Prior to the ABAI member vote to decide between two alternative position statements on contingent electric skin shock (CESS), the current authors helped draft a consensus statement supporting the abolition of CESS. In this commentary, we provide additional, supporting information for that consensus statement by (1) showing that the extant literature does not support the supposition that CESS is more efficacious than less-intrusive interventions; (2) providing data showing that implementing interventions that are less intrusive than CESS does not lead to overreliance on the use of physical or mechanical restraint to control destructive behavior; and (3) discussing the ethical and public relations issues that arise when behavior analysts use painful skin shock to reduce destructive behavior in persons with autism or intellectual disability.

在 ABAI 成员投票决定关于意外皮肤电击 (CESS) 的两种替代立场声明之前，当前作者帮助起草了一份支持废除 CESS 的共识声明。在这篇评论中，我们通过以下方式为该共识声明提供了额外的支持信息：(1) 表明现有文献不支持 CESS 比侵入性较小的干预措施更有效的假设；(2) 提供数据表明，实施比 CESS 侵入性较小的干预措施不会导致过度依赖使用物理或机械约束来控制破坏性行为；(3) 讨论当行为分析师使用痛苦的皮肤电击来减少自闭症或智力障碍患者的破坏性行为时出现的伦理和公共关系问题。