Applied Behavior Analysis at a Crossroads: Reform, Branding, and the Future of Behavior Analysis
Stop picking sides between reform brands—blend the best pieces into one clear, data-driven practice standard.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Graber et al. (2025) wrote a position paper. They looked at the many new reform brands inside ABA. Brands like 'trauma-informed ABA,' 'neurodiversity-affirming ABA,' and 'compassionate ABA' each have their own slogans and training tracks.
The authors asked: Are these brands helping us or splitting us into silos? They reviewed public statements, training manuals, and social-media posts from each camp.
What they found
The paper argues that competing brands are creating walls, not bridges. Each group pushes its own checklist and vocabulary. New RBTs hear conflicting advice. Supervisors waste time defending 'their' brand instead of sharing data.
The authors warn that the field risks repeating the old basic-versus-applied split, but now inside the practitioner camp itself.
How this fits with other research
Mazefsky (2015) celebrated our 1970s exit from psychology. That move gave us our own board and credentials. Graber et al. say we now risk new mini-exits inside ABA itself.
Symons et al. (2005) showed JABA and JEAB barely cite each other. The same silo pattern is showing up again, now between reform brands.
Regaçao et al. (2025) urge stimulus-equivalence and RFT camps to merge. Graber et al. make the same plea, but for practice brands instead of theories. Both 2025 papers say 'stronger together.'
Why it matters
You can waste hours debating which brand is 'right.' Instead, pick the best parts from each camp and write one clear supervision manual. Share it with your team next Monday. One shared protocol beats three rival checklists every time.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open a shared doc, list the top five procedures from each reform brand you like, and merge them into one single supervision checklist.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In recent years, public concerns about applied behavior analysis (ABA) have intensified. This article argues that foundational principles of ABA require behavior analysts to take seriously these concerns and actively work to improve our practices. We provide an overview of ongoing reform efforts and examine how these efforts have led to the emergence of distinct brands within the field. Although these reformist efforts signal a commitment to ethical progress, they also raise concerns about the proliferation of competing credentials, conferences, and professional affiliations, which could increase confusion among clients, practitioners, and policymakers. We argue that although branding within ABA may be an expected and ultimately benign response to shifting ethical and practical norms, it also carries the potential to faction reformist efforts and further divide the field, rather than promote our collective advancement toward ever-better practices. Thus, our goals are to: (1) raise awareness around the potentialities of siloing advancements under competing labels, and (2) suggest that an integrated approach synthesizing reformist insights into a cohesive framework may have the greatest impact on advancing the whole field’s understanding of best practice.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40614-025-00462-4