10 Thoughts About ABA Therapy for Neurodiverse Persons

As someone who has followed the debates around Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and neurodiversity for years, I have strong feelings about the ongoing discussions. Recently, an article titled Affirming Neurodiversity within Applied Behavior Analysis sparked significant controversy within the autistic community. Here are my 10 thoughts on why ABA therapy and affirming neurodiversity may be fundamentally incompatible.

1. ABA Cannot Affirm Neurodiversity Without Changing Fundamentally

ABA therapy was created to modify behavior, often with the goal of making autistic individuals appear more neurotypical. The core of ABA—compliance training and behavior modification—clashes with the philosophy of neurodiversity, which values all brain types without the need for "normalization." ABA’s traditional framework simply cannot affirm neurodiversity without becoming something completely different.

2. Who Is Representing Neurodiversity?

The academic article claims to be written by a “neurodiverse” team, but upon closer inspection, it’s made up of two neurotypical authors and one neurodivergent individual whose identity is not disclosed. This makes me question the article’s authenticity in representing neurodivergent voices—especially autistic voices, which are notably absent among the authors.

3. Neurodiversity vs. Neurodivergence: Let’s Get It Right

The authors of the paper confuse the terms "neurodiversity" and "neurodivergence." Neurodiversity includes everyone, regardless of neurological status, while neurodivergence specifically refers to those whose brains function differently (e.g., autistic individuals, those with ADHD). By mixing up these terms, the authors fail to grasp the inclusivity of the neurodiversity movement.

4. Autistic Activists Are Rightfully Angry

Many autistic activists are outraged by this article, feeling that it appropriates anti-ABA arguments in order to justify continuing ABA in a slightly altered form. For many of us, this feels disingenuous and like an attempt to whitewash ABA’s damaging history.

5. ABA Often Seeks to Erase Autistic Identity

One of the harshest criticisms of ABA is that it seeks to erase autistic identity by training individuals to mimic neurotypical behaviors. This erasure ignores the unique emotional, sensory, and physical experiences of being autistic. By aiming for "normalization," ABA undermines neurodivergent self-acceptance.

6. ABA’s Compliance Focus is Harmful

ABA’s strong focus on compliance can be deeply damaging. It teaches autistic people, especially children, that they must always say “yes” to authority, even when it violates their boundaries or causes discomfort. This has long-term negative effects, conditioning them to ignore their own needs and consent, making them more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

7. Parents Are Pressured Into Choosing ABA

Many parents are coerced into choosing ABA because it is often the only therapy covered by insurance. This creates a lack of genuine choice, as parents are frequently told ABA is the only "scientifically proven" option, even when there are ethical concerns and numerous criticisms from autistic advocates.

8. Can “Neurodiversity-Affirming ABA” Really Exist?

The authors of the paper suggest “neurodiversity-affirming ABA,” but the very idea raises a fundamental contradiction. If ABA’s goal is to modify behavior and enforce compliance, how can it simultaneously teach self-advocacy and respect for a person's right to withdraw consent? Teaching people to say “no” while also expecting them to comply is inherently contradictory.

9. Assessing Client Consent: A Step in the Right Direction, But Not ABA

One of the proposed practices in the paper is assessing a client’s consent and honoring their right to withdraw it. While this is a beautiful idea—rewarding someone for asserting their boundaries—it directly conflicts with ABA’s core principles. If you reinforce a client’s withdrawal of consent, you’re no longer doing ABA, as its foundation relies on shaping compliance, not autonomy.

10. ABA Cannot Teach Self-Acceptance and Still Be ABA

The ultimate conclusion is that ABA, in its current form, cannot promote self-acceptance, self-advocacy, or neurodiversity while maintaining its focus on behavior modification. If a therapist truly empowers a client to say "no," promotes self-confidence, and respects their boundaries, they are no longer practicing ABA as it was originally intended.

Final Thoughts: Where Do We Go From Here?

As the debate rages on, I find myself torn between wanting to support any attempt to reform harmful practices and feeling uneasy about how these efforts might be used to obscure ABA’s long-standing issues. What we need now is transparency. How are the authors of the paper actually implementing their so-called “neurodiversity-affirming ABA” in practice? Show us how this new version truly benefits neurodiverse clients and not the private equity companies buying up ABA businesses — and jeopardizing practitioners who offer up effective social-relational parent mediated interventions that are backed by solid research. 

Until then, I remain skeptical. Real change for neurodiverse people comes from accepting who we are—not from therapies that attempt to make us something we’re not. If you are interested in getting support for the neurodiverse young adult in your life, click this link to learn more about our program starting September 30, 2024.

Mara McLoughlin