A survey was conducted to examine educators' attitudes about interventions that might be used to decrease students' inappropriate behaviors. The purpose of the survey was to determine which interventions are considered aversive and which should be restricted; 158 educators responded. The results imply that educators tend to consider interventions that use physical pain or discomfort, or social humiliation, to be very aversive and tend to favor restricting the use of these interventions. This survey also indicates that educators view many other decelerative interventions as relatively mild aversives that they should be able to use. Implications are discussed in relation to the controversy in the literature over the use of aversive interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP., & AndrewsD. (1991). Are moral considerations sufficient for selecting nonaversive interventions? [Review of Repp and Singh's Perspective on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities].The Behavior Analyst, 14, 219–224.
2.
CarrE. G., RobinsonS., TaylorJ. C., & CarlsonJ. J. (1990). Positive approaches to the treatment of severe behavior problems in persons with developmental disabilities: A review and analysis of reinforcement and stimulus-based procedures (Monograph No. 4). Seattle, WA: Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
3.
Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. (1990). Position paper on use of behavior reduction strategies with children with behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 15, 243–260.
4.
DunlapG., Kern-DunlapL., ClarkeS., & RobbinsF. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387–397.
5.
DurandV. M. (1991). Book reviews [Review of Repp and Singh's Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities].Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,16, 119–121.
6.
EnglandR. E., MeierK. J., & FragaL. R. (1988). Barriers to equal opportunity: Educational practices and minority students.Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23, 635–646.
7.
EvansI., & MeyerL. (1990). Toward a science in support of meaningful outcomes: A response to Horner et al.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(3), 133–135.
8.
FavellJ. E., & ReidD. H. (1988). Generalizing and maintaining improvement in problem behavior. In HornerR. H., DunlapG., & KoegelR. L. (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style change in applied settings (pp. 171–198). Baltimore: Brookes.
9.
GardnerW. (1989). But in the meantime: A client perspective of the debate over the use of aversive/intrusive therapy procedures.Behavior Therapist, 12(8), 179–181.
10.
GriffithR. G., & SpreatS. (1989). Aversive behavior modification procedures and the use of professional judgment.Behavior Therapist, 12(7), 143–146.
11.
HolmesD. L. (1990). Letters to the editor/In re: Aversive procedures.Behavior Therapist,13(2), 30, 32.
12.
HornerR. H. (1990). Ideology, technology, and typical community settings: Use of severe aversive stimuli.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 166–168.
13.
HornerR. H., & DayH. M. (1991). The effects of response efficacy on functionally equivalent competing behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 719–737.
14.
HornerR. H., DayH. M., SpragueJ. R., O'BrienM., & Heathfield,L T. (1991). Interspersed requests: A nonaversive procedure for reducing aggression and self-injury during instruction.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 265–278.
15.
HornerR. H., DunlapG., KoegelR. L., CarrE. G., SailorW., AndersonJ., AlbinR. W., & O'NeillR. E. (1990). Toward a technology of “nonaversive” behavioral support.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(3), 125–132.
16.
HymanI., ClarkeJ., & ErdlenR. (1987). Analysis of physical abuse in American schools.Aggressive Behavior, 13, 1–7.
17.
LennoxD. B., & MiltenbergerR. G. (1989). Conducting a functional assessment of problem behavior in applied settings.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14(4), 304–311.
18.
LentzF. E. (1988). Reductive procedures. In WittJ. C., ElliottS. N., & GreshamF. M. (Eds.), Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 439–468). New York: Plenum.
19.
LundervoldD., & BourlandG. (1988). Quantitative analysis of treatment of aggression, self-injury, and property destruction.Behavior Modification, 12, 590–617.
20.
McCarthyJ., & HogeD. (1987). The social construction of school punishment: Racial disadvantage out of universalistic process.Social Forces, 65, 1101–1120.
21.
MorganR. L., StriefelS., BaerR., & PercivalG. (1991). Regulating behavioral procedures for individuals with handicaps: Review of state department standards.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 63–85.
22.
PickeringD., & MorganS. (1985). Parental ratings of treatment of self-injurious behavior.Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 15, 303–314.
23.
ReppA. C, & SinghN. N. (Eds.). (1990). Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities.Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
24.
RoseT. (1984). Current uses of corporal punishment in American public schools.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 427–441.
25.
RoseT. (1988). Current disciplinary practices with handicapped students: Suspensions and expulsions.Exceptional Children, 55, 230–239.
26.
ShermanR. A. (1991). Aversives, fundamental rights and the courts.Behavior Analyst, 14, 197–206.
27.
SimpsonR. L. (1988). Use of punishment with behaviorally disordered children and youth: Analysis of issues and recommendations for professional practice. A position paper considered for adoption by the executive committee of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Reston, VA: CCBD.
28.
SlateJ. R., PerezE., WaldropP. B., & JustenJ. E.IV (1991). Corporal punishment: Used in a discriminatory manner?Clearing House, 64, 352–364.
29.
SobseyD. (1988). Nonaversive behavior management: The verdict is in.AAMR News & Notes, 1(2), 2.
30.
StarinS. (1991). “Nonaversive” behavior management: A misnomer.Behavior Analyst, 14, 207–209.
31.
SugaiG., & ColvinG. (1989). Environmental explanations of behavior: Conducting a functional analysis (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Behavior Associates.
32.
WoleryM., BaileyD. B., & SugaiG. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
WoleryM., & GastD. L. (1990). Reframing the debate: Finding middle ground and defining the role of social validity. In ReppA. C., & SinghN. N. (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 130–143). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
34.
WoodF. H. (1988). Factors in intervention choice. In RutherfordR. B.Jr., & MaagJ. W. (Eds.), Severe behavior disorders of children and youth (Vol. 11, pp. 133–143). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
35.
WoodF. H., & BraatenS. (1983). Developing guidelines for use of punishing interventions in the schools.Exceptional Education Quarterly3, 68–75.
36.
WoodF. H., & HillB. K. (1983). Aversiveness and frequency of use of commonly used interventions for problem behavior. In RutherfordR. B. (Ed.), Severe behavior disorders of children and youth (Vol. 6, pp. 28–34). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
37.
WoodF. H., & LakinK. C. (1978). Punishment and aversive stimulation in special education: Legal, theoretical and practical issues in their use with emotionally disturbed children and youth.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychoeducational Studies.
