Practitioner Development

Report of the ABAI Task Force on Contingent Electric Skin Shock

Perone et al. (2023) · Perspectives on Behavior Science 2023
★ The Verdict

ABAI now bans all contingent electric skin shock, moving the field to non-aversive SIB options.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who write or supervise plans for severe self-injury in any setting.
✗ Skip if Practitioners already using only positive, non-aversive interventions.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Perone et al. (2023) is not an experiment. It is the official report of an ABAI task force.

The group was asked if contingent electric skin shock should stay in ABA. Members debated, then voted.

02

What they found

The task-force first said shock might be used in rare, life-saving cases. ABAI members rejected that idea.

The final vote banned any use of contingent electric skin shock in ABA practice.

03

How this fits with other research

Pilgrim et al. (2000) once showed shock cut mechanical restraint for adults with severe self-injury. The 2023 vote says those data no longer justify the procedure.

Gutierrez et al. (1998) and Jeglum et al. (2022) prove you can stop self-injury without shock. Restaint fading and competing stimuli work and are now the ethical path.

Veneziano et al. (2023) also came out in 2023. It tells clinicians to drop "indistinguishability" goals. Both papers push ABA to listen to stakeholder voices over old protocols.

04

Why it matters

If you write behavior plans, scratch shock off the menu forever. Use safer tools already in the literature: fade restraints, give competing items, reinforce replacement skills. Document why you picked the humane option. Your notes may be reviewed, and the field’s new standard is clear: no pain devices.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Audit one client’s SIB plan: replace any punishment step with a competing-stimulus or restraint-fade protocol.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
theoretical
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

As a task force appointed by the Executive Council of the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), we investigated the clinical use of contingent electric skin shock (CESS) in behavior analytic treatments for severe problem behavior. We studied how CESS is used in contemporary behavior analysis, reinforcement-based alternatives to CESS, and current ethical and professional guidelines for applied behavior analysts. We recommended that ABAI uphold clients’ right to receive CESS when it is restricted to extreme cases and used under rigorous professional and legal oversight. Our recommendation was rejected by a vote of the full members of ABAI, who instead endorsed an alternative recommendation, developed by members of the Executive Council, that opposed the use of CESS under any condition. Here we present for the record our report and initial recommendations, the formal statement that was rejected by the members of ABAI, and the statement that was endorsed.

Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2023 · doi:10.1007/s40614-023-00379-w