Abstract

Abuses charged to behavior modification have aroused justifiable public concern. The abuses have occurred in prisons, mental institutions, and other institutions where commitment and release are controlled by legal rules and administrative discretion rather than by patient or prisoner volition. Concern over charges that inmates in these institutions have suffered abuse at the hands of behavior modification therapists has led to a variety of suggested corrections. The proposals by Paul Friedman attempt to distinguish between practices engaged in by professionals who legitimately identify themselves with the behavior modification field and those practices also designated as behavior modification, but which are engaged in by others. He proposes standards for the former practices which he presents in the form of a legislative act or regulations. Generally, Friedman's article comes as somewhat of a relief from the confusion about behavior modification generated by persons and institutions of Friedman's outlook. As Friedman notes, one outcome of this confusion has been that responsibility for the abuses of other behavior changing procedures has been laid at the doorstep of behavior modification. Another outcome has been that practices by those not trained in behavior modification procedures have been ascribed to behavior modification.

How to Cite