Recent arguments against the use of intrusive behavioral interventions in the treatment of handicapped people are examined. The anti-aversive position was found to be based on assumptions about the negative impact of aversive procedures, and to consider only a small subset of the variables that should be taken into account when treatment decisions are made. A preliminary application of formal decision-analysis techniques that have been developed in response to other controversial technologies had a number of benefits including: (a) sharpening the distinction between scientific and social criteria; (b) sensitizing decision-makers and scientists to the range of costs, risks, and benefits associated with treatment decisions; and (c) identifying critical areas of research. Decision-analysis techniques were found to be helpful in directing scientists and policy-makers towards more informed decision-making.The position has been advanced that highly intrusive behavioral interventions should not be used in the treatment of handicapped people. Various groups have taken strong positions against the use of behavioral treatment procedures that employ aversive stimuli, and the issue is currently receiving extensive discussion in professional and scientific journals (for example Guess et al.;Guess, 1988;Iwata, 1988; Mulick, in press). The anti-aversive treatment viewpoint is reconsidered in this paper. Arguments presented in a monograph by The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) by Guess et al. (1987) and those by Guess (1988) are taken as representative of the anti-aversive position. It is argued that the anti-aversive position is motivated primarily by tacit assumptions about the costs associated with aversive behavioral procedures, and that it fails to consider the full range of costs, risks, and benefits that should be taken into account when behavioral treatment decisions are made. An alternative approach based on decision-analysis models that have been developed in response to other controversial technologies is then presented. Finally, the authors describe how such a model might be applied to decisions about the use of behavioral interventions and they suggest directions for future research that will lead to more informed decisions.
THE ANTI-AVERSIVE POSITIONThe TASH monograph and other statements of the anti-aversive position (for example LaVigna and Donnellan, 1986;Turnbull et al., 1986), emphasized several concerns about the impact of aversive behavior management techniques. Aversive techniques were said to have a negative impact on disabled people, on people who use the techniques, and on social perceptions about disabled people. The technology 0084558 1 /90/0 1 0029-1 6$08.00