This paper reviews the role of ethics in behavioral interventions and the rationale and interventions commonly used for teaching compliance to individuals with mental retardation. The ethical screens designed to monitor the selection and use of aversive interventions are described as a framework for examin- ing ethical issues related to selecting and teaching compliance as a behavioral or instructional goal. Tables are used to summarize some of the major issues in deciding whether compliance is an appropriate objective for an individual, and for monitoring whether any interventions designed to achieve compliance are being appropriately implemented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtwaterJ. B., & MorrisE. K. (1988). Teachers’ instructions and children's compliance in pre- school classrooms: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 157–168.
2.
BartonL. E., BrulleA. R., & ReppA. C. (1983). Aversive techniques and the doctrine of least restrictive alternative. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3, 1–8.
3.
BuddK., & BaerD. (1976). Behavior modification and the law. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 4, 171–176.
4.
BillingsleyF. F., WhiteO. R., MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an exam- ple. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
5.
CarrE. G., NewsomC. D., & BinkoffJ. A. (1976). Stimulus control of self-destructive be- havior in a psychotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 139–153.
6.
CarrE. G., RobinsonS., TaylorJ. C., & CarlsonJ. I. (1990). Positive approaches to the treatment of severe behavior problems in persons with de- velopmental disabilities: A review and analysis of reinforcement and stimulus-based procedures. Monograph of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Monograph No. 4. Seattle: The Asso- ciation for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
7.
DokeL. A., WoleryM., & SumbergC. (1983). Effects and side-effects of response contingent ammonia spirits in treating chronic aggression. Behavior Modification, 7, 531–556.
8.
DonnellanA. M., MirendaP. L., MesarosR. A., & FassbenderL. L. (1984). Analyzing the com- municative functions of aberrant behavior. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handi- caps, 9, 201–212.
9.
DurandV. M. & CarrE. C. (1985). Self-injurious behavior: motivating conditions and guidelines for treatment. School Psychology Review, 14, 171–176.
10.
EnglemannS., & ColvinG. (1983). Generalized compliance training: A direct instruction program for managing severe behavior problems. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
11.
EvansI. M., & MeyerL. H. (1985). An educative approach to behavior problems: A practical decision model for interventions with severely handicapped learners. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
FavellJ. E., AzrinN. H., BaumeisterA., CarrE. G., CorseyM. F., ForehandR., FoxxR. M., LovassO. I., RincoverA., RisleyT. R., RomanczykR. G., RussoD. C., SchroederS. R., & SolnickJ. V. (1982). The treatment of self-injurious behavior. Behavior Therapy, 13, 529–554.
13.
ForehandR. (1977). Child compliance to parental requests: Behavioral analysis. In HersenM., EislerR. M., & MillerP. M. (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 5) (pp. 111–147). New York: Academic Press.
14.
GastD. L., & WoleryM. (1987). Severe maladap- tive behaviors. In SnellM. (Ed.), Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps (3rd Ed.) (pp. 300–332). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
15.
Gaylord-RossR. (1980). A decision model for the treatment of aberrant behavior in applied set- tings. In SailerW., WilcoxB., & BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped stu- dents (pp. 135–158). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
16.
GelfandD. M., & HartmannD. P. (1984). Child behavior analysis and therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.
17.
GuessD., HelmstetterE., TurnbullH. R.III, & KnowltonS. (1987). Use of aversive procedures with persons who are disabled: An historical re- view and critical analysis. Monograph of the Associa- tion for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 2(1).
18.
HamletC. C., AxelrodS., & KuerschnerS. (1984). Eye contact as an antecedent of compli- ant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 553–557.
19.
HarchikA. E., & PutzierV. S. (1990). The use of high-probability requests to increase compliance with instructions to take medication. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(1), 40–44.
20.
IwataB. A., DorseyM. F., SliferK. J., BaumanK. E. & RichmanG. S. (1982). Toward a func- tional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Inter- vention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20.
21.
IrvinL. K., & LundervoldD. A. (1988). Social validation of decelerative (punishment) proce- dures by special educators of severely handi- capped students. Research in Developmental Dis- abilities, 9, 331–350.
22.
LaVignaG. W., & DonnellanA. M. (1986). Alter- natives to punishment: Solving behavior problems with non-aversive strategies. New York: Irvington Pub- lishers.
23.
LoganD. (1988). Redefining the problem: An al- ternative view of difficult behavior. In Roeher Institute AllenG. (Eds.) The language of pain: Perspectives on behavior management (pp. 43–50). Downsview, Ontario: York University, The G. Allan Roeher Institute.
24.
MaceF. C., HockM. L., LalliJ. S., WestB. J., BelfioreP., PinterE., & BrownD. K. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of non- compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123–141.
25.
MacLeanWilliam E.Jr. (1986). Aversive inter- vention: Guilty until proven otherwise. In DokeckiP. R. & ZanerR. M. (Eds.), Ethics of dealing with persons with severe handicaps: Toward a re- search agenda (pp. 211–216). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
26.
MartinG., & PearJ. (1983). Ethical issues. In MartinG. & PearJ., Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it (pp. 460–477). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
27.
MatsonJ. L., & KazdinA. E. (1981). Punishment in behavior modification: Pragmatic, ethical, and legal issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 1, 197–210.
28.
MeyerL. H., & EvansI. M. (1989). Nonaversive intervention for behavior problems: A manual for home and community. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
29.
MorganR. L. (1989). Judgments of restrictive- ness, social acceptability, and usage: Review of research on aversive procedures to decrease be- havior. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 121–133.
30.
NeefN. A., ShaferM. S., EgelA. L., CataldoM. F., & ParrishJ. M. (1983). The class specific ef- fects of compliance training with “do” and “don't” requests: Analogue analysis and classroom application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 81–99.
31.
NevinJ. A., MandellC., & AtakJ. R. (1983). The analysis of behavioral momentum. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 49–59.
32.
O'BrienT. P., RinerL. S., & BuddK. S. (1983). The effects of a child's self-evaluation program on compliance with parental instructions in the home. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 69–79.
33.
O'NeillR. E., HornerR. H., AlbinR. W., StoreyK., & SpragueJ. R. (1989). Functional analysis: A practical assessment guide. Eugene: Uni- versity of Oregon, Research and Training Center on Community-Referenced, Nonaver- sive Behavior Management.
34.
RuschF. R., & MenchettiB. M. (1981). Increas- ing compliant work behaviors in a non-sheltered work setting. Mental Retardation, 19, 107–111.
35.
RussoD. C., CataldoM. F., & CushingP. J. (1981). Compliance training and behavioral co- variation in the treatment of multiple behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 209–222.
36.
SidmanM. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative, Inc., Publishers.
37.
SinclairC. (1988). The use of aversives: A psychol- ogist's viewpoint. In The G. Allan Roeher Insti- tute, The language of pain: Perspectives on behavior management (pp. 35–42). Downsview, Ontario: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.
38.
SingerG. S., & IrvinL. K. (1987). Human rights review of intrusive behavioral treatments for stu- dents with severe handicaps. Exceptional Chil- dren, 54, 46–52.
39.
SingerG. S., SingerJ., & HornerR. H. (1987). Using pretask requests to increase the probabil- ity of compliance for students with severe disabili- ties. Journal of the Association for Person with Severe Handicaps, 12, 287–291.
40.
StriefelS., WetherbyB., & KarlanG. (1978). De- veloping generalized instruction-following be- havior in severely retarded people. American Journal of Mental Deficiency Monograph #3, 267–325.
41.
Sulzer-AzaroffB., & MayerG. R. (1977). Goal selection: Ethical considerations. Applying behav- ior-analysis procedures with children and youth (pp. 26–39). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Win- ston.
42.
TurnbullH. R.III, GuessD., BackusL. H., BarberP. A., FiedlerC. R., HelmstetterE., & SummersJ. A. (1986). A model for analyzing the moral aspects of special education and behav- ioral interventions: The moral aspects of aver- sive procedures. In DokeckiP. R. & ZanerR. M. (Eds.), Ethics of dealing with persons with severe hand- icaps: Toward a research agenda (pp. 161–210). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
43.
VolkmarF. R., & CohenD. J. (1982). A hierarchi- cal analysis of patterns of non-compliance in au- tistic and behavior-disturbed children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 12, 35–42.
44.
WeeksM., & Gaylord-RossR. (1981). Task diffi- culty and aberrant behavior in severely handi- capped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal- ysis, 14, 449–463.
45.
WehmanP., & McLaughlinP. J. (1979). Teacher's perceptions of behavior problems with severely and profoundly handicapped students. Mental Retardation, 17, 20–21.
46.
WhiteO. R., & HaringN. G. (1976). Exceptional teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
47.
WhiteO. R., & HaringN. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
48.
WinettR. A., & WinklerR. C. (1972). Current behavior modification in the classroom: Be still, be quiet, be docile. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 499–504.
49.
WoleryM., BaileyD. B.Jr., & SugaiG. M. (1988). Definitional and ethical problems related to behavior reduction. In WoleryM., BaileyD. B.Jr., & SugaiG. M., Effective teaching: Principles and procedure of applied behavior analysis with excep- tional students (pp. 331–348). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
50.
WoodF. & LakinK. C. (1978). The legal status of the use of corporal punishment and other aver- sive procedures in schools. In WoodF. H. & LakinK. C. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive stimulation in special education: Legal, theoretical, and political issues in their use with emotionally disturbed children and youth (pp. 3–27). Minneapolis, MN: Ad- vanced Training Institute.
