Travers Jason, Tincani Matt
Department of Teaching and Learning, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA USA.
Department of Psychological Studies in Education, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA.
Perspect Behav Sci. 2025 Aug 18;48(3):641-653. doi: 10.1007/s40614-025-00468-y. eCollection 2025 Sep.
This commentary critically appraises attacks on applied behavior analysis (ABA) from outside and-increasingly-within the field. Commonly repeated attacks are that ABA is coercive and suppresses individual identity, aligns with the medical model, causes trauma, and, in more extreme cases, constitutes abuse. We illustrate how these claims are based on unfounded criticism and longstanding myths about ABA and stand in direct contrast to the empirical foundations of behavior analysis. We also highlight how such criticism conflicts with over half a century of evidence that ABA supports autonomy and enhances wellbeing of people with autism and developmental disabilities. We call for self-reflection among well-meaning behavior analysts who repeat such criticisms and greater attention to evidence-based practice.
本评论批判性地评估了来自该领域外部以及(越来越多地)内部对应用行为分析(ABA)的攻击。常见的反复出现的攻击观点包括:ABA具有强制性且压制个体身份认同,与医学模式一致,会造成创伤,在更极端的情况下,还构成虐待。我们阐述了这些说法是如何基于对ABA毫无根据的批评和长期存在的误解,并且与行为分析的实证基础形成直接对比。我们还强调了这种批评如何与半个多世纪以来的证据相冲突,这些证据表明ABA支持自主性并增进自闭症和发育障碍患者的福祉。我们呼吁那些重复此类批评的善意行为分析师进行自我反思,并更加关注循证实践。