| Abstract: | Comments on the article by G. G. Sherwood and J. E. Gray (see record 2007-01479-012) which followed-up on two "classic" patients treated by the current author in his original behaviour modification unit. The major point made by Sherwood and Gray can be characterized by one of their own statements, "our findings are sufficient to indicate that behaviours extinguished in a controlled environment can re-emerge in a different setting." This comment reflects what is currently one of the most important issues in the evaluation of any therapeutic approach, namely the issue of generalization. A follow-up evaluation assumes that behaviour after behavioural intervention takes places in a vacuum. That is to say, it somehow assumes that the individual is no longer in interaction with his current environment and is, therefore, impervious to change. Of course, that is not the ease. Hence, the individual's behaviour will continue to change as a function of his interaction with his current environment, and his history since the behavioural intervention. In fact, the follow-up information offered by the Sherwood and Gray suggests that the re-emergence of old behaviours is very much related to the contingencies in the patients' current situation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
