Why no guidelines for behavior modification?

Stolz (1977) wrote a short think-piece. He asked why behavior analysts keep asking for special ethics rules.

He said we already have codes from psychology, education, and medicine. We should use those instead of inventing new ones.

The paper found no new data. It argued that extra guidelines are not needed.

The author said each program should be judged on basic ethics: benefit, harm, consent, and right to stop.

Miltenberger et al. (2024) extends this debate. Their survey shows PhD-level analysts still disagree on what a “basic principle” even is. If we cannot agree on core terms, relying on old codes alone may leave gaps.

Preston (1994) and Hanley et al. (2003) are topically related. Both papers call for clearer standards inside ABA, but they target assessment methods, not ethics. Together they show the field keeps asking for tighter rules in every corner of practice.

Bucklin et al. (2022) gives a concrete example. Their pay-for-performance review warns that money can alter staff behavior in risky ways. The 1977 stance never covered such workplace contingencies, so modern BCBAs must add their own safeguards.

You still need to check your profession’s code, but do not stop there. Spell out terms in your behavior plans, watch for new contingencies like pay bonuses, and document consent and assent every session. The 1977 paper frees you from extra red tape, yet later work shows the field’s language and settings have moved on. Update your ethics checklist to match today’s questions.