{"title":"偶发触电:经验问题还是意识形态问题?","authors":"Nathan Blenkush, Dawn A O'Neill, John O'Neill","doi":"10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10322794/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue?\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Blenkush, Dawn A O'Neill, John O'Neill\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10322794/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue?
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.
期刊介绍:
Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.