health considerations should be taken into account when analyzing how easy or challenging quitting was for a particular participant. For these reasons, and other considerations, there is not yet an obvious answer to the question of a superiorly effective method of conditioning. However, by studying past findings on partially successful methods of reconditioning in smokers, it is easier to distinguish the traits of ingrained habits and how these aspects can be modified in order to gain the desired result of helping individuals shed their dependency on cigarettes.

One study, which utilized a pool of volunteer smokers and several placebo groups, employed a coverant control, which is a specific type of operant conditioning. That is to say, the focus of this particular practice was forging a connection between an undesired practice and a negative result to be avoided. This study focused on aversion therapy; it attempted to build up a connection between the distasteful sensation of not being able to breath with the practiced action of smoking. While this study sparked some dissent, it also proved more successful that many of its predecessors that saw no effects from aversion therapy. Unlike many other studies of this nature, the group that received actual treatment did experience significantly better results than the placebo groups. However, the validity of the study was later questioned and it has since become yet another partially successful study that cannot be used as a perfect model for aversion therapies in behavior modification studies (Keutzer, 1968).

Another study delved into the issue more extensively by examining the effects of multiple different behavior modification tools. One piece of this study attempted not to snuff out the sensation of smoking altogether; conversely it asked participants to over-indulge in cigarettes in order to reduce their cravings. The study asked the smokers to have three cigarettes every time they smoked in the hopes of essential flooding the body with the sensation of smoking and therefore reducing the novelty of the action. Another aspect of the study simply asked participants to stop smoking at the times of day that are easiest for them to abstain. The expectation was that participants use this gradual reduction as a starting point for a vaster change. The third and final branch of this study focused on aversion. The participants were given a pill that coated the mouth in a way that made smoking repulsive. This study sought to forge a connection between the unpleasantness caused by the pill and the action of smoking. While all three of these unique techniques employed immensely different approaches to the issue of breaking a habit and modifying a behavior in a way that discourages continuation, none of the aforementioned had significant success. The mean success rate for all legs of this study was below twenty five percent (Marston and Mcfall, 1971). Therefore, even when numerous factors were studied, none stood out as an obvious solution for reversing the habit of smoking.

Although some regular smokers have reported decreased urges and lessened withdrawal symptoms from behavior-targeted studies, the effectiveness of behavior modifying therapies on smokers is questionable in comparison to more traditional methods. In fact, the study that sought solely to modify behaviors in participants in the hope that these changes result in the cessation of their smoking habit proved mostly to be an inferior tool if not paired with other resources (Lichtenstein, Keutzer, and Mees, 1968). The healing effects of behavior modification tools such as group and individual therapies and targeted clinics proved to be limited when applied exclusively.

The most important aspect in all of the aforementioned studies is the willingness of the participants. An active desire to break the habit of smoking is key to the success of any attempt to alter the behavior. While the success of any of the studied variables was inconsistent, the control groups that received specialized counseling and treatments was able to lessen their dependency on cigarettes more effectively than the placebo groups that relied on nicotine substitutes instead of focusing on the behavior aspect of the habit.

Smoking, like other habits that can swiftly morph into addictions, is a practice many would like to break. However, as smoking is a daily and/or societal action for many smokers, it can be exceedingly difficult for individuals to break away from the practice. As this problem is not new, the numerous clinical studies conducted in the past have opened the door to better understanding the nature of habits and effective methods of behavior alteration. Operant conditioning, aversion therapies, and focused behavioral counseling all have one thing in common: they are not wholly successful. There are many flaws in the studies that have been conducted in the past, which, coupled with the extensive limitations on this particular topic has resulted in a failure to locate a single variable that proves wholly or partially effective for a majority of participants. As the smoking population remains strong, the studies should gain movement as well. Not only is behavioral modification in regular smokers essential for those who wish to break free of the habit, it is also helpful for gaining a deeper insight into the effectiveness of altering a behavior in pursuit of a specific result and how habits influence the personalities and practices of users.

References

Edward Lichtenstein, Keutzer, Carolin S., and Hayden L. Mees. “Modification of Smoking Behavior: A Review.” Psychological Bulletin 70.6, Pt.1 (1968): 520-33. PsycARTICLES.

Keutzer, Carolin S. “Behavior Modification of Smoking: The Experimental Investigation of Diverse Techniques.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 6.2 (1968): 137-57.

Marston, Albert R., and Richard M. Mcfall. “Comparison of Behavior Modification Approaches to Smoking Reduction.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 36.2 (1971): 153-62.