Michelle Dawson posts

Post published on Twitter/X on 27 Jun 2023 11:36

Twitter/X DOI work crossref External link integrated into the post

Structured cited links

1 cited resource

DOI work Fetched Post crossref

Nathan Blenkush, Dawn A. O’Neill, John O’Neill (2023). Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue?. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 46(2), 329-337. Springer Science and Business Media LLC.

Publication date
26 Jun 2023
Identifier
10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3
Authors
Nathan Blenkush, Dawn A. O’Neill, John O’Neill
Source
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Details
46(2), 329-337
Reference type
article
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Metadata source
crossref

Abstract

Abstract Intractable self-injury, aggressive, and other destructive behaviors are real human conditions. Contingent electric skin shock (CESS) is a technology, based on behavior-analytic principles, used to ameliorate such behaviors. However, CESS has always been extraordinarily controversial. The Association for Behavior Analysis (ABAI), commissioned an independent Task Force to examine the issue. After a comprehensive review, the Task Force suggested the treatment should be available for use in select cases through a largely accurate report. Yet, ABAI adopted a position indicating CESS is never appropriate. On the issue of CESS, we are extremely concerned behavior analysis departed from the fundamental epistemology of positivism and is misleading nascent behavior analysts and consumers of behavioral technology. Destructive behaviors are extremely difficult to treat. In our commentary, we outline clarifications regarding aspects of the Task Force Report, proliferation of falsehoods by leaders in our field, and limitations to the standard of care in behavior analysis. We recommend using science to answer important questions instead of propagating false information at the expense of current and future clients with treatment refractory behaviors.

Study authors in this cited reference