Citation

Fisher WW, Greer BD, Mitteer DR. Perspect. Behav. Sci. 2023; 46(2): 339-348.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s40614-023-00382-1

PMID

37425986

PMCID

PMC10323055

Abstract

Prior to the ABAI member vote to decide between two alternative position statements on contingent electric skin shock (CESS), the current authors helped draft a consensus statement supporting the abolition of CESS. In this commentary, we provide additional, supporting information for that consensus statement by (1) showing that the extant literature does not support the supposition that CESS is more efficacious than less-intrusive interventions; (2) providing data showing that implementing interventions that are less intrusive than CESS does not lead to overreliance on the use of physical or mechanical restraint to control destructive behavior; and (3) discussing the ethical and public relations issues that arise when behavior analysts use painful skin shock to reduce destructive behavior in persons with autism or intellectual disability.

Language: en

Keywords

Treatment; Autism; Contingent electric skin shock; Destructive behavior; Intellectual disability