Jump to topic
Contingency management (CM) refers to a form of cognitive-behavioral therapy. CM principles are mainly based on giving patients tangible rewards to reinforce positive behaviors, such as sobriety or drug abstinence.
Several studies have shown that incentive-based interventions, such as CM, are highly effective treatments that reduce drug addictions.
Contingency management is the application of the three-term contingency (operant conditioning). There are two primary components of CM intervention therapy, including voucher-based reinforcement and prize incentives.
This strategy provides positive reinforcement to adults who stop drug use. These drugs include alcohol, opioids, stimulants, methamphetamine, or cocaine, among others.
With VBR, patients receive vouchers, with varying monetary value, for every drug-free urine sample that they provide. These vouchers can be exchanged for goods or services in line with a drug-free lifestyle, such as grocery items, gift certificates, or show passes.
Associated values of these vouchers are initially low but increase with consecutive drug-free urine samples that each patient provides. Positive samples result in resetting the value of the vouchers back to their original low values.
Studies have shown that VBR is useful in helping patients abstain from opioids and stimulants during detoxification.
Prize Incentive Contingency Management therapy also uses a rewards-based system, but there are more possibilities for types of prizes.
Unlike with VBR, PICM utilizes cash prizes instead of vouchers to reward patients for abstinence.
Over the course of a three-month PICM program, participants that provide weekly drug-negative urine or breath tests or complete goal-related activities draw for the chance to win small cash prizes.
The number of draws per session increases with consecutive negative drug tests or goals achieved. However, the session resets if any positive drug test or failed goal occurs.
There are seven principles that all CM programs follow:
1. Target behavior — this seeks out negative behavior to be reduced or a positive behavior to be increased. Negative behaviors are associated with substance use (such as buying or using). The positive behaviors are associated with measurable improvements (such as compliance with sessions and establishing better relationships).
2. Choice of the target population — some patients will not want to participate because they have enough motivation to progress in treatment. New patients or those with prior poor success rates are more ideally suited for this treatment program.
3. Choice of reinforcer — this is a central aspect of CM therapy. If a reward is offered to a person with no interest in that type of reward, the goal will not be reached. Since people are different, money can be a good motivator, but it can also trigger cravings and lead to relapses.
4. Incentive magnitude — with unlimited resources, CM programs could offer rewards of unlimited value. However, programs must work to find rewards that fit their budget while offering enough incentive; some people need the possibility of larger rewards to remain engaged.
5. Frequency of incentive distribution — some programs reinforce the desired behavior each time it occurs; others use a specified or variable rate
6. Timing of incentive — timing is as important as the frequency. When rewards are given immediately after the desired behavior is completed, it builds a strong association between the wanted behavior and the reward.
7. Duration of intervention — since the goal is long-term sobriety, CM therapy will take longer for some people than others. Ending treatment needs to be paired with relapse prevention strategies to reduce the risk of relapsing.
As with other substance abuse treatment approaches, there are both advantages and disadvantages to CM therapy:
There are several different types of addictions treated with CM, though the most common are opioid and stimulant addictions. All types of addictions treated with CM therapy fall under two broad categories: substance use disorders (SUD) and alcohol use disorders (AUD).
CM treatment has been shown to be consistently effective for many types of substance use disorders, in large part because it is based firmly on sound principles of behavior therapy.
The efficacy of CM therapy incentives, such as vouchers and cash payments, has been proven successful. They are particularly helpful in treating individuals with cocaine use disorder as well as freebase cocaine and heroin users.
In an early study of CM in treating alcoholism, researchers found evidence for reducing alcohol dependence after studying CM therapy effects on a contingent group and a noncontingent group:
In this study, the contingent group’s arrest rate for public intoxication decreased significantly while at the same time, the average number of employment hours rose across the board. This effect was not found in the other group, with zero statistical change in both the arrest rate and employment hours.
Opioid and stimulant addiction can be difficult to break, even with traditional treatment methods. If you are concerned about your recovery progress, consider seeking out CM treatment.
Ready to Make a Change?
National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Third Edition) - Contingency Management Interventions/Motivational Incentives (Alcohol, Stimulants, Opioids, Marijuana, Nicotine) NIDA, https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition.
Petry, N & Stitzer, M. “Contingency Management: Using Motivational Incentives to Improve Drug Abuse Treatment.” NIDA, Yale University Psychotherapy Development Center Training Series No. 6, http://lib.adai.washington.edu/ctnlib/PDF/CMmanual.pdf
Petry, N. “Contingency management: what it is and why psychiatrists should want to use it” Psychiatrist. 2011 May; 35(5): 161–163. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.110.031831, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083448/
Higgins ST, Petry NM. “Contingency management.” Incentives for sobriety. Alcohol Res Health. 1999;23:122–12https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh23-2/122-127.pdf