Controversy over punishment has led to dozens of position papers (see chapters in Repp & Singh, 1990), as well as debates over the legality of aversive stimuli (Lohrmann-O'Rourke & Zirkel, 1998), the long-term effects of punishment-based discipline (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003), and even the interpretation of B.
5) that aversive components are embedded in supposedly non-aversive procedures.
Generally, respondents indicated that (1) consent and administrative approval are not enough to make punishment procedures ethical, (2) punishment should be reserved for more dangerous behaviors, (3) punishment procedures have more negative side effects and are less effective than reinforcement procedures, (4) aversive components are embedded in many supposedly non-aversive procedures, and (5) efficacy beliefs were positively correlated with ethics beliefs.
Given recent findings that interventions containing aversive components may be more effective than interventions without punishment in certain circumstances and that individuals have demonstrated preference for these interventions over non-aversive options (Hanley, Piazza, Fisher, & Maglieri, 2005), empirical investigations are warranted.
academic failure experiences, unclear rules for student deportment, misuse of behavior management procedures) is an aversive
or punitive classroom environment review of the research in this area leaves little to no questions that schools are very punitive for some students and contribute to student antisocial behavior.
Trumbull County Board of Education, 1995) resulted in reversal of the dismissal of a special education teacher who employed aversives on limited occasions with a child who had multiple disabilities.
The remaining relevant judicial ruling illustrates the occasional resort to the criminal process as a result of the use of timeout or other such aversives.
For example, lobbying in Pennsylvania led to state regulations that expressly prohibit the use of corporal punishment and that limit other types of aversives, such as restraints, to specially defined conditions.
The use of aversive interventions for students with disabilities is a highly charged, emotional issue; researchers have paid significant attention to this issue during the past 15 years (Horner et al.
Aversives in special education programs for behaviorally disordered students: A debate.
ABSTRACT: Controversy continues to rage over the application of punishment of aversive procedures in treatment and habilitation.
Concern over the application (or misapplication) of unpleasant or noxious stimuli has led to the suggestion that punishment and aversive procedures should be abandoned in favor of less aversive alternatives (Donnellan, Negri-Shoultz, Fassbendes, & LaVigna, 1988; Evans & Meyer, 1985; Guess, 1988).