“Abstinence” and “nonabstinence” models for the treatment of bulimia

One of the most controversial dimensions along which developing therapeutic approaches for bulimia can be differentiated is their allegiance to an “abstinence” or “nonabstinence” model. Through analogy to traditional treatment programs for chemical dependency, many self‐help and professional programs for bulimia hold that the complete elimination of binge‐vomiting behavior is a prerequisite for therapeutic work, and require abstinence from the inception of treatment. In contrast, the nonabstinence model suggests that a more gradual reduction in the frequency of episodes may be preferable in that it provides more opportunities for relapse prevention training and avoids reinforcing dichotomous thinking styles. The present paper reviews the theoretical and clinical arguments that have been advanced by each side, including the case for classifying bulimia as a substance abuse disorder. A strategy for investigating the relative efficacy of the two approaches is proposed. It is suggested that particular attention be paid to such variables as differential attrition, the effect of each modality on the accuracy of self‐report, the need for continuing or supplementary therapy, the occurrence of treatment “casualties,” interactions between client characteristics and mode of therapy, and long‐term results. In the interim before such data are available, a reasonable clinical recommendation may be the implementation of a “compromise” approach designed to maximize the advantages claimed by each model while minimizing possible risks.