Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 (Fall)
Two years ago Henry Pennypacker, in nologies. These questions are: first, "What
his presidential address to the Associa- is our proper role in the transfer and
tion for Behavior Analysis, used this fo- adoption of technologies for behavioral
rum to discuss issues related to the trans- reduction?" and second, "Should we even
fer and subsequent adoption of behavioral bother with the development of such
technology (Pennypacker, 1986). I would technologies?"
like to continue that discussion, taking it
in a slightly different direction. Although The Problem
not explicitly stated, the issues that Pen- Heated controversy over the use of be-
nypacker addressed are most pertinent to havioral technology has been raging for
technologies of behavioral acquisition several years now, arising from reluc-
and in situations where the driving force tance by some members of our culture to
for adoption, namely, economic rein- reinforce applications of punishment-
forcement, is acceptable at face value. In particularly in the form of primary aver-
such situations, the pressing question- sive stimuli-with dependent, noncrimi-
which Pennypacker answered quite thor- nal populations. In point of fact, behav-
oughly-is: "How do we effect transfer ior analysts have expressed similar
while maintaining technological integri- concerns for many years, although we
ty?" But additional questions are raised have been more tolerant of the selective
in the case of behavioral reduction. In use of punishment (Baer, 1970; Repp &
this area, technological improvement, Deitz, 1978). In spite of what some may
adoption, and subsequent gain by the claim, the extreme points of view in this
user, economic or otherwise, may con- controversy do not amount to a "pro"
flict with certain patterns of behavior in versus "con," but are reflected in the fol-
our culture, as well as our own prediction lowing positions: a) Punishment amounts
about the state of affairs that may result to cruel and inhumane treatment and
from the widespread use of such tech- should never be used (Guess, Helmstet-
ter, Turnbull, & Knowlton, 1987); versus
Adapted from the Presidential Address to the b) Applications of punishment have been
Association for Behavior Analysis, Philadelphia, empirically validated and can be justified
Pennsylvania, May 29, 1988. Preparation of this
manuscript was supported in part by Grant #HD- in cases where immediate elimination of
16052 from the National Institute of Child Health high-risk behavior is of paramount im-
and Human Development. Views expressed are portance (Axelrod & Apsche, 1983; Mat-
those of the author and do not represent policy son & DiLorenzo, 1984).
either of NICHD or the Association of Behavior My own involvement in the punish-
Analysis. Reprints may be obtained from the au-
thor, Psychology Department, University of Flor- ment controversy stems primarily from
ida, Gainesville, FL 3261 1. the fact that several colleagues, most no-
149
150 BRIAN A. IWATA
tably Thomas Linscheid, and I have been from school, as ineffective as they may
associated with research on a technolog- be, are strongly supported by many
ical device that has become one of the members of our culture, and are tolerated
major focal points in the debate over the by enough of us to allow their contin-
use of aversive contingencies (Landers, uation.
1987; Viadero, 1987; Will & Reynolds, Why is it that the same people who
1987). By the way, and for the record, denounce the use of relatively harmless
that debate has been conducted indirectly aversive contingencies to eliminate life-
for the most part. Both Tom Linscheid threatening behavior of a retarded indi-
and I, in response to allegations of one vidual not only support aversive cultural
kind or another, have personally con- practices, but also routinely subject their
tacted the sources of those allegations and own children and coworkers to stimuli
have offered to meet with individuals or that are functionally similar to the ones
groups to discuss the issues. In almost they abhor? Of course, the question is not
every case, our contact has produced no easily answered in the empirical sense,
direct response. Instead, selected por- but a behavior analyst who knows some-
tions of our communications have been thing about the history of treatment for
taken out of context, and usually have retarded and autistic individuals can for-
been incorporated into further allega- mulate a pretty good guess. For most of
tions that are made not to us, but to oth- this century, these populations have lived
ers by unnamed individuals, and are sub- grossly neglected lives in substandard en-
sequently leaked to us by colleagues who vironments, and they have been exposed
stumble across the information. to continual doses ofboth noncontingent
and contingent aversive stimulation
Advocatingfor the Adoption of (Blatt, 1970; Rivera, 1972). Therefore, it
Controversial Technologies should come as no surprise, now that the
service pendulum has swung the other
My experiences related to our research way, that parents and advocates literally
on aversive contingencies and the con- cringe when they hear the words "pun-
troversy that surrounds it have prompted ishment," "aversive," and so on, in ref-
me to think critically about the proper erence to treatment for their children and
role of behavior analysts in the transfer clients. These words, and the practices
and adoption of technologies based on they represent, have acquired aversive
aversive stimulation. "Should we advo- properties; they also may be discrimina-
cate for the use of such technologies?" tive for highly emotional and combative
Stated bluntly, my answer is "No," and behavior of the type that was successful
in support ofit I offer three principal rea- in eliminating neglectful conditions that
sons. existed previously.
First, an advocacy position favoring the The fact that improved technologies of
use of aversive stimuli is not likely to be aversive stimulation produce user gain,
an effective one, at least in the short run. if only in the form of increased effective-
Remember that, when we step beyond ness at one's assigned job (i.e., client im-
the boundaries of our research, attempts provement), makes the situation even
to lobby for adoption of technology are worse, because neglectful and abusive
successful to the extent that adoption is conditions also produce user gain, name-
reinforced (Pennypacker, 1986). Fur- ly, staff convenience, preservation of or-
thermore, we do not provide those rein- der, and reduction of financial expendi-
forcers. With respect to the current con- tures. As a further extension, those
troversy, we find a curious paradox within associated with objectionable practices
our culture. If anything, our society can may themselves acquire aversive prop-
be characterized as one that actively pro- erties.
motes the use of aversive contingencies If this interpretation only approxi-
on the behavior of its members. Nuclear mates an adequate account of such incon-
arms, capital punishment, and expulsion sistent behavior with respect to aversive
DEFAULT TECHNOLOGIES 151
stimuli, it is immediately understandable contingencies, we will learn only how to
why therapists who adopt a hard-sell ap- punish the pushers and murderers more
proach to punishment are not popular effectively. And the most unfortunatefact
among developmental disabilities ad- is that our punishing behavior with these
vocacy groups. Thus, professionals who populations will be strongly reinforced
include aversive therapy as one of several within the culture. Can you imagine a
options for treatment are much more worse fate for the field of applied behav-
likely to be effective if they allow some- ior analysis? We must continually be vig-
one else to serve as its advocate. And my ilant lest we fall into this irreversible be-
experience has been that, under the ap- havioral trap.
propriate conditions, those with whom If I have been unconvincing thus far,
we currently debate will take up that ban- let me try a third time, using a slightly
ner. But here I am getting ahead of my- different rationale, one that selectively
self. and ultimately accommodates the use of
My second reason for not recommend- aversive contingencies. The point is that
ing an advocacy position in favor of pun- we do not need to advocate for the use
ishment is that it will not advance our of such contingencies in order to secure
applied field. Some say that research on effective treatment for our clients.
punishment with humans has scientific In "Why Are We Not Acting to Save
value because it extends similar research the World?" Skinner (1982) provided a
conducted with nonhuman subjects. nice analysis of contingency shortcom-
Whom are we kidding? It should be ob- ings. Natural selection produces an or-
vious by now that human behavior re- ganism that is adaptable to situations as
sponds to aversive contingencies, and that they existed in the past, but fails to pre-
we probably do not need to know much pare the organism for optimal function-
more about them in order to develop a ing in a drastically changed future envi-
generally effective technology of behav- ronment. Physical contingencies of
ior change. After all, as behavior ana- operant conditioning overcome this fail-
lysts, do we not clearly stand out among ure to some extent by arranging for be-
other sciences by frequently claiming that havior change during an individual's life-
wars can be prevented, prisoners can be time. But these contingencies, in their
rehabilitated, children can be taught, and purest forms, do not always change be-
yes, graduate students can even obtain havior immediately; furthermore, they
their Ph.D.'s, all without resort to aver- require exposure to the natural conse-
sive contingencies? A few of these claims quences of behavior, some of which are
have been documented, but there is much dangerous if not fatal. Hence, we have
to be learned, demonstrated, and ap- developed, formalized, and institution-
plied. How will we acquire that learning? alized social or contrived contingencies
We will use every encounter with an and their attendant rules.
aversive contingency, or situations where One can extend this analysis to the
the use of an aversive contingency is con- therapeutic situation by considering any
templated, as opportunities to learn more planned intervention to change behavior
about the behavior in question, its con- as a default technology, that is, one whose
trolling events, and ways in which rein- development is based on previous fail-
forcement and extinction schedules may ure-failure to prevent the occurrence of
be used to bring about behavioral dis- a genetic or acquired organic disorder,
placement. Through these experiences, which somehow inhibits responding;
we may not only solve the immediate failure to provide occasions for behav-
problem, but also acquire the skills nec- ioral acquisition through direct interac-
essary to deal with the really tough cases tion with a stimulating physical or social
in our culture -the drug dealers, the mur- environment; failure to correct the early
derers, and so forth. mismanagement of social contingencies,
On the other hand, if we succumb too which promotes the acquisition and
early to the temptation of using aversive maintenance of bizarre forms of behav-
152 BRIAN A. IWATA
ior. In this context, a technology of aver- recent protest written to a highly respect-
sive stimulation is the third-order and ed colleague of mine [with whom I was
ultimate default technology, preceded by collaborating], the director of a national
natural contingencies and those involv- advocacy group noted that: ". . . through
ing the careful application of contrived comprehensive functional behavior
positive reinforcement. But, in the case analysis, . . . positive programs of behav-
of aversive contingencies, the previous ior management can be designed and ef-
failure of positive reinforcement usually fectively implemented ... we are pre-
(and I emphasize usually) is not an in- pared to offer you the names of experts
herent one. Instead, aversive contingen- that can offer assistance... ." Although
cies are called into play when we have my colleague made no subsequent re-
failed to find or to establish a positive quest for help, I must admit that both of
reinforcer, when we have failed to deliver us are curious about the names on that
that reinforcer in an effective manner, list.
when we have failed to find a suitable Another claim, this one presented at
response to displace the target, when we a recent press conference, by one from
have failed to examine the stimulus con- among our own ranks, has been that most
ditions that contribute to the problem, if not all self-injury is communication
and when we have failed to generate the and that communication training is the
resources necessary to maintain a suc- treatment ofchoice. Those of us who have
cessful program. conducted extensive research on self-in-
At this point, I am compelled to digress jurious behavior are not impressed by
a bit by commenting on what others have this assertion. Our collective data indi-
said about the preventability of such fail- cate that a significant proportion of self-
ures: "If we would only conduct a func- injurious behavior is not communicative
tional analysis of the behavior problem, (e.g., Baumeister, Frye, & Schroeder,
we always will find a nonaversive solu- 1984; Cataldo & Harris, 1982; Iwata,
tion." Actually, nonaversive solutions do Pace, Willis, Gamache, & Hyman, 1986),
not require a prior functional analysis; and behavioral research conducted over
they always are available; the question is the past 20 years indicates that every box
whether or not they always work. Based ofmagic bullets comes well supplied with
on Ted Carr's (1977) elegant theoretical duds.
treatise on the origins of self-injurious A final input: "Our review of the lit-
behavior, my colleagues and I were erature and experience with over 500
among the first to describe an experi- cases convinces us that strategies are
mental approach to the analysis of be- presently available to deal with any prob-
havioral function with that serious dis- lem without resorting to aversive events"
order (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & (Donnellan & LaVigna, 1987). This
Richman, 1982). We suggested that such statement comes close to presenting the
an approach, or one similar to it, might ideal case, namely, that strategies are
make the process of treatment selection available. Yet I have heard both authors
less arbitrary and might reduce the ne- admit that their strategies do not always
cessity of relying on aversive contingen- work. One, upon further questioning,
cies. We had, however, absolutely no ba- stated that, when all else fails, this person
sis for suggesting that knowledge about a uses aversive contingencies. Therein lies
behavior's maintaining contingency the truth of the matter. In the ideal world,
would eliminate the need for punish- treatment failures do not occur. But in
ment, and that suggestion has garnered the actual world failures do occur, in spite
little by way of additional support through of our best efforts, leaving us with these
subsequent research conducted by us and options: continued occurrence of the be-
others. Yet, somehow, our methodology havior problem toward some devastating
has been imbued with power well beyond endpoint, restraint, sedating drugs, or
its supporting data base and has been giv- aversive contingencies. I predict that if
en a life of its own. For example, in a we apply our skills so as to maximize the
DEFAULT TECHNOLOGIES 153
r
70"
60
50
40
LI-
30
20
101
4- IajUBJECT2
U N/A
3-
z
2 2-
r 1-
'a N/A N/A
O- _.
50- SUELEQI.3
Cn
'a
40
CO
z 30
0 20
o 10
N/A -s1"-
- /
cn
'a 50
'a .. ..
.. 0 0
40 * titidSs
z
E
Pi
P til
itt-- #
rSt
30 litti.4
itt-I,Ssw
ttitt,E'S r777771
20 %% % % % %E '-tutu'Es
.0 .0
Pttttt
. Jttii
% % % % %% vt-itt,'sS %%
.iit
J
10 #tilt,t
itsSt tits
A
ittit,o%R itt-itvvRs
itt,,,vvv
V V
20 -1 hJUEMECT 5
15t
10-
5-
N/A _ a'
0'
BASELINE HELMET SIBIS SIBIS SIBIS
BASEUNE INACTIVE REMOTE
C ON D I T IO N S
Figure 1. Mean number of self-injurious responses per minute across subjects and experimental con-
ditions.
155
156 BRIAN A. IWATA
phases: Baseline (all subjects), Baseline should not advocate for adoption of aver-
with the client wearing a protective hel- sive technologies because such activity,
met (two subjects), and Baseline with SI- at least by us, is not effective, not in the
BIS worn but not activated (all subjects). best interest of our field, and not neces-
The two treatment conditions were SI- sary. Instead, we should leave adoption
BIS, with automated response detection to advocates, parents, and courts, whom
and stimulus delivery (all subjects), and I trust will eventually find a place for
SIBIS Remote, in which response detec- aversive stimulation in the pecking order
tion and stimulus delivery were con- of default technologies.
trolled by the therapist (two subjects). SI- At the same time, we must allow the
BIS treatment conditions were associated development of such technologies to oc-
with almost complete elimination of self- cur. Recall that the other options, at least
injury. in the case of self-injury, are restraint,
What would have happened to SIBIS sedation, or further devastation.
if behavior analysts were not involved Additionally, we must support contro-
with its development? I pose this ques- versial technology development to the ex-
tion because the roles that Tom Lin- tent that it needs the support of a science-
scheid, I, and others have played in the based organization in order to produce
project have been criticized by individ- valid and useful results. If ABA is to re-
uals inside as well as outside of the As- main a science-based organization, it
sociation for Behavior Analysis and be- must continue to support apparently ir-
cause there has been an effort by some relevant, unpopular, and even highly
groups to bring all work on SIBIS to an controversial empirical work, as long as
immediate halt (Halt urged, 1988). I can- that work is conducted in an ethical man-
not say what would have happened, but ner. Otherwise, the controlling variables
here are some distinct possibilities. SIBIS for our research behavior will shift com-
probably would have been developed as pletely to the realm of public opinion.
nothing more than an automated elec- Ironically, if that happens, we will still
trical stimulator. By "nothing more," I do research on punishment; only the
do not mean to imply that such a device clientele-if you can consider drug deal-
would have no value, because SIBIS rep- ers, rapists, and murderers as such-will
resents a significant technological im- change.
provement over currently used methods Finally, some of us who experience
of delivering aversive stimulation. That failure using positive reinforcement must
is not saying much, however, within the actually do the work on aversive technol-
larger context of behavioral treatment. ogies. We must do the work because,
SIBIS certainly would not have con- whether or not we like it, default tech-
tained any of the positive reinforcement nologies will evolve whenever there is
capabilities that it now has, capabilities failure and, in the case of aversive stim-
that can be used independent of the aver- ulation, we are in a unique position to
sive component. It also is likely that the make several contributions. First, we can
evaluation of SIBIS would have consist- modify the technology so that it is effec-
ed of simple pre-post tests or, worse yet, tive and safe. Second, we can improve it
uncontrolled evaluations in which the by incorporating contingencies of posi-
data consisted of subjective verbal re- tive reinforcement. Third, we can regu-
port. late it so that application will proceed in
a judicious and ethical manner. Last, and
Conclusion surely most important, by studying the
conditions under which default technol-
To summarize, I would like to distin- ogies arise, as well as the technologies
guish between the development of tech- themselves, we might eventually do away
nologies for aversive stimulation, and with both. Can you think of a better fate
subsequent efforts for their adoption. We for the field of applied behavior analysis?
DEFAULT TECHNOLOGIES 157