Establishing argument: ABA is very different from Positive Behavioural Supports (PBS) despite some overlap. PBS theory rules out all ABA punitive-techniques as unnecessary and therefore unethical. PBS practice does indeed punish despite its theoretical claims to the contrary.
Please "like" our ABA Leaks Facebook page where the truth about ABA will shut them down as we teach parents of our young autistic peers about autistic-led and autistic-approved alternatives to Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) doggie-treat-bribes and facial-water-spray obedience trainings.
There is a wall that separates Applied Behavioural Analysis (Analy$i$) (ABA) and Positive Behavioural Support (PBS). It is the wall of aversives.
While ABA always depends on punitive techniques, either in conjunction with reinforcers or in its last resort method of behavioural control (Behavioural Analyst Certification Board (BACB), 2012), PBS, in theory only, on the other hand, has ruled out coercive use of aversives as unnecessary and therefore unethical. (LaVigna, 2013, Affidavit vs. Judge Rotenberg Center ABA skin shock, p. 3, #4)
PBS in schools has become more of an educational field while ABA makes up Division 25 of the American Psychological Ass. membership.
There are indeed Board Certified Behavioural Analysts (BCBAs) who do their own versions of PBS and not ABA. They will correctly claim they never use aversives, but then they misrepresent themselves for insurance reimbursement purposes as doing ABA when they are not doing ABA. They are doing their version of PBS, which is different from ABA in many other ways besides the divisive controversy between the groups over the aversives controversy.
Carr and Sidener (2002) illustrated the nature of the dispute between ABA and PBS. Carr is the CEO of the Behavioural Analyst Certification Board (BACB). In this Behavioural Analyst opinion they claimed ABA possession of PBS as a subsection of ABA, much to the chagrin of PBS experts, no doubt. See also LaVigna and Donnellan's (1986) "Old Testament to PBS" Alternatives to punishment: Solving problem behaviours with non-aversive strategies.
So in theory only, PBS decries aversive coercion, but in practice, it punishes anyway. An Autism Mom (Anonymous text to Altier(i), January 7, 2016) told us what her son says about PBS.
Mom: I asked my kid. He thinks, "It's stupid, the rewards are dumb, the practices are boring and I should skip all the practices and read instead, and those stupid tickets are annoying. They don't mean anything to me." I then asked if it helped other kids who have trouble making the better choices. His reply, "No way. Not a bit. Some kids make it a challenge to see who can earn the least tickets each semester."So if this schoolboy's account is representative, it looks like PBS depends on negative punishment (withholding reinforcers) as a form of coercion, removing "inappropriate" children from treats and then ostracizing them from their peers under denial of trips off campus, for example.
See also: Altieri (November 3, 2015): Aversives-addicted Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) electro-shockers are on trial against Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS) non-punishers (theoretically, because PBS punishes in practice).
ABA Grandpa Skinner and ABA Pop Lovaas and their Skin Shock Methodology
In his Behavior of Organisms B. F. Skinner (1938) first reported his operant conditioning discoveries in book form, that adding or removing reinforcing or aversive stimuli or events immediately after response emissions affects the subsequent rates of lab rat behaviour positively or negatively.
Wikipedia presents this BF Skinner Skinner Box, his Operant Conditioning Chamber, with electric grids on the floor. Shock would lower or suppress rates of rat behaviours, such as lever pulling, while his electromechanical food pellet delivery system reinforced them, strengthened them, make them more likely to recur under similar conditions.
|By Andreas1 - Adapted from Image:Boite skinner.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5709267|
Skinner (1945) raised his baby daughter Debby in what he called an Baby Tender (p. 5), also called by others a Skinner Box and an Heir Conditioner, though he did not describe it in those terms.
Deborah Skinner Buzan (2004) eventually insisted, "I was not a lab rat. Stop this rubbish about me and my dad!" She spoke as though everyone on Earth believed she sported whiskers, sharply polished teeth, highly-sensitive, actually-autistic abnormal rat ears, clawed paws, a furry, sniffly nose, and a long, pointed tail that ordinary people liked to step on.
Talk about someone in need of a behavioural modification. Climb up a tree, Debby, and act like a squirrel for us all, please, okay? Stock up on your wintery chestnuts! Gee wiz! Are you trying to say you're not really a rat after all while you're a B. F. Skinner offspring wearing a B. F. Skinner Box pair of brown furry pajama genes? C'mon now. You really are a rat, aren't you?
|Skinner (1945) "Baby in a Box" Ladies Home Journal|
In Life Magazine Grant (1965) showed O. Ivar Lovaas, father of ABA, forced a young autistic girl, whom they had described in completely "deviant" terminology, into his UCLA "scientific" behavioural laboratory room, barefooted upon an electric grid floor and shocked her because she wasn't "normal" enough.
Applied Behavioural Analysis (Analy$i$) (ABA), which is not Positive Behavioural Support (PBS), is entirely behind its own extreme skin shock pain.
Altier(i), (May 20, 2015) reported the Ass. for Behavioural Analysis International (ABAI) officially "approved" JRC as being "aligned" with ABAI’s "mission." Then the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN, May 22, 2015) demanded that ABAI eject JRC from its conventions and stop endorsing them. However, ABAI will not listen to the actually autistic population it purportedly helps. ABAI officially "approved" JRC once again in Spring 2016 as a "sponsor" of its Chicago convention. (Altier(i), April 13, 2016)
Browns et al. (2010, p. 217, Tab. 2) showed that 26.9 % of ABA "experts of decelerative consequence based behavioural strategies...would use...contingent electric shock." They also showed (p. 218, Fig. 1) that 86% it their sample of fourteen ABA experts "might consider the use of...contingent electric shock as acceptable treatments (when) other procedures were ineffective (and/or when the) person or others are at risk for harm."
It is worth noting here, in response to the previous point, that PBS co-founder Gary Lavigna, BCBA, (2013, Affidavit against JRC, p. 3, #4) PBS leader, said, "Given the significant amount of research that has been carried out over the last quarter of century, starting in 1985, the field of positive behavioural supports (PBS), i. e., applied behavioural analysis without punishment, has been firmly established. Professionals who have extensively used evidenced-based PBS over the past 25 years have reached a consensus opinion that punitive procedures are not necessary and, therefore, are not ethical."
Egregiously, Fig. 1 shows, if this sample is representative of the entire ABA population, that 21% of all ABA experts would shock disabled people if their "behavior is socially stigmatizing, prevents inclusion." [Ed. note: What about teaching their peers to accept them instead of shocking the hell out of these ABA victims?]
See also Kosovkaya and Altier(i) (June 11, 2015, Preface) "Heroic Anna Kosovskaya escapes the JRC of ABA electroshock 'treatment/torture.' Her self-reported adventures with interviewer analysis." This post gives a long, detailed history, as yet incomplete, into ABA leadership's strong ties with JRC.
There are many Board Certified Behavioural Analyst (Analy$t) (BCBA) "disseminators" who say they do not support skin shock, but to date, other than Positive Behavioural Support behaviourists—who are not doing ABA, as it has been argued—this blogger is not aware ABA professional organizations or individual practitioners who have published an official statement against the practice, though he has often challenged them to produce one.
Therefore, "all ABA completely supports or is complicit to its own extremely painful electric skin shock," and so the very same title of this post stands as supported by facts.
In conclusion, when ABA boasts it is "effective," which it says of its skin shock at JRC's site: Effectivetreatment.org, please remind them that the ends do not justify the means. When ABA proceeds to make non-autistics out of autistics, and it fails miserably at that inadequate false promise it makes to parents, it has no concept that to fight for a goal "by any means possible" is precisely the identical kind of logic Adolph Hitler used to exterminate six million autistics, gays, gypsies, and Jews to try to create his Aryan nation.
The advocates will close the JRC and stop ABA, because in the battle of Truth vs. Greed, truth always wins! JRC greed loses! Maria Malott's Ass. for Behavioural Analysis International (ABAI) greed loses, too, in the long run, every single time!
See Altier(i) January 7, 2016: "When teachers are the bullies: A smart schoolboy says why Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) is bad to him and his friends."
See also Altier(i) (January 22, 2016): "[Edit note: I was wrong to praise them.] United Kingdom PBS advocates shun ABA skin shock pain."
See also Altier(i) (May 4, 2016): "Applied Behavioural Analysis' (ABA) Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) skin shockers sound much worse than the advocates ever feared: Journalist Evan Anderson collaborates with ABA Leaks on Judge Rotenberg Center severe abuse allegations report."