Why No Guidelines for Behavior Modification?

Abstract

This paper reviews the guidelines for behavioral programs published by the National Association of Retarded Children. The review discusses a number of reasons why guidelines should not be enunciated for behavior modification, e.g., the procedures of behavior modification appear to be no more or less subject to abuse and no more or less in need of ethical regulation than intervention procedures derived from any other set of principles and called by other terms. The review recommends alternative methods for protecting the rights of clients who participate in behavioral programs. Specifically, behavioral clinicians, like other therapists, should be governed by the ethics codes of their professions; also, the ethics of all intervention programs should be evaluated in terms of a number of critical issues.

Behavioral knowledge among direct care staff in an inpatient psychiatric setting

“…These include the predominance of a 'medical' or 'disease' model of psychiatric disorder in such settings (Hersen and Bellack, 1978); political rivalries between and within professional groups, particularly between medically trained psychiatrists and clinical psychologists (Moss, 1983); and the level of regulation by federal, state, and local concerns due to past misuse by unqualified practitioners (Stolz, 1977;Goldiamond, 1975;Opton, 1974).…”

A survey of state policies regarding the use of restrictive/aversive behavior modification procedures

“…While the family of techniques called behavior modification is no more subject to these types of concerns than any other treatment regimen (Stolz, 1977), behavior modification has become a catalyst for public concern and attention. The use of aversive behavior modification techniques, in particular, has come under intense public, professional, and legal scrutiny.…”

“…One central argument focuses on behaviorism as a young and growing science. Numerous persons (e.g., Stolz et al, 1975;Stolz, 1977;Sajwaj, 1977;Agras, 1973) fear that the adoption of guidelines for the use of behavior modification at this time will stifle the further development of the field. Agras (1973) noted that a similar sort of stagnation plagued the field of psychoanalysis following the adoption of minimal standards for membership in the American Psychoanalytic Association shortly after World War 11.…”

“…In addition to the possible stagnation of research and practice in behavior modification, the regulation of only behavior modification may result in a diminished use of the techniques in favor of nonregulated (and possibly less effective) techniques (Stolz, 1977;Stolz et al, 1975;Stolz & Associates, 1978). The selective regulation of behavior modification and not other therapies is viewed as unfair on several grounds.…”

“…The selective regulation of behavior modification and not other therapies is viewed as unfair on several grounds. Virtually any technique is subject to abuse by incompetents and charlatans (Stolz, 1977;Agras, 1973), and coercion (whether explicit or implicit) is at the crux of every therapeutic endeavor (Stolz et al, 1975). It would seem that behavior modification has been singled out because of the explicitness of its techniques and intentions, and it is just this explicitness that contributes to whatever efficacy it possesses.…”