Side effects of contingent shock treatment

Oorsouw, W.M.W.J. van; Israel, Matthew L.; Heyn, Robert E. von; Duker, Pieter C.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2007.08.005

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anecdotal positive side effects were observed such as improvements in social behavior, relaxation, reduction in other untreated problem behaviors, and improved affect. These anecdotal reports are similar to what other researchers have noted historically [31,51]. Future research should be devoted to the systematic evaluation of side effects.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 83%

Contingent Skin-Shock Treatment in 173 Cases of Severe Problem Behavior

Blenkush¹,

O'Neill²

2020

Int J Psychol Behav Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lovaas, Schaeffer, and Simmons [18] described using skin shock as part of negative reinforcement and punishment procedures, to treat selfstimulatory and tantrum behaviors of children with autism spectrum disorder. Subsequently, skin shock has been used to treat behaviors such as dangerous climbing and aggression [19]; head hitting [20]; stomach tensions and vomiting [21]; hand to face, face slapping, eye/ tongue poking, hitting face on floor, pulling out strands of hair, skin picking, hand biting, eating inedible objects [22]; seizure induction [23]; hair pulling, attempted hair pulling, property destruction [24],

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 83%

Contingent Skin-Shock Treatment in 173 Cases of Severe Problem Behavior

Blenkush¹,

O'Neill²

2020

Int J Psychol Behav Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of undesirable side effects associated with the use of punishment has also been noted in the applied literature (e.g., Brantner & Doherty, 1983; Harris, 1985; Johnston, 1972; van Oorsouw et al, 2008). Indeed, the use of punishment‐based interventions typically has been related to increases in positive behavior (e.g., Bostow & Bailey, 1969; Firestone, 1976; Risley, 1968; van Oorsouw et al, 2008). For example, Matson and Taras (1989) reviewed 382 applied studies employing different punishment procedures during interventions with individuals with developmental disabilities and concluded that the results reviewed did not provide evidence supporting the occurrence of undesirable side effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The occurrence of other emotional responses, such as crying and temper tantrums, have been reported anecdotally with the use of seclusion timeout (e.g., Azrin & Wesolowski, 1974; Sachs, 1973). However, reductions of such emotional responses also have been reported to accompany the reduction of the problem behavior during timeout and other punishment‐based interventions (e.g., Matson & Taras, 1989; van Oorsouw et al, 2008).…”

Section: Putative Shortcomings and Side Effects Of Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishment and its putative fallout: A reappraisal

Fontes

Shahan

2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his book Coercion and Its Fallout Murray Sidman argued against the use of punishment based on concerns about its shortcomings and side effects. Among his concerns were the temporary nature of response suppression produced by punishment, the dangers of conditioned punishment, increases in escape and avoidance responses, punishment‐induced aggression, and the development of countercontrol. This paper revisits Sidman's arguments about these putative shortcomings and side effects by examining the available data. Although Sidman's concerns are reasonable and should be considered when using any form of behavioral control, there appears to be a lack of strong empirical support for the notion that these potential problems with punishment are necessarily ubiquitous, long‐lasting, or specific to punishment. We describe the need for additional research on punishment in general, and especially on its putative shortcomings and side effects. We also suggest the need for more effective formal theories of punishment that provide a principled account of how, why, and when lasting effects of punishment and its potential side effects might be expected to occur or not. In addition to being necessary for a complete account of behavior, such data and theories might contribute to improved interventions for problems of human concern.

show abstract

“…Van Oorsouw et al ,17 however, failed to find negative side effects in a study with nine participants. Moreover, Matson and Taras18 reviewed 56 applied studies and reported that 96% of the side effects were positive (ie, increased social behaviour, increased activity levels and increased eye contact).…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of electrical aversion therapy for inappropriate sexual behaviour after traumatic brain injury: a single case experimental design study

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryInappropriate sexual behaviour after acquired brain injury is a severe complication. Evidence for effective treatment is not available. Electrical aversion therapy (EAT) is a behavioural therapeutic option used in persons with intellectual disabilities, which might be suitable for braininjured individuals for whom other therapies are not effective. The effect of EAT in brain injury has not been investigated previously. A single case experimental design was used. In an ABBA (baseline-treatment-treatment-withdrawal) design the frequency of the target behaviour (ie, inappropriate sexual behaviour) in a 40-year-old man was measured daily. A total of 551 measurements were recorded. A significant reduction of the target behaviour was seen after the first treatment phase (baseline 12.18 (2.59) vs 3.15 (3.19) mean target behaviours daily); this reduction remained stable over time. We conclude that EAT was effective in this patient with inappropriate sexual behaviour due to severe brain injury. EAT can therefore be considered in therapy resistant inappropriate sexual behaviour in brain-injured patients. BACKGROUND

show abstract

Side effects of contingent shock treatment

Cited by 14 publications

References 13 publications

Contingent Skin-Shock Treatment in 173 Cases of Severe Problem Behavior

Contingent Skin-Shock Treatment in 173 Cases of Severe Problem Behavior

Punishment and its putative fallout: A reappraisal

Evaluation of electrical aversion therapy for inappropriate sexual behaviour after traumatic brain injury: a single case experimental design study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About