On 6/9/2011 4:59 PM, Monica Pignotti wrote:
> On Jun 9, 4:52 pm, John Dorsay<restimula
...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/9/2011 4:26 PM, Monica Pignotti wrote:
>> > They are certified by this organization:
>> >http://www.bacb.com/
>> This is behavior analyst doubletalk to justify aversives. It's right
>> out of IARET's position statement.
>> http://www.bacb.com/index.php?page=57
>> 2.10 Treatment Efficacy.
>> (a) The behavior analyst always has the responsibility to recommend
>> scientifically supported most effective treatment procedures.
>> Effective treatment procedures have been validated as having both
>> long-term and short-term benefits to clients and society.
>> (b) Clients have a right to effective treatment (i.e., based on the
>> research literature and adapted to the individual client).
>> > The ones I know don't use the kinds of punishments that are used at
>> > the Rotenberg Center.
>> Are you saying they use different punishments, or are you saying
>> they don't use punishments at all? If the latter, they are probably
>> violating their "Treatment Efficacy" standard. If you have the
>> chance, please ask them about their views on the use of aversives,
>> what they think about their certifying organization's position, and
>> where do they draw the line if they think aversives are sometimes
>> acceptable. I'm curious. And you might be surprised by their answers.
> I'm saying that they first use positive reinforcement and only resort
> to punishment if the positive stuff doesn't work, but even then, they
> don't use the harmful punishments. They just use things like time outs
> or taking away a privilege, which are punishments, but not abusive
> ones. The kind of torture used at the Rotenberg Center is not
> empirically supported.
Well, the JRC has its own method of calculating empirical support.
In essence, it works like this.
1. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors in a
controlled environment to establish a baseline.
2. Consequate targeted undesired behaviors.
3. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors that occur
after the victim has associated the behavior with the consequence,
while the victim is aware of the possibility of further consequences.
4. If the frequency has not reduced, increase the severity of the
consequence and return to step 2.
5. Otherwise, claim empirical support.
Sorry if I'm sounding thick, Monica. I was careless with my use of
terminology. Punishment is a consequence that causes a behavior to
occur with less frequency. It can be negative (ie the withdrawal of
something, such as a reward), or positive (ie the addition of a
stimulus). Positive punishments are commonly known by their
proponents as aversives, and of course they are widely used at the
JRC. It sounds like the behavior analysts you know limit themselves
to negative punishments.
But positive punishments are a core component of behavior analysis,
and this is what the doubletalk from the bacb.com web page is
addressing. There are certainly far less extreme forms of positive
punishment than those used by the JRC, but they are still aversives,
and as far as I know lack any credible empirical support. Therefore
I take the perhaps extreme position that any form of positive
punishment is unacceptable. The bacb disagrees, and indeed the
standard I quoted requires behavior analysts to include positive
punishment in their repertoire. This is what I was talking about,
and why I was curious about the views of the behavior analysts you know.
John
