Academic Journal Observations

Article

‘The line between intervention and abuse’ – autism and applied behaviour analysis

Patrick Kirkham Independent scholar

Abstract This article outlines the emergence of ABA (Applied Behaviour Analysis) in the mid-20th century, and the current popularity of ABA in the anglophone world. I draw on the work of earlier historians to highlight the role of Ole Ivar Lovaas, the most influential prac- titioner of ABA. I argue that reception of his initial work was mainly positive, despite concerns regarding its efficacy and use of physical aversives. Lovaas’ work, however, was only cautiously accepted by medical practitioners until he published results in 1987. Many accepted the results as validation of Lovaas’ research, though both his methods and broader understanding of autism had shifted considerably since his early work in the 1960s. The article analyses the controversies surrounding ABA since the early 1990s, considering in particular criticisms made by autistic people in the ‘neurodiversity movement’. As with earlier critics, some condemn the use of painful aversives, exem- plified in the campaign against the use of shock therapy at the Judge Rotenberg Center. Unlike earlier, non-autistic critics, however, many in this movement reject the ideolo- gical goals of ABA, considering autism a harmless neurological difference rather than a pathology. They argue that eliminating benign autistic behaviour through ABA is impermissible, owing to the individual psychological harm and the wider societal impact. Finally, I compare the claims made by the neurodiversity movement with those made by similar 20th- and 21st-century social movements.

Keywords Applied Behaviour Analysis, autism, behaviourism, Ole Ivar Lovaas, neurodiversity

Corresponding author:

Patrick Kirkham.

Email: [email protected]

History of the Human Sciences 2017, Vol. 30(2) 107–126

ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0952695117702571

journals.sagepub.com/home/hhs

Proponents of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) have praised it as the only scientifi-

cally validated method of treating or curing autism, while its critics have vehemently

condemned it as abusive.1 This article analyses these debates, outlining the rise of ABA

from an experimental therapy to its contested position today as the ‘gold standard’ of

autism treatment. I argue that early critics of ABA raised concerns only with regard to its

effectiveness or use of aversives, while more recent ones have additionally focused on

the curative aims of ABA. These latter critics are often autistic self-advocates who are

part of the ‘neurodiversity movement’; they reject the medical model of autism and,

therefore, the need for any treatment whatsoever. Paying particular attention to these

arguments, this article uses accounts written by autistic people as its primary sources,

alongside others such as scientific articles, popular press articles and interviews. While

many academics have examined autistic autobiographies, I instead use informal texts

such as blog posts written by autistic people. These are used to avoid a common over-

reliance on the accounts of those autistic people with sufficient resources to publish

autobiographies, but the use also reflects the tendency of autistic people to discuss ABA

online rather than through formally published works. These debates are situated within

the histories of autism and behaviour therapy: historians of both fields have seldom

focused on ABA, despite its current prominence in both behavioural and autism inter-

ventions. This article also compares the neurodiversity movement’s criticism of ABA to

other 20th- and 21st-century social movements that similarly reject pathologization,

drawing new parallels with the gay rights movement and mental health service user

organizations. Existing accounts of ABA are either brief asides in broader accounts of

autism (for example, Eyal, 2010; Murray, 2012; Waltz, 2013) or non-academic accounts

that are rich in factual detail but lack historical context (Donvan and Zucker, 2016;

Feinstein, 2011; Silberman, 2015). This article is therefore the first in the historical

literature to take ABA as its focus.

The language used in discussions of ABA and autism is contentious. Many autistic

people reject the use of person-first language, arguing that it suggests that they are

divisible from their autism, which they consider an inseparable part of their person-

hood; I therefore opt for ‘autistic person’ rather than ‘person with autism’. Similarly,

the appropriateness of medical terms such as ‘treatment’ and ‘therapy’ is disputed by

those arguing that autism is not a disease. Where there are no suitable alternatives these

words are used in this article, but the – often unchallenged – assumptions such terms

rely on should be noted. Relatedly, definitions of autism and ABA have changed, as

will be discussed in detail. The diagnostic category has expanded and shifted, meaning

many people with a diagnosis today have ‘symptoms’ milder than or different from

those in the 1960s. This has led some to label autism a ‘moving target’ (Hacking,

2013). Others have concluded that the concept has no meaningful relevance (Timimi,

Gardner and McCabe, 2011) as there remains no consensus on autistic diagnostic

criteria, and even less on the existence or type of an underlying aetiology.2 Autism

itself is therefore as highly contested a condition as ABA is a therapy. This article does

not attempt to evaluate the ontological status of ABA or autism (see Hacking, 1999),

but aims instead to shed some light on the shifting debates surrounding these

categories.

108 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

What is ABA today?

The status of ABA today is complex and varies significantly by geographical region.

However, in North America at least, ABA is currently very popular. There are no

statistics revealing the exact number of people to have undergone the therapy, but it is

clearly widely respected by much of the American medical industry. Influential autism-

focused organizations, including the world’s largest autism charity, Autism Speaks, are

particularly vocal supporters. Autism Speaks (n.d.) recommends ABA above all other

alternatives, describing how its ‘scientifically validated approach’ leads to ‘significant

improvements’. Other introductory guides to autism call ABA ‘the only proven treat-

ment’ (Autism Truths, n.d.) and ‘the best method for managing autistic behaviour’

(Autism, n.d.). Anybody researching autism following a recent diagnosis will quickly

find recommendations for ABA.

The persuasiveness and ubiquity of these recommendations have led to increased

demand for ABA, as evidenced by the number of parents lobbying for it to be available.

Many have brought legal action against insurance providers who do not cover the cost of

ABA (Freudenheim, 2004). As a result, 38 states introduced laws between 2010 and 2014

requiring insurance companies to cover ABA-related costs (Allure, 2014); legal battles

continue in states without such laws. In the UK, meanwhile, schools utilizing ABA have

been at maximum capacity, ostensibly owing to the popularity of the therapy (Lambert,

2013). Parents have also campaigned for local councils to provide ABA on demand

(Benyon, 2014). Those parents who have accessed ABA for their children have an ‘over-

whelmingly positive’ opinion of ABA (McPhilemy and Dillenburger, 2013: 154), which

likely leads to many parent-to-parent recommendations for ABA. Autism charities also

fund ABA research to be conducted by well-established researchers at prestigious insti-

tutions. These charities and researchers enlist celebrity supporters to further raise aware-

ness of ABA (USCB, n.d.). On both sides of the Atlantic, universities teach ABA through

dedicated degree courses. This ever-growing institutional support for ABA is fuelled by,

and in turn fuels further, the efforts of campaigning parents and charities.

This dominance of ABA is particularly unusual because purely behavioural treat-

ments are not generally in medical favour today. Many behaviours once subject to

behavioural intervention are no longer considered illnesses in western medicine, such

as homosexuality. Among conditions that are still medicalized, such as depression and

anxiety, intervention usually involves a blend of cognitive and behavioural models

through cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (Marks, 2015). This contrasts with ABA,

which remains rooted in traditional behaviourism.

What, though, is this popular treatment? Proponents of ABA broadly agree that it is

characterized by the breaking down of behaviour into three components (Autism, n.d.).

The first of these is the antecedent, which is whatever triggered or preceded the beha-

viour being analysed. The second is the behaviour itself, and last is the consequence of

the behaviour, which may be positive or negative. The practitioner controls this using

rewards and punishment. Through this, ABA practitioners aim to extinguish ‘undesir-

able’ behaviours and to promote ‘pro-social’ ones, such as increased eye contact or

verbal communication. This logic, which has appealed to many academics, parents and

charities, originated in the mid-20th century.

Kirkham 109

‘Deliberate, calculated harshness’: The origins of ABA

ABA emerged from behaviourism, a school of thought that developed in psychology

from the 1910s (Smith, 2013: 140–1). Early behaviourist researchers were primarily

concerned with conditioning in animals, drawing on the work of earlier researchers such

as James Watson and Ivan Pavlov. The most famous of these was B. F. Skinner, who

became well known for rewarding rats that exhibited a certain behaviour with food; this

method became known as ‘operant conditioning’ (Skinner, 1938). The underlying

assumption – that behaviour could be modified through rewards and punishment – was

extended to humans by a small number of researchers from the 1950s, particularly in

Britain. Practitioners began to take a behaviourist approach to the treatment of mental

disorders at the University of London’s Institute of Psychiatry and the Maudsley Hos-

pital (Marks, 2015). Psychiatrists such as Isaac Marks and Michael Gelder, and clinical

psychologists such as Monte Shapiro, Stanley Rachman and Hans Eysenck (Eysenck

and Rachman, 1965) deployed techniques such as aversion, exposure or operant

conditioning to treat neurotic disorders such as phobia, obsessions and compulsions

(Buchanan, 2010).3

By contrast, a number of behaviourist researchers in America focused particularly on

lifelong rather than emergent conditions. University of Indiana researcher Paul Fuller,

for example, attempted to use positive reinforcement on adults with severe learning

difficulties or, as his paper’s title called them, ‘vegetative human organisms’ (1949:

587). Others, such as Ayllon and Michael (1959), studied patients with seemingly irre-

versible cases of schizophrenia. Such work consisted largely of exploratory investiga-

tions, and most of these researchers spent the majority of their careers pursuing other

interests, undertaking behaviourist studies only occasionally.

Behaviourist research into learning difficulties was also limited by a widely held

assumption that people with learning difficulties were beyond help.4 At the time, indi-

viduals were frequently institutionalized for life and would rarely be assessed by clin-

icians after their admittance. Moreover, there were proportionately fewer people

diagnosed with learning difficulties; the label of autism, for example, was reserved for

those with the most ‘severe symptoms’. Researching treatments for these patients was

therefore considered both futile and largely irrelevant to psychological and psychiatric

practice. Even those researchers who did study the area accepted this. For example,

Indiana researcher Charles Ferster, a close collaborator of B. F. Skinner, began his

1961 paper by admitting its limited epidemiological importance (Ferster, 1961: 437).

This belief, combined with the small number of researchers in this field, meant that there

was no unified approach to such work; behaviourist practices varied considerably and

practitioners disagreed about the causes of the behaviour they were treating (Smith,

1997: 650).

Ferster’s paper was the first to investigate autism through a behaviourist lens. In the

experiment Ferster locked an autistic child in a room daily for a year (Ferster, 1961). He

refused to attend to the child when it cried, and its tantrums stopped. He concluded that

parents had exacerbated their children’s autism by responding to their tantrums. Such

medical parent-blaming was common; over-attentive mothers had been denounced as

‘smother-mothers’ while those who failed to give their child enough attention were

110 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

‘refrigerator mothers’.5 The children of these women, it was argued, responded by

developing autism. Ferster, though, was not primarily interested in autistic children, but

hoped that his research would shed light upon schizophrenia, of which autism was

considered a childhood form. In keeping with a medical profession largely uninterested

in childhood learning difficulties, then, the first behaviourist investigation of autism was

actually concerned with an adult condition.

As well as the University of Indiana, where Ferster was based, the UCLA psychology

department was one of the few places where researchers used conditioning to study

intellectual disabilities. It was here that Sidney Bijou coined the term ‘behaviour anal-

ysis’ and divided behaviour into antecedents and consequences; this division would later

become the hallmark of ABA. Under Bijou, the consequences were verbal praise and

criticism, though researchers working elsewhere with animals had begun to use electric

shocks. UCLA was also where Ole Ivar Lovaas became assistant professor in 1961.6

Lovaas intended to study psychoanalysis but was soon captivated by the work of Bijou

and his colleagues, and instead opted to study behaviourism.

Unlike Bijou, Lovaas considered verbal consequences alone insufficient, particularly

when dealing with non-verbal children. Lovaas decided the child must first acquire

communication skills before being able to respond to verbal feedback. Lovaas also

wanted to work with autistic children as he considered them a blank slate: ‘[Y]ou start

pretty much from scratch when you work with an autistic child . . . they are not people in the psychological sense’ (Lovaas, 1974: 76). This belief was not unusual, mirroring

Fuller’s description of ‘human vegetative organisms’. Lovaas initially worked with an

autistic child called Beth (ibid.). At first, he used only rewards but became concerned

when Beth reverted to self-injurious behaviour. Additionally, he noted that Beth struck

her head against the sharpest available surface. He concluded that Beth was deliberately

sabotaging his experiment and beat her until she stopped. Seeing that this stopped her

self-injury, Lovaas began to use such ‘aversives’ regularly, initially through beatings and

later through shocks and the withholding of food (Lovaas, 1966).

There was initial skepticism towards Lovaas’ approach. Skinner, for example, had

earlier argued that the use of punishment was associated with undesirable side effects

(Dixon, Vogel and Tarbox, 2012: 7). The curative aims of the work were unquestioned.

Lovaas pre-empted criticisms of the method’s harshness to other researchers, arguing

that the use of physical aversives was better than the alternative of institutionalization.

Moreover, Lovaas was not the only researcher advocating the use of physical aversives,

merely the best known; others had concurrently been trialling the use of shock-therapy

for autistic children (Risley, 1968). Persuaded by the arguments made by Lovaas and

others, even initially skeptical academics, such as parent-researcher Bernard Rimland,

eventually supported their methods in at least some cases.

Lovaas additionally courted broader media attention, inviting journalists to watch his

treatment. In press interviews he admitted his methods were harsh, but defended them as

the only way to improve the child’s life. Such defences proved persuasive to journalists,

as demonstrated by a 1965 multi-page report in Life magazine. Featuring photographs of

children being hit, the report acknowledged the treatment was ‘shocking’, ‘drastic’ and

‘deliberated, calculated harshness’, but was nonetheless supportive, praising sensible

‘old-fashioned’ ideas, the ‘loving attention’ of the researchers and the way it connected

Kirkham 111

with ‘far-gone mental cripples’. The article depicted Lovaas’ electric shock room, reas-

suring readers that it was a last resort, used for children who did not respond to repri-

mands owing to a lack of anxiety: ‘To give [a child] something to be anxious about, [they

are] taken to the shock room’ (‘Author Unknown’, 1965: 90). This teaches them a ‘new

respect’ for the word ‘no’. Aware this might still seem unduly harsh, the article empha-

sized the ‘patience and tenderness’ of the researchers. Lovaas, through such media

engagement, was therefore successfully promoting his work.

By the late 1960s many American researchers were working in ABA and in 1968 the

first issue of The Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis was released. Researchers also

formed professional societies such as the Association for the Advancement of Beha-

vioural Therapy and the Behaviour Therapy and Research Society (Horwitz, 2013). In

general, this work focused on autism, but some researchers deployed ABA towards other

conditions. A particularly famous example was the ‘Feminine Boy Project’, an attempt

to preemptively ‘cure’ those male children considered at risk of becoming gay or trans-

vestites.7 The leaders of the project sought advice from Lovaas, and used an approach

strongly influenced by ABA, indicating Lovaas’ status in the field. Though others had

developed the ideas behind ABA, and there were numerous active ABA researchers,

Lovaas was clearly one of the most well respected. His eye-catching work and media

engagement had ensured him a pre-eminent position among practitioners.

However, Lovaas was not uniquely popular outside of behaviourism, in wider autism

and medical circles. Though ABA was becoming increasingly popular, psychoanalytic

accounts of autism were still more widespread at this point, owing to the work of

researchers such as Bruno Bettelheim and his colleagues who had made similar claims

of ‘curing’ autism (Dolnick, 1998: 212). Parents of autistic children, though, seemed

particularly interested in Lovaas’ work, even though it was not yet in the medical main-

stream. Bernard Rimland, promoting Lovaas’ work in 1966, found many parents were

already aware of ABA (Silverman, 2012). Lovaas was invited to the first meeting of the

National Society for Autistic Children (NSAC) in 1969; the organization’s first presi-

dent, Ruth Sullivan, personally supported his work (quoted in Feinstein, 2011: 130).

Two main factors explain this enthusiastic parental support. First, few people were

researching autism at this time, and many still considered autistic children beyond help.

Although psychoanalytic therapies were increasingly available, parents still had suffi-

ciently few options that they welcomed Lovaas’ work even when many medical

practitioners did not. Second, non-behaviourist medical practitioners supported parent-

blaming theories such as the ‘refrigerator mother’ hypothesis. They advocated treat-

ments that often involved taking children away from their parents, which was dubbed

a ‘parentectomy’ by some therapists (Dolnick, 1998). Lovaas’ approach, contrastingly,

actively involved parents as what historian Chloe Silverman (2012: 113) has termed

‘explicitly trained cotherapists’. This involvement of parents rather than their deliberate

exclusion made Lovaas’ ideas more appealing to parents, particularly as its methods

were easy to apply at home (Nadesan, 2005). Nonetheless, in more general terms,

behaviourist understandings of autism were only gradually eroding the hegemonic hold

of the psychoanalytic framework.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Lovaas and his colleagues continued their research

as the field of ABA grew. During this time Lovaas worked with younger children,

112 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

stressing the importance of intensive, early intervention. This brought additional criti-

cism; some researchers were concerned that 40 hours per week of treatment was exces-

sive. Lovaas also dropped the use of many physical aversives, such as electric shock

treatment, during this period, as support for their use waned during this time. NSAC had

publicly supported the use of physical aversives as late as 1975 but by 1988 effectively

called for a ban on their use (Silverman, 2012). In the same year Anne Donnellan pub-

lished a book, Progress without Punishment (Donnellan, 1988), that condemned the use of

physical aversives, further demonstrating increasingly widespread discomfort. Some, such

as Bernard Rimland, continued to support physical aversives, particularly in cases of self-

injurious behaviour. Nonetheless, Lovaas’ discontinuation of the harshest aversives made

his methodology more acceptable to the wider medical establishment, particularly as

concerns about child welfare had become stronger than they had been in the 1960s.

Lovaas’ work also became more acceptable to the medical profession as behaviourism’s

competing theory, that of psychoanalysis, became less influential. Social historian Majia

Holmer Nadesan has suggested that this was due to the difficulties in quantifying the effects

of psychoanalysis, while historian Edward Dolnick argued that the psychoanalytic, parent-

blaming school of thought ‘wasn’t demolished in a single blow’ (Dolnick, 1998: 225) but

lost influence gradually owing to a number of factors. One of those identified by Dolnick is

the work of American researchers such as Marian DeMyer who conducted intelligence tests

on autistic children (DeMyer, Barton, Alpern et al., 1974). They concluded that autistic

children were fundamentally ‘retarded’, implying a biological basis for autism. This under-

mined dominant psychoanalytic thought at the time; autistic people were not believed to

differ neurologically, but were thought to have normal or even above average intelligence

that was hidden by an autism caused by factors such as parenting. As Dolnick argues, this

made the position of Bettelheim and his colleagues increasingly untenable (Dolnick, 1998:

227). Behaviourism was a readily available alternative framework.

As well as the wider shift in the psy-disciplines away from psychoanalysis, academic

understanding of autism specifically changed dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s. It was

increasingly understood as something present at birth, and was characterized in different

ways, as historian Bonnie Evans (2013) has argued. During the 1960s autism was

associated with psychosis, fantasy and schizophrenia, but by the 1970s researchers such

as Michael Rutter were arguing that ‘the autistic child has a deficiency of fantasy rather

than an excess’ (Rutter, 1972: 327, quoted in Evans, 2013: 4). Using epidemiological

methods, Rutter and his colleagues placed less emphasis on interpreting behaviour as

psychotic, and looked instead at language and social impairments. The long-standing

link between autism and schizophrenia therefore disintegrated, as shown when childhood

schizophrenia was removed from the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) and replaced by categories of autism.

By the late 1980s, therefore, ABA and autism itself had been radically transformed. It

was in this new environment that Lovaas published findings in 1987 claiming that 47% of his patients had recovered from autism. In this study, Lovaas compared the ‘intellec-

tual and educational functioning’ of two groups of children under the age of four that had

been diagnosed with autism by multiple professionals. The first group of 19 children

underwent 40 hours of one-to-one behavioural intervention weekly for two years; 47% of these were found to have ‘normal functioning’ after this time, compared with only 2%

Kirkham 113

of the 40 children in the control group who had received only 10 or fewer hours a

week of intervention over the same time period (Lovaas, 1987). These developments

were soon widely known and were taken as proof that ABA was effective; such

evidence had not previously been published. Both proponents and critics of ABA

acknowledge the importance of this result in establishing the widespread popularity

of ABA.

The benefits of ABA were additionally detailed in Let Me Hear Your Voice (Maurice,

1994), an emotional account of a family ‘triumphing’ over autism for which Lovaas

wrote the foreword; this brought the therapy greater fame. ABA became strongly asso-

ciated with those stories, rather than with its earlier use of physical aversives. It was also

part of a new medical view that encouraged parents to fix childhood autism, and no

longer blamed them for causing it. Crucially, this occurred just before autistic diagnosis

rates increased dramatically throughout the 1990s and early 2000s (Wing and Potter,

2002). With more and more children being diagnosed as autistic, there were ever-

growing numbers of parents searching for treatments. ABA, marketed to parents as a

small number of simple steps, bore similarities to widespread parenting and teaching

methods of reward and punishment, allowing it to be seen as an apparently intuitive

approach. This, along with ABA’s involvement of parents, its reduced harshness, its

claims of scientific validation and its stories of triumph, ensured that it was soon widely

regarded as the best treatment for autism.

Continuing controversy: ABA in recent years

As ABA became more popular it attracted more controversy. Part of this has been

academic; scientists have continued to argue that the benefits of ABA have been over-

stated (Jordon, 2001; Olsson et al., 2015; Ospina et al., 2008; Weiss, 2006). Several have

attempted, and failed, to reproduce Lovaas’ results (Mudford et al., 2001; see also

Matson and Neal, 2012: 12) while others have highlighted the seemingly low quality

of ABA research; The Institute of Education Sciences concluded there was little high-

quality evidence for the Lovaas model. Still others have criticized the lack of randomized

controlled trials (RCTs) in ABA research (Howlin, 2005), which are considered by many

to be the gold standard of evidence-based medicine.

ABA has always, however, faced some academic disapproval, though this has varied

in degree and kind from the 1960s.8 Since the early 1990s, though, ABA has faced a new

challenge from autistic people themselves. Rather than focusing on the effectiveness of

the therapy, these opponents have argued against the need for any therapy at all; they

consider ABA part of a system that mistakenly considers autism a disease and therefore

take issue with the aims of ABA, though they have also led campaigns against the use of

physical aversives. Such critiques have emerged as autistic people have increasingly

been involved in debates about autism, its categorization and its relation to medicine.

These activists and their allies constitute the ‘autism rights’ or ‘neurodiversity’ move-

ment that has developed in the past 25 years.

Before this, organizations focused on autism did exist, notably the Autism Society of

America (ASA) and the National Autistic Society (NAS) in the UK, both of which were

founded in the 1960s.9 Importantly, these were mainly run by parents of autistic people;

114 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

autistic people themselves were therefore excluded from debates regarding autism (Daw-

son, 2003). From the late 1980s this changed, first through the work of Temple Grandin, an

autistic woman who spoke about autism at conferences and in books (Grandin, 1986). Soon

after, a group of American self-advocates established autistic-run organizations, both online

and off-line, as well as retreats and conferences (Sinclair, 2005). In the UK, too, autistic

people gained new platforms, working with the NAS to launch a publication written and

edited by autistic people (Aspergers United). Individually, autistic people wrote blogs,

autobiographies and speeches that reached wide audiences, while collectively they estab-

lished advocacy groups such as the American Self Advocacy Network (ASAN, n.d. (a)).

Though a diverse group, members of the neurodiversity movement share certain

beliefs. They argue that problems commonly understood as being caused by autistic

behaviour actually stem from a lack of tolerance among non-autistic people. Rejecting

the medical model of autism, they consider it a neutral difference rather than a deficit

(Kapp, 2013). In doing so they draw parallels between the spectrum of neurological

functioning and that of sexuality, arguing that the medicalization of either is wrong. This

argument has been made as the psy-disciplines have increasingly employed cognitive

models, which emphasize different types of brain ‘wiring’ or processes, rather than

discrete pathologies (see Boden, 2006; Gardner, 1987; and Smith, 2013: 243–8). As

Nadesan has argued (2005: 112), this has ‘problematized old boundaries between nor-

malcy and abnormality’ and replaced ‘categories of normalcy and pathology with a

multitude of developmental continua . . . [leading] to a more nuanced’ understanding of ability and intellect.10 This has lent some scientific credence to the neurodiversity

movement; neurodiversity supporters’ understanding of autism as a neutral, nuanced

difference seems more readily compatible to cognitive metaphors of complex, alternate

wiring systems or differences in ‘processing’, than to earlier psychoanalytic ideas of

trauma, or to the behaviourist emphasis on positive and negative actions. Members of the

movement have campaigned on a range of issues, including the relationship between

medicine and autism. Unsurprisingly they have often targeted the best-known medical

treatment for autism: ABA.

Though they reject the curative aims of ABA, some self-advocates have nonetheless

also highlighted its physically abusive qualities. The Autism Friends Network of autistic

self-advocates, for example, states that it is opposed to ‘physically . . . harmful “treatments” targeting autistic people’, suggesting they would be called ‘torture’ if

applied to non-autistic children (Autism Friends Network, 2013). Autistic activist Julia

Bascom (2012: 178) has similarly said that ‘when you’re autistic [ABA] is not therapy,

it’s abuse’. A former ABA practitioner has argued a similar point, saying that the

continued use of physical aversives is abusive. Echoing autistic people who have under-

gone ABA, she concludes that it can leave people ‘traumatised and devalued’ (Socially

Anxious Advocate, 2015).

Importantly, these are criticisms of recent and continuing practices. This is well

illustrated by the campaign led by ASAN against the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC).11

This centre has repeatedly been embroiled in controversy since the early 1990s, having

been investigated by its own governors, the American Food and Drug Administration

and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. Autistic activists argue that there have been a

‘slew of preventable deaths’ in the facility (Neumeier, 2012: 209).12 For example,

Kirkham 115

autistic self-advocate Shain Neumeier (ibid.) alleges that a young woman died of a

perforated stomach ulcer in 1990 after staff allegedly mistook her reactions to the

pain as misbehaviour and consequently subjected her to physical aversives. This

allegation has often been repeated online by self-advocates, who see the case as a

particularly powerful example of the dangers of ABA. More recently the JRC has

become well known as the last remaining American institute where electric shock

therapy is used. ASAN and its supporters have vigorously campaigned against JRC

for this reason and have criticized organizations that support it, including the Asso-

ciation for Behaviour Analysis.

Critics also argue that ABA damages patients psychologically, even when physical

aversives are not used. They suggest ABA practitioners discourage behaviour that is

itself a form of communication; for example, ‘if an autistic child who screams every time

he is taken to the supermarket is trained not to . . . he may still be experiencing pain from the fluorescent lights and crush of strangers’ (Harmon, 2004). Other self-advocates have

supported this view, saying that ABA ‘takes away our voice’ (Bascom, 2012: 182).

Moreover, activists suggest that ABA practitioners wrongly focus on inhibiting unusual

but self-soothing behaviour. Many autistic people, for example, engage in ‘stimming’,

which refers to movements such as flapping hands that they find therapeutic, but which

ABA practitioners discourage. Self-advocates have therefore denounced ABA as abu-

sive on psychological grounds, as well as physical ones. Indeed, it is these self-advocates

that have in particular deployed the term ‘abuse’, tapping into widespread public concern

with child abuse that did not exist in the 1960s. This characterization of ABA parallels a

more general shift and expansion of the concept and categories of child abuse (see

Hacking, 1991).

Some activists believe the issue of physical abuse has distracted society from these

deeper issues within ABA. Michelle Dawson, an influential Canadian autistic activist,

has argued that ABA is not subject to the ethical scrutiny it warrants because of faulty

assumptions that ethical concerns have been ‘dealt with’ now that physical aversives are

rarely used. Dawson publicly argued this, submitting testimony to a Canadian court

arguing against the provision of ABA; the court ruled in agreement with Dawson, citing

her testimony in their decision.13 Her essay ‘The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists –

Ethical Challenges to the Autism – ABA Industry’ has been particularly influential, and

is widely cited by those in the neurodiversity movement (Dawson, n.d.). In it, Dawson

criticizes the arguments ABA proponents have used to bypass ethical considerations; for

example, by arguing that taking consent is unnecessary owing to the severity of autism.

Comparisons between autism and cancer, and between ABA and chemotherapy, are

common in such justifications, and represent the medicalized view of autism Dawson

and other critics reject. Dawson believes it is this view that has led to a lack of RCTs in

ABA research; it is considered immoral to withhold ABA, the best-known treatment,

from children in a control group, meaning full RCTs cannot be conducted.14 Such

decisions, she concludes, cannot be justified without first acknowledging that ABA

needs fuller ethical investigation.

Dawson and other self-advocates take especial issue with the aims of ABA to inhibit

or reduce ‘autistic behaviour’ (e.g. see Dawson, n.d.). Many autistic people see such

behaviour as authentic and harmless representations of their personality, arguing that it is

116 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

only a lack of societal understanding that renders it problematic. ASAN (n.d. (b)), for

example, has stated that ‘autistic children should not have to grow up constantly being

told that their natural behaviours are wrong and they cannot be accepted as who they

are’. Prominent self-advocate Amy Sequenzia has similarly criticized ABA for unjusti-

fiably holding up neurotypical behaviour as an ideal, arguing that its attempt to ‘change

how an autistic acts, reacts or interacts with the world’ is wrong (Sequenzia, 2015). As an

anti-cure ally of the movement has summarized, ‘ABA can only work if we view autism

as a deficit and something that must be removed. Autism is a complex neurological

difference that cannot be moved . . . I don’t agree with the basic tenets of ABA because it is a methodology based in looking at those it treats as deficient and inferior’ (Zurcher,

2012). Some researchers share those concerns; the head of autism research at the London

Institute of Education worries about ‘the underlying ideology of ABA – to make them

indistinguishable from their peers’ (Lambert, 2013). This, she believes is actively harm-

ful. Similarly, Dawson has characterized a societal support of ABA to ‘being in a society

where “blacks have rights so long as they become white”’. Amanda Vivian (2012) has

concluded that ‘it’s wrong to say “cure autism now”. Of course it’s wrong to say autism

is a tragedy, a disease.’ The implication of these arguments is that autistic disability is

better understood through a social rather than medical model.

Given this, activists also denounce other therapies. Treatments condemned by acti-

vists and dismissed as ineffective by scientists include transcranial magnetic stimulation

(Oberman, Rotenberg and Pascual-Leone, 2015), dolphin therapy (Marino and

Lilienfled, 2007), and massage therapy (Lee et al., 2011), as well as the use of drugs,

though this is still common (Broadstock, Doughty and Eggleston, 2007). In North Amer-

ica critics have vociferously campaigned against chelation, the removal of heavy metals

from the bloodstream, following a number of deaths (Willingham, 2012). In France,

similar campaigns have been launched against ‘packing’, the wrapping of autistic chil-

dren in cold, wet sheets (Spinney, 2007). Nonetheless, ABA is most frequently targeted

by self-advocates owing to its popularity and its perceived scientific support.

Some ABA supporters have responded to the allegations levied by the neurodiversity

movement. Christina Burkaba (n.d.), for example, believes the critics are confusing the

‘solid science’ of ABA with Lovaas’ work, which she admits is flawed. She denies that

the normalizing aims of ABA are problematic, arguing that changing behaviour is ‘the

whole point’, as in all education. Richard Hastings (2013), a psychology professor at

Warwick University, similarly says it is ‘people, not approaches or theoretical positions,

that abuse other people’, implying that ABA itself should be defended. Such direct

engagements with the arguments of the neurodiversity movement are rare, however;

most proponents of ABA are enthusiastic and uncritical supporters of the therapy, as

previously indicated. This lack of meaningful dialogue between supporters and detrac-

tors of ABA means that these controversies are unlikely to end soon.

These debates are, of course, shaped by their national setting. Notably, ABA is much

more popular in the USA, as outlined at the beginning of this article. In the UK only a

few organizations, small in number and size, work to promote the therapy and the largest

organization, the NAS, refuses to endorse it. Its website states only that there is contra-

dictory evidence regarding ABA (NAS, n.d.) and suggests critical ways of approaching

the claims made about its effectiveness. It also reminds readers that many autistic people

Kirkham 117

do not consider autism a disease. This contrasts with the American Society of Autism,

which, though less supportive of ABA than newer organizations such as Autism Speaks,

does not question the curative aims of the therapy. The historical factors explaining these

differences are numerous and deeply inter-connected.

First, ABA was developed in the USA, meaning it was able to spread more quickly

through institutions in that country. Lovaas had enthusiastically promoted the therapy in

academic and media spheres, aided by supporters such as Catherine Maurice and Ber-

nard Rimland. These proponents did not have equivalents in the UK, meaning ABA

gained less support, particularly when the evidence alone was not considered conclusive.

Broader differences in healthcare culture between the USA and the UK have also had an

impact. The USA has a relatively open healthcare market, contrasted with the UK’s

nationalized health service. Individual practitioners are therefore more freely able to

promote their therapies through advertising and media engagement. In the UK, the NHS

is obliged to supply only ‘cost-effective’ treatment, which is likely to preclude ABA, a

resource-intensive therapy. America’s private model of healthcare funding is therefore

more likely to fund ABA, particularly as more is spent on healthcare per person in total.

The strong support for ABA in the USA is therefore likely to be part of a larger

systematic difference that allows a wider range of therapies to be given consideration

in medical spheres.

Other institutional forces have shaped this debate. The USA has a large number of

autism-focused organizations competing for funding and media attention. Newer ones,

notably Autism Speaks, have eclipsed less aggressively pro-cure organizations such as the

ASA in both these areas. In the UK meanwhile, the NAS is unrivalled as the national expert

organization for autism. Its reluctance to endorse ABA has therefore limited ABA’s popu-

larity, and is typical of the NAS’s more neurodiversity-friendly approach. The NAS has, in

turn, taken this position because of several historical connections, in particular its close links

to the Institute of Psychiatry and the Maudsley Hospital (Evans, 2014). Researchers at those

institutes in the 1960s were less focused on curing autism, as Bettelheim and Lovaas were

aiming to do at the same time, but instead emphasized the educational policy relevance of

their work (ibid.). Findings from those institutes were used to lobby the government to

provide education for autistic children, a move that emphasized their potential to learn rather

than their need to be cured. Again, these differences link to broader cultural differences in

the USA and the UK, but provide some explanation as to why the ABA debates have

manifested in such different ways across the Atlantic.

Comparisons with other social movements

The criticisms of psychiatric practices and thinking made by autistic self-advocates have

parallels in other social movements based around healthcare. Most similar are those

which also reject an entirely medical, pathologized understanding of their condition.

Surprisingly, few of these groups are referenced by autistic self-advocates in their

publications, despite common ways of understanding, similar chronologies and shared

opponents.

The activism of the parents of autistic people, particularly the parent-led activism of

the 1960s, attempted to influence, rather than reject, the medical model. Since the 1960s,

118 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

parents have positioned themselves as autism experts, and were influential in discredit-

ing ‘parent-blaming’ models of autism. However, self-advocates often position them-

selves in direct opposition to such parent-led organizations (Dawson, 2003). Though

parents of autistic people did challenge medical expertise, they retained a medicalized

model of autism, and de-stigmatized themselves while contributing to an othering of

autistic people (Waltz, 2013). This is in sharp contrast to the self-advocate movement,

which has eschewed the pathologization of autism and has often been in direct conflict

with parent-led groups that continue to emphasize the expertise of parents rather than

autistic people.

Austistic self-advocates have suggested that they are more comfortably aligned with

the gay rights movement; many having drawn parallels between the spectrums of neu-

rological functioning and of sexuality. Arguments made by autistic self-advocates are

also similar to those made by gay activists who campaigned for homosexuality to be de-

pathologized in the 1970s, such as the assertion that homosexuality was medicalized

only due to a societal discomfort with non-conformity (Faderman, 2015), mirroring more

recent arguments made by autistic activists. Homosexuality and autism have older par-

allels, too; both were treated in the 1960s psychoanalytically. ‘Close binding’ mothers

purportedly caused homosexuality in sons at approximately the same time as ‘refrig-

erator mothers’ were believed to cause autism. Activists from both groups have also

specifically targeted behavioural intervention. In 1972, for example, gay activist Ronald

Gold disrupted the Association for the Advancement of Behaviour Therapy to condemn

the individually and societally harmful nature of the therapy (ibid.). These arguments are

strikingly similar to those made by members of the neurodiversity movement more

recently. Though the neurodiversity movement has links to other movements, too, it is

likely that the members deliberately compare themselves to the LGBTþ movement owing to its relatively recent success in de-pathologizing behaviour. This makes it a

more politically useful comparator than newer movements that may not be perceived as

having reached the same levels of success, such as the Hearing Voices Network (Hearing

Voices Network, 2016).

The Hearing Voices movement campaigns against the stigmatization of hearing

voices, a phenomenon medically known as ‘auditory hallucination’ that is commonly

associated with schizophrenia diagnoses. This movement, like the neurodiversity, mental

health service users’ and disability rights organizations, also grew in influence in the late

1980s; 1987 is considered a turning point (Woods, 2013) as the first hearing voices

congress was held that year. The Hearing Voice Network starts from the ‘premise that

hearing voices is a normal variant of behaviour, much like left-handedness’ (Blackman,

2001: 189). This clearly aligns with arguments made about the spectrum of neurological

functioning; both arguments are likely to have been aided by an increasingly cognitive

understanding of mental health. An interesting difference between the two groups,

however, is that autistic self-advocates reject people-first language, referring to them-

selves as autistic people rather than people with autism; the converse is true for many

people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (Saks, 2012). This reveals different methods of

de-stigmatization. ‘People with schizophrenia’ prefer that choice of phrase to, in their

view, historical misconceptions that they are defined by their condition, implicit in the

use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ (Living with Schizophrenia, 2017). By contrast, many

Kirkham 119

autistic people eschew people-first language because they have historically been seen as

‘trapped’ by their condition, arguing instead that it is a fundamental and inseparable part

of them.

The disability rights movement similarly rejects an exclusively medical model of

understanding. Notably, it is considered to have blossomed in the late 1980s (Shapiro,

1993), just a few years before neurodiversity groups emerged in the late 1990s. Both

make similar arguments; that their members can succeed not despite, but because of,

their differences. They also both emphasize the need for inclusion in debates about their

condition. The phrase ‘nothing about us without us’, for example, became well known in

the late 1990s owing to disability rights campaigners (Charlton, 2000; Werner, 1997) but

is now used by many movements, including the neurodiversity movement; the self-

advocate-run ASAN uses it as a motto.

Broader mental health service user groups also challenge medical authority, and

privilege lived experience over professional expertise in a similar way. The late 1980s

and early 1990s also saw a ‘real flowering of service user action’ in mental health groups

(Campbell, 2005: 74). This is a diverse mix of organizations and viewpoints. Some work

closely with medical establishments, while others, such as the anarchist Mad Pride

movement, are more radical, and reject such involvement. Nonetheless, all tend to agree

that, at least in part, societal changes in understanding are needed rather than simply

changing unusual behaviour (Dellar, Curtis and Leslie, 2000). Some also reject the need

for any treatment at all (ibid.), as a number of neurodiversity advocates have also done.

Despite differences in mental health service user groups, they therefore mirror the

neurodiversity movement insofar as they challenge medical authority and expertise.

These examples, however, caution against historically homogenizing social move-

ments based around de-pathologization, despite many similarities in their methodolo-

gies and beliefs.

Conclusion

ABA has changed significantly since its inception. Lovaas, drawing on the work of

earlier behaviourists, developed an unashamedly harsh therapy in the 1960s. It was not

until ABA had largely dropped such aversives, though, that it came to be seen as the

treatment for autism. This success was aided by apparent experimental validation, see-

mingly intuitive methodologies, positive media representations and broader shifts in the

understanding of autism and psychiatry.

The perceived faults of ABA have also changed; early criticisms focused on efficacy

or the use of physical aversives. These challenges have continued, but recent, novel

condemnations of ABA also dispute the curative aims of the therapy. Autistic self-

advocates with this view have been able to make these arguments owing to the estab-

lishment of neurodiversity organizations and modern methods of communication in the

form of online fora and campaign websites, in addition to the support of some large

institutions such as the NAS. The emergence within the psy-disciplines, and wider public

discourse, of cognitive models of understanding difference has also offered a legitimat-

ing scientific language, which has been appropriated by the movement as an alternative

to both behaviourist reductionism and medicalized pathologization. By rejecting medical

120 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

models in this way, autistic activists share many similarities with other movements,

including the earlier campaign to de-pathologize homosexuality and more recent groups

such as the Hearing Voice Network. Like those groups, the neurodiversity movement has

distanced itself from medicine, challenged pathologization and questioned traditional

expertise, while at the same time having mobilized alternative expert discourses from

cognitive psychology to support its agenda. In doing so, it has rejected ABA as unethical

and, ultimately, unnecessary. It is unclear how influential this view has been beyond

groups of the neurodiversity movement. In the UK, where ABA has never before been

popular, there are some signs that demand for the therapy has increased, but the reluctance

of the NAS to endorse ABA has limited any significant improvement in its status. ABA

was developed, and remains popular, in North America, however, where there is more

scope for competing theories to co-exist, compared with in the UK; this is in part owing to

differences in medical funding. Though organizations such as ASAN and activists such as

Michelle Dawson have had public successes in their fight against the pro-cure viewpoint,

ABA continues to be widely accepted across the country. The debates about ABA have

continued to rage, therefore, in arenas from courtrooms to schools, charity publications to

online fora, offering a prism through which to see how definitions of pathology, therapy

and abuse have become increasingly contested in relation to autism.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article: The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support

of Pembroke College, Cambridge and the Department of History and Philosophy of Science,

University of Cambridge.

Notes

1. The title quotation is from Autism Mythbusters (n.d.), The Truth About ABA (see References).

2. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), though often seen to

represent a psychiatric consensus, is not universally used for autism diagnoses, even when

considering only anglophone countries.

3. Clinical psychologists at the Institute of Psychiatry did also utilize behavioural techniques for

the treatment of autism in the late 1980s, but the focus was instead on the use of language-

based operant techniques (Howlin and Rutter, 1989).

4. As discussed in Dixon, Vogel and Tarbox (2012); see also for a brief, broad overview of the

academic origins of functional analysis, and as well as the work of Fuller, Ferster, and Ayllon

and Michael.

5. The ‘refrigerator mother’ was first discussed in Bettelheim (1967), and the idea that mothers

caused schizophrenia, at that time seen as closely related to autism, was first discussed in

Fromm-Reichman (1948). For further discussion see Staub (2011: 43).

6. The following paragraphs draw heavily on the work on Silberman (2015: 280–8), who

recounts the work of Lovaas in detail as part of his broader history of autism. Departing from

Silberman, this article takes ABA itself as the central object of exploration, as well as self-

advocate responses to the therapy.

7. The ‘Feminine Boy Project’, led by George Rekers, has been discussed in detail by Szalavaitz

(2011), Dawson (n.d.) and, in relation to Lovaas, Silberman (2015: 319–23).

Kirkham 121

8. Professor William Yule, a collaborator on the Institute of Psychiatry’s autism research

project in the 1980s, has retrospectively argued that ABA had little uptake in the United

Kingdom because researchers were skeptical about the evidence for its efficacy (Yule,

2015).

9. The histories of these organizations are discussed in Silverman (2012) and Dolnick (1998).

10. Psychology texts that emphasize differences rather than deficits include, for example, Gardner

(2000).

11. The full range of material relating to the JRC produced by ASAN, including accounts from

survivors and letters sent to government departments, accessed 21 October 2015, is accessible

at: http://autisticadvocacy.org/tag/jrc/

12. For a detailed history of the JRC, consult Neumeier (2012).

13. Full details about this court case, accessed 21 October 2015, are accessible at: http://www.

sentex.net/*nexus23/naa_sup.html and http://www.sentex.net/*nexus23/naa_fac.html 14. The comparisons mentioned by Dawson are often made by parent-activists rather than self-

advocates. Dawson’s argument that such non-medical activism has impacted upon ABA

research parallels Epstein’s arguments that AIDs activists similarly influenced the design of

medical trials (Epstein, 1998).

References

Allure, A. (2014) ‘Parents of Autistic Children Fight for Treatment in an Unforgiving Market’, The

Guardian [online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://www.theguardian.com/

money/2014/apr/21/autism-children-parents-therapy-insurance-treatment

ASAN (n.d. (a)) ‘Our History’ [online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://autisticad

vocacy.org/home/about-asan/our-history/

ASAN (n.d. (b)) Position Statements, ASAN Website [online], accessed 21 October 2015, acces-

sible at: http://autisticadvocacy.org/policy-advocacy/position-statements/

‘Author Unknown’ (1965) ‘Screams, Slaps and Love: A Surprising, Shocking Treatment Helps

Far-gone Mental Cripples’, Life [online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://neu

rodiversity.com/library_screams_1965.html

Autism (n.d.) ABA (PRT method) for autism [online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at:

http://www.autism.net.au/Autism_ABA.htm

Autism Friends Network (2013) AFN Goals and Aims [online], accessed 22 March 2017, acces-

sible at: http://autismfriendsnetwork.biz/portal.php

Autism Mythbusters (n.d) The Truth About ABA [online], accessed 27 January 2015, accessible at:

http://autismmythbusters.com/parents/therapy/the-truth-about-aba/

Autism Speaks (n.d.) Applied Behaviour Analysis [online], Accessed 27 January 2015, accessible

at: https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/treatment/applied-behavior-analysis-aba

Autism Truths (n.d.) Summary of Treatments for Autism [online], accessed 27 January 2015,

accessible at: http://www.autismtruths.org/index.php?p¼SummaryofTreatmentsforAutism RamKairamMD

Ayllon, T. and Michael, J. (1959) ‘The Psychiatric Nurse as a Behavioural Engineer’, Journal of

Experimental Analysis of Behaviour 2: 323–34.

Bascom, J. (2012) ‘Quiet Hands’, in J. Bascom (ed.) Loud Hands: Autistic People, Speaking.

Washington, DC: the Autistic Press, pp. 177–83.

122 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

Benyon, L. (2014) ‘How a Controversial Therapy Has Changed my Autistic Daughter’s Life’, The

Express [online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/

life/490359/applied-behaviour-analysis-helped-daughters-autism

Bettelheim, B. (1967) The Empty Fortress. London: Free Press.

Blackman, L. (2001) Hearing Voices: Embodiment and Experience. London: Free Association.

Boden, M. A. (2006) Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Broadstock, M., Doughty, C. and Eggleston, M. (2007) ‘Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of

Pharmacological Treatments for Adolescents and Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder’,

Autism 11(4): 335–48.

Buchanan, R. (2010) Playing with Fire: The Controversial History of Hans Eysenck. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Burkaba, C. (n.d.) History [online], accessed 21 January 2016, accessible at: http://www.christi

naburkaba.com/History.htm

Campbell, P. (2005) ‘From Little Acorns: The Mental Health Service User Movement’, in A. Bell

and P. Lindley (eds) Beyond the Water Towers. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health;

available online, accessed 17 May 2016, accessible at: http://studymore.org.uk/pcacorns.pdf

Charlton, J. (2000) Nothing About Us Without Us. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dawson, M. (n.d.) ‘The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists – Ethical Challenges to the Autism-ABA

Industry’, [online] accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://www.sentex.net/*nexus23/ naa_aba.html

Dawson, M. (2003) ‘Bettelheim’s Worst Crime: Autism and the Epidemic of Responsibility’,

[online], accessed 27 January 2015, accessible at: http://www.sentex.net/*nexus23/md_01. html

Dellar, R., Curtis, T. and Leslie, E., eds (2000) Mad Pride: A Celebration of Mad Culture. London:

Chipmunk Publishing.

DeMyer, M. K., Barton, S., Alpern, G. D., et al. (1974) ‘The Measured Intelligence of Autistic

Children’, Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia 4(1):42–60.

Dixon, D., Vogel, T. and Tarbox, J. (2012) ‘A Brief History of Functional Analysis and Applied

Behaviour Analysis’, in J. L. Matson (ed.) Functional Assessment For Challenging Behaviors.

Autism and Child Psychopathology series. New York and London: Springer. (Springer science

and business media) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3037-7_2.

Dolnick, E. (1998) Madness on the Couch: Blaming the Victim in the Heyday of Psychoanalysis.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Donnellan, A. (1988) Progress without Punishment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Donvan, J. and Zucker, C. (2016) In a Different Key: The Story of Autism. London: Allen Lane.

Epstein, S. (1998) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Evans, B. (2013) ‘How Autism Became Autism’, History of the Human Sciences 26(3): 3–31.

Evans, B. (2014) ‘The Foundations of Autism’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 88(2): 253–85.

Eyal, G. (2010) The Autism Matrix. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Eysenck, H. J. and Rachman, J. (1965) The Causes and Cures of Neurosis. San Diego, CA: R. R.

Knapp.

Faderman, L. (2015) The Gay Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Feinstein, A. (2011) A History of Autism: Conversations with the Pioneers. Oxford: Wiley.

Kirkham 123

Ferster, C. (1961) ‘Positive Reinforcement and Behavioural Deficits of Autistic Children’, Child

Development 32: 437–56.

Freudenheim, M. (2004) ‘Battling Insurers over Autism Treatment’, The New York Times [online],

accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/business/bat

tling-insurers-over-autism-treatment.html

Fromm-Reichman, F. (1948) ‘Notes on the Development of Treatment of Schizophrenics by

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy’, Psychiatry 11: 263–73.

Fuller, P. R. (1949) ‘Operant Conditioning of a Vegetative Human Organism’, The American

Journal of Psychology 62: 578–90.

Gardner, H. (1987) The Mind’s New Science. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2000) Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York:

Basic Books.

Grandin, T. (1986) Emergence: Labelled Autistic. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Hacking, I. (1991) ‘The Making and Molding of Child Abuse’, Critical Inquiry 17(2): 253–88.

Hacking, I. (1999) The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hacking, I. (2013) ‘Making Up Autism’ [podcast], audio accessed 17 May 2016, accessible at:

http://www.bshs.org.uk/podcast-professor-ian-hacking-making-up-autism

Harmon, A. (2004) ‘How About Not Curing Us, Some Autistics are Pleading’, New York Times

[online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/20/health/

how-about-not-curing-us-some-autistics-are-pleading.html

Hastings, R. (2013) ‘Autism and Evidence 5:15 Criticisms of ABA and Some Responses’,

[online], accessed 21 January 2016, accessible at: http://profhastings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/

autism-and-evidence-5-15-criticisms-of.html

Hearing Voices Network (2016) accessed 4 November 2016, accessible at: http://www.hearing-

voices.org/

Horwitz, A. (2013) Anxiety: A Short History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Howlin, P. (2005) ‘The Effectiveness of Interventions for Children with Autism’, J Nueral Transm

Suppl. 69: 101–19.

Howlin, P. and Rutter, M. (1989) Treatment of Autistic Children. Chichester, Sx: Wiley.

Jordon, R. (2001) ‘Book Reviews: Parents’ Education as Autism Therapists: Applied Behaviour

Analysis in Context by M. Keenan et al.’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42(2): 421–3.

Kapp, S. (2013) ‘Deficit, Difference or Both? Autism and Neurodiversity’, Developmental

Psychology 49(1): 59–71.

Lambert, C. (2013) ‘Is it Right to Try to Normalise Autism?’, The Guardian [online], accessed 21

October 2015, accessible at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/29/specialeduca

tionneeds-autism

Lee, S., et al. (2011) ‘Massage Therapy for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A

Systematic Review’, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 72(3): 406–11, [online] accessed 21

October 2015, accessible at: http://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2011/v72n03/

v72n0318.aspx

Living with Schizophrenia (2017) Schizophrenia and Language [online], accessed 10 March 2017,

accessible at: https://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/advice-sheets/schizophrenia-and-lan

guage/#

Lovaas, O. I. (1966) ‘Establishment of Social Reinforcers in Two Schizophrenic Children on the

Basis of Food’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 4(4): 109–225.

124 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)

Lovaas, O. I (1974) interviewed by Paul Chance, Psychology Today 7 (January); accessed 8

August 2016, accessible at: “http://neurodiversity.com/library_chance_1974.html

Lovaas, O. I. (1987) ‘Behavioural Treatment and Normal Educational and Intellectual Functioning

in Young Autistic Children’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55(1): 3–9.

Marino, L. and Lilienfled, S. (2007) ‘Dolphin Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More

Flawed Conclusions’, Anthrozoos 20(3): 239–49 [online], accessed 21 October 2015, acces-

sible at: http://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2011/v72n03/v72n0318.aspx,

Marks, S. (2015) ‘Psychologists as Therapists: The Development of Behavioural Traditions’, in J.

Hall, D. Pilgrim and G. Turpin (eds) Clinical Psychology in Britain: Historical Perspectives.

Leicester: BPS Books, pp. 194–207.

Matson, J. and Neal, D. (2012) ‘History and Overview’, in J. Matson (ed.) Applied Behaviour

Analysis for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. New York: Springer, pp. 1–15.

Maurice, C. (1994) Let Me Hear Your Voice: A Family’s Triumph Over Autism, 2nd edn.

New York: Ballantine Books.

McPhilemy, C. and Dillenburger, K. (2013) ‘Parents’ Experiences of Applied Behaviour Analysis

(ABA)- Based Interventions for Children Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder’, British

Journal of Special Education 40(4): 154–61.

Mudford, O., et al. (2001) ‘Parent-management Behavioural Treatment for Pre-school Children

with Autism: Some Characteristics of UK Programs’, Research in Developmental Disabilities

22: 173–82.

Murray, S. (2012) Autism. Oxford: Routledge.

Nadesan, M. (2005) Constructing Autism. Oxford: Routledge.

NAS (n.d.) NAS Website, [online], accessed 21 January 2016, accessible at: http://www.autism.

org.uk/get-involved/media-centre/position-statements/interventions.aspx

Neumeier (2012) ‘Inhumane Beyond all Reason: The Torture of Autistics and Other People With

Disabilities at the Judge Rotenberg Centre’, in J. Bascom (ed.) Loud Hands: Autistic People,

Speaking. Washington, DC: the Autistic Press, pp. 204–23.

Oberman, L., Rotenberg, A. and Pascual-Leone, A. (2015) ‘Use of Transcranial Magnetic

Stimulation in Autism Spectrum Disorders’, Journal of Autism and Developmental

Disorders 45(2): 524–36.

Olsson, M., et al. (2015) ‘“Recovery” From the Diagnosis of Autism – and Then?”’,

Neuropsychiatry. Dis. Treat. 7(11): 999–1005.

Ospina, M., et al. (2008) ‘Behavioural and Developmental Interventions for Autism Spectrum

Disorder: A Clinical Systematic Review, PLoS ONE 3: 11, [online], accessed 21 October 2015,

accessible at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id¼10.1371/journal.pone.0003755 Risley, T. (1968) ‘The Effects and Side-effects of Punishing the Autistic Behaviours of a Deviant

Child’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Analysis 1: 21–34.

Rutter, M. (1972) ‘Childhood Schizophrenia Reconsidered’, Journal of Autism and Developmental

Disorders 2: 315–37.

Saks, E. (2012) ‘Elyn Saks: A Tale of Mental Illness – From the Inside [video], accessed 17 May

2016, accessible at: https://www.ted.com/talks/elyn_saks_seeing_mental_illness?language¼en Sequenzia, A. (2015) ‘My Thoughts on ABA’, Autism Womens Network [online], accessed 21

October 2015, accessible at: http://autismwomensnetwork.org/my-thoughts-on-aba/

Shapiro, J. (1993) No Pity. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Silberman, S. (2015) Neurotribes. London: Allen & Unwin.

Kirkham 125

Silverman, C. (2012) Understanding Autism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sinclair, J. (2005) ‘Autism Network International: The Development of a Community and its

Culture, ANI Website [online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://www.autismnet

workinternational.org/History_of_ANI.html,

Skinner, B. F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York:

Appleton-Century.

Smith, R. (1997) The Fontana History of the Human Sciences. London: Fontana Press.

Smith, R. (2013) Between Mind and Nature: A History of Psychology. London: Reaktion Books.

Socially Anxious Advocate (2015) ‘Why I Left ABA’, [online], accessed 21 October 2015,

accessible at: https://sociallyanxiousadvocate.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/why-i-left-aba/

Spinney, L. (2007) ‘Therapy for Autistic Children Causes Outcry in France’, The Lancet

370(09588): 645–6.

Staub, M. (2011) Madness is Civilization: When the Diagnosis was Social, 1948–1980. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Szalavaitz, M. (2011) ‘The Sissy-boy Experiment: Why Gender-related Cases Call for Scientists’

Humility’, Time [online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://healthland.time.com/

2011/06/08/the-sissy-boy-experiment-why-gender-related-cases-call-for-scientists-humility

Timimi, S., Gardner, N. and McCabe, B. (2011) The Myth of Autism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

USCB (n.d.) Celebrity Events [online], accessed 27 January 2015, accessible at: http://education.

ucsb.edu/autism/celebrity-events

Vivian, A. (2012) ‘They Hate You. Yes, You’, in J. Bascom (ed.) Loud Hands: Autistic People,

Speaking. Washington, DC: the Autistic Press, pp. 183–9.

Waltz, M. (2013) Autism: A Social and Medical History. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weiss, M. J. (2006) ‘The Relationship between Early Learning Rates and Treatment Outcome for

Children with Autism Receiving Intensive Home-based Applied Behaviour Analysis’, The

Behaviour Analyst Today 7(1): 96–110.

Werner, D. (1997) Nothing About Us Without Us. Palo Alto, CA: Healthwrights.

Willingham, E. (2012) ‘No Evidence Supporting Chelation As Autism Treatment’, Forbes

[online], accessed 21 October 2015, accessible at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywilling

ham/2012/11/30/no-evidence-supporting-chelation-as-autism-treatment/,

Wing, L. and Potter, D. (2002) ‘The Epidemiology of Autistic Spectrum Disorders: Is the Prevalence

Rising?’, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 8(3): 151–61.

Woods, A. (2013) ‘The Voice Hearer’, Journal of Mental Health 22(3): 263–70.

Yule, W. (2015) Personal communication with the author (1 October).

Zurcher, A. (2012) ‘Tackling that Troublesome Issue of ABA and Ethics’, Emma’s Hope Book

[online], accessed 27 January 2015, accessible at: http://emmashopebook.com/2012/10/10/tack

ling-that-troublesome-issue-of-aba-and-ethics/

Author biography

Patrick Kirkham holds an MPhil in the History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science,

Technology and Medicine from the University of Cambridge, where his dissertation focused on

the history of the neurodiversity movement. He also holds a BA in Natural Sciences. Patrick works

as a policy advisor in the civil service and undertook this research as an independent scholar. This

is his first published article.

126 History of the Human Sciences 30(2)