The search for the etiology of autism.

Schalock (2004) stages a debate. One side says autism comes only from learning history. The other side says genes, brain chemistry, and toxins also matter.

The paper is a conversation, not an experiment. It asks: do we need only behavior principles, or do we add biology?

No winner is declared. The field is split. Some clinicians hold a pure verbal-behavior view. Others use a gene-plus-environment view.

The author tells readers to keep both tools in the bag.

Joosten et al. (2009) contradicts the pure-learning claim. Twin data show an early environmental hit on top of genes.

Lecavalier et al. (2006) piles on with brain-chemistry data. Serotonin and other markers weaken a behavior-only story.

Erickson et al. (2016) extends the debate. It turns autism into three measurable interaction traits: spacing, eye contact, timing. This gives numbers where Schalock (2004) gives arguments.

Mulder et al. (2020) adds a twist. Babies later diagnosed often look “easy” at six months. After diagnosis they show more negative affect. The pure-learning view cannot explain that flip.

You do not have to pick a side. Use ABA to shape verbal behavior, but screen for sleep issues, toxin history, and family genetics. When progress stalls, think beyond contingencies. A fuller picture protects your client and your treatment plan.