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.

Response patterns for individuals receiving contingent skin shock aversion intervention to treat violent self-injurious and assaultive behaviours.

A small proportion of patients with intellectual disabilities (IDs) and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit extraordinarily dangerous self-injurious and assaultive behaviours that persist despite long-term multidisciplinary interventions. These uncontrolled behaviours result in physical and emotional trauma to the patients, care providers and family members. A graduated electronic decelerator (GED) is an aversive therapy device that has been shown to reduce the frequency of severe problem behaviours by 97%. Within a cohort of 173 patients, we have identified the four most common patterns of response: (1) on removal of GED, behaviours immediately return, and GED is reinstated; (2) GED is removed for periods of time (faded) and reinstated if and when behaviours return; (3) a low frequency of GED applications maintains very low rates of problem behaviours; and (4) GED is removed permanently after cessation of problem behaviours. GED is intended as a therapeutic option only for violent, treatment-resistant patients with ID and ASD.