The Reinforcement of Ableism: Normality, the Medical Model of Disability, and Humanism in Applied Behavior Analysis and ASD.
ABA's old philosophy can quietly push 'normal' as the goal—swap in humanistic language and qualitative checks to fix it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Shyman (2016) wrote a theory paper. He asked: does ABA's own philosophy accidentally hurt autistic people?
He looked at three big ideas: normality, the medical model, and humanism. He argued that ABA often treats 'normal' as the goal. That view can silence autistic voices.
What they found
The paper says ABA must add humanistic values. That means seeing each person as a full human, not a list of deficits.
Without this shift, our field may keep pushing 'ableist' goals—standards built on non-autistic bodies and minds.
How this fits with other research
Vassos et al. (2023) gives you the exact words to use. Swap 'co-occurring' for 'co-morbid.' Say 'high support needs,' not 'low functioning.' Their list turns Eric's call into daily practice.
D'Agostino et al. (2025) shows how to do it. Add short interviews about identity and power to your study design. You collect numbers and stories side-by-side.
Arnold-Saritepe et al. (2026) adds the proof. Qualitative quotes boost social validity scores. Stakeholders feel heard, so they buy into interventions.
Durand (1982) set the stage. That paper told us to keep 'permanent philosophic doubt.' Shyman (2016) aims that doubt at ableism—an update, not a fight.
Why it matters
Next time you write a goal, check the language. Does it chase 'normal' or support autistic thriving? Add one interview question: 'What matters most to you?' Use the answer to shape the behavior plan. You keep the science and lose the ableism.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Change one deficit label in your session notes to a neutral phrase (e.g., 'non-speaking' for 'non-verbal').
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The field of educating individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder has ever been rife with controversy regarding issues ranging from etiology and causation to effective intervention and education options. One such basis for controversy has been between humanism, and humanistic philosophical concepts, and its fundamental differences with behaviorism, and behavioristic philosophical concepts. These differences have long been debated, and the belief that the two orientations are generally mutually exclusive has been largely maintained. Recently, however, there has been some resurgence of interest in reconciling some of the fundamental humanistic and behavioristic tenets. Most of these discussions, however, center on specific interventional methodologies as its basis without delving more deeply into the underlying philosophical issues. This article will explore some fundamental humanistic concepts that ought to be reconciled in order for behaviorism to be considered a humanistic practice. While the notion that the possibility of reconciliation is maintained, the central argument maintains that much work needs to be done on the part of behaviorism both philosophically and methodologically in order for such reconciliation to be achieved.
Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-54.5.366