Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Development and Adoption of Controversial Default Technologies

  • Published:
The Behavior Analyst Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Default technologies evolve from failure. Within the realm of human behavior, technologies based on the use of aversive contingencies can be conceptualized as default technologies because they come into play when natural contingencies or positive reinforcement fail to produce a desired behavioral outcome. Historical as well as contemporary events suggest that it is a mistake for behavior analysts to advocate for the adoption of aversive technologies. We must, however, continue to play a leading role in the development of such technologies so that they will be used in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, the eventual elimination of aversive technologies will be possible only through continued, careful, and experimental analysis of the contexts of failure in which they are born.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Axelrod, S., & Apsche, J. (1983). The effects of punishment on human behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, D. M. (1970). A case for the selective reinforcement of punishment. In C. Neuringer & J. L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modification in clinical psychology (pp. 243–249). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, A. A., Frye, G. D., & Schroeder, S. R. (1984). Neurochemical correlates of self-injurious behavior. In J. L. Mulick and B. L. Mallory (Eds.), Transitions in mental retardation: Advocacy, technology, and science (pp. 207–222). New York: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blatt, B. (1970). Exodus from pandemonium. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 800–816.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cataldo, M. F., & Harris, J. (1982). The biological basis for self-injury in the mentally retarded. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellen, A. M., & LaVigna, G. W. (1987, December). A note of cautious optimism. D D Directions, 2.

  • Guess, D., Helmstetter, E., Turnbull, H. R., & Knowlton, S. (1987). Use of aversive procedures with persons who are disabled: An historical review and critical analysis. Seattle, WA: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halt urged in shock device use. (1988, April 17). The New York Times, p. 18.

  • Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Willis, K. D., Gamache, T. B., & Hyman, S. L. (1986). Operant studies of self-injurious hand biting in the Rett syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics (Special Issue on the Rett Syndrome), 24, 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landers, S. (1987, December). Aversive device sparks controversy. APA Monitor, 15.

  • Matson, J. L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (1984). Punishment and its alternatives: A new perspective for behavior modification. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennypacker, H. S. (1986). The challenge of technology transfer: Buying in without selling out. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 147–156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Repp, A. C., & Deitz, D. E. D. (1978). On the selective use of punishment—Suggested guidelines for administrators. Mental Retardation, 16, 250–254.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, G. (1972). Willowbrook: A report on how it is and why it doesn’t have to be that way. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1982, September). Why are we not acting to save the world? American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Reprinted in: B. F. Skinner (1987). Upon further reflection (pp. 114). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Viadero, D. (1987, October 7). U.S. to monitor aversive therapy. Education Week, 14.

  • Will, M., & Reynolds, W. B. (1987, September 29). Concerns about electroshock therapy. The Washington Post, Letters.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Brian A. Iwata

Authors
  1. Brian A. Iwata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Adapted from the Presidential Address to the Association for Behavior Analysis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 29, 1988. Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by Grant #HD-16052 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Views expressed are those of the author and do not represent policy either of NICHD or the Association of Behavior Analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iwata, B.A. The Development and Adoption of Controversial Default Technologies. BEHAV ANALYST 11, 149–157 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392468

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392468

Search

Navigation