Editorial

Even amid a global pandemic, contention never ceases. Despite governmental restrictions on public assembly in countries across the globe and the societal fears of transmission, the COVID-19 pandemic has nonetheless been a period of widespread contentious action. The Black Lives Matter protests in the United States sparked a host of antiracist protests worldwide, in the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Australia, South Korea, and elsewhere. In May, after a brief lull, the prodemocracy movement in Hong Kong resumed street action. In August, thousands amassed in Minsk to oppose the result of the Belarussian presidential election, alleged by many to be fraudulent. Days later, large crowds of demonstrators gathered in Bangkok calling for reformation of the Thai monarchy and the dissolution of Prayut Chan-O-Cha’s government. At the time of writing, the environmentalist group Extinction Rebellion appears poised for mass action in Westminster to call for a political response commensurate with the scale of the climate crisis to be passed into UK legislation. All this is to say that even when societies lock down, opportunities for contention most certainly remain open.

A Controlled Study of the Aversion Relief Treatment of Phobias

The first two parts of a long-term study to clarify the mechanism of action, the effectiveness and the indications for the aversion relief treatment of phobias are reported. Aversion relief, therapy was first compared with a pseudoconditioning technique. After twelve hours of aversion relief treatment, phobias, depressive and obsessive symptoms were significantly improved according to psychiatrists' assessment and there was also a significant reduction in scores on the Wolpe-Lang Fear Survey Schedule (FSS). Improvements following pseudoconditioning were non-significant. However, differences between the two groups did not reach significance. A comparison of the effect of twenty-five aversion relief therapy hours with twenty-five hours of systematic desensitization revealed no significant difference between the groups. Significant differences after twelve and twenty-five therapy hours were noted in the psychiatrists' and self-rating of phobias for the Aversion Relief Group and in the psychiatrists' rating of phobias on the FSS scores of the Systematic Desensitization Group. Extinction, transference and experimenter bias are discussed as therapeutically active alternatives to the reciprocal inhibition concept.

Type of Reinforcement and Generality in Verbal Operant Conditioning

Social approval and correctness reinforcement were compared, with a noncontingent reinforcement control group. Extinction trials were conducted either by the same E or by a different E. 5 Es, randomly selected from 10 available, generally were assigned 2 Ss in each of the resulting 6 conditions. The two types of reinforcement appeared to be equally effective with respect to effects on verbal operant conditioning ( p < .001), but social approval resulted in less generality than reinforcement for being correct. Ss receiving social approval exhibited significantly more rapid extinction in an altered stimulus situation with a different E ( p < .05). As social approval typically has been used, these results suggest why numerous previous verbal conditioning studies have failed to yield generalizable effects.