Olfactory Aversion: Notes on Procedure, With Speculations on Its Mechanism of Effect

Abstract

The use of a self-administered noxious agent to suppress deviant sexual arousal is the focus of this paper. A recommended procedure for the use of olfactory aversion is described. Data from two publications by the author, wherein different noxious agents had been used, are presented and discussed. Several explanations for the mechanism of effect in olfactory aversion have been offered. Two of these, one using a nausea-producing agent and one using a pain-producing agent are described. The procedure using the pain-producing agent is the simplest to implement, the least ambiguous, and offers the least cumbersome explanation for the behavioral effect observed in olfactory aversion. However, a conditioning explanation is probably too simple. Several examples of cognitive mediation in conditioning procedures are presented and discussed.

The use of olfactory aversion and directed masturbation in modifying deviant sexual interest: A case study

“…'s results demonstrate the frequency of non-deviant fantasies reduced following the onset of intervention at week nine. The initial increase in non-deviant fantasy shown in Figure 1 is consistent with research noting the rapid and effective use of behavioural therapy procedures of this type (Laws, 2001). Maletzky (1991) suggests that this rapid result reflects the conditioning effect of olfactory aversion as it acts as a direct restraint of sexual arousal.…”

“…Indeed, this is subject to experimenter bias. Laws (1980Laws ( , 2001 also notes a complexity of changing sexual arousal as the participant becomes their own mediator of change as opposed to following the directions and suggestions of others. This study's findings may reflect AW.…”

“…Essentially, ammonia salts trigger the pain system whereas nauseating odours such as the smell of vomit or faeces trigger the olfactory bulb and the limbic system (Maletzky, 1991). Studies using olfactory techniques have generally failed to differentiate the type of olfactory stimulus used, thus making the effectiveness of either technique difficult to discern (Laws, 2001). Morganstern (1974) used olfactory techniques to reduce excessive eating but failed to produce results which would highlight the effectiveness of this technique clearly.…”

“…Nevertheless, despite differences in outcome it is reported that aversive conditioning may be used to decrease or eliminate unwanted behaviours . Although the use of olfaction techniques with sex offenders have often been conducted in secure settings and are noted for their methodological limitations Laws & Marshall, 1991;Ward, Hudson & Wales, 1998), studies have highlighted the effectiveness of olfactory aversion techniques in reducing deviant sexual behaviours (Dougher, 1995;Kennedy & Foreyt, 1968;Laws, 2001). …”

The Palgrave Handbook of the Psychology of Sexuality and Gender

“…Such treatments have included aversion 'therapy', which paired the erotic stimuli with an aversive stimulus through classical conditioning aimed at making the erotic stimuli aversive. These 'therapies' included using electric shocks (Marks & Gelder, 1967;Marks et al, 1965), nausea (Raymond, 1956), and foul odours (Junginger, 1997;Laws, 2001); however, they had limited efficacy and are understandably controversial (Krueger & Kaplan, 2002). More recently, especially in forensic settings, anti-androgens such as goserelin and cyproterone acetate have been used (Thibaut, 2012); however, these necessarily only address testosterone-induced sex drive and not the underlying causes and nature of the person's sexuality.…”