The development and adoption of controversial default technologies.
Treat aversives as a red-flag signal that your skill-building plan failed somewhere—pause and analyze before you punish.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Iwata (1988) wrote a position paper, not an experiment. The author asked, 'Why do behavior analysts still reach for aversives?' The paper treats punishment tools as 'default technologies' we grab when skill-building fails. It urges the field to study why positive plans failed, not just apply the aversive fix.
What they found
The main finding is a warning. Aversive procedures spread when we do not analyze why gentler methods broke down. The paper says we should develop these tools only to understand and then eliminate them.
How this fits with other research
McComas et al. (2025) extends the same line. They re-frame aversive use as ableism and give checklists to spot biased goals or language today.
Jackson-Perry et al. (2025) also extends the 1988 call. They add autistic voices and ask for Critical Behavioral Studies courses so new BCBAs learn the history of aversive misuse.
Joyce et al. (1988) is methodologically similar—same year, same journal section—but pushes policy advocacy instead of warning against aversive advocacy. The two papers sit side-by-side: one says 'influence lawmakers,' the other says 'police your own tools.'
Why it matters
Next time a plan stalls, run a quick failure analysis before even thinking about punishment. List what was tried, what broke, and what environmental change is still possible. Share the sheet with your team and the family so everyone sees why the aversive shortcut stays off the table.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one 'failure context' box to your BIP template—force the team to document why reinforcement options were exhausted before any punisher is considered.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Default technologies evolve from failure. Within the realm of human behavior, technologies based on the use of aversive contingencies can be conceptualized as default technologies because they come into play when natural contingencies or positive reinforcement fail to produce a desired behavioral outcome. Historical as well as contemporary events suggest that it is a mistake for behavior analysts to advocate for the adoption of aversive technologies. We must, however, continue to play a leading role in the development of such technologies so that they will be used in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, the eventual elimination of aversive technologies will be possible only through continued, careful, and experimental analysis of the contexts of failure in which they are born.
The Behavior analyst, 1988 · doi:10.1007/BF03392468