| Abstract: The ethics of researching and applying aversive control has recently been the subject of intense discussion amongst professional communities. The use of behavioral interventions that involve aversive control may, however, be unavoidable. Three of the four basic operant contingencies (i.e., negative reinforcement, positive and negative punishment) involve events that are empirically defined as aversive. That is, these behavior-environment relations involve events which either suppress behavior that leads to the contingent delivery of those events (punishment), or which maintain behavior that postpones or reduces the occurrence of those events (negative reinforcement). Moreover, there is evidence that positive reinforcement can sometimes establish escape from those contingencies as a negative reinforcer. Thus, behavioral interventions that are nominally based upon positive reinforcement may also have aversive properties. The ubiquity of aversive contingencies regulating behavior, both socially mediated and otherwise, calls for a thoroughgoing understanding of the effects of those contingencies. Recent controversy over the use of aversive control, particularly those involving contingent electric shock, in application and research has called into question the future of research on aversive control. The panel will discuss ways to advance our understanding of aversive control, whether more research is needed, and whether aversive control can be studied and applied ethically. |