Television's Mixed Messages: Choose the Best and Mute the Rest
Prime-time television boosts non-proven autism treatments and buries ABA, so assume families arrive misinformed.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Schreck et al. (2016) watched hours of national TV clips that talked about autism.
They counted how often each treatment was shown and whether the show said it was proven.
The team looked at news, talk shows, and magazine programs aired over several years.
What they found
TV segments praised gluten-free diets, chelation, and other fad fixes far more than ABA.
When ABA did appear, hosts rarely explained how strong the science behind it is.
Parents who rely on television leave with more hype than facts.
How this fits with other research
Nordahl-Hansen et al. (2018) found the same problem in fiction: autistic characters on dramas often reinforce miracle-cure hopes.
Pham et al. (2019) showed that online search results can also weaken parents’ trust in doctors, matching TV’s power to steer families away from evidence.
Lee et al. (2022) discovered that most web pages about feeding skip autism-specific needs, so both TV and the internet leave big gaps families must fill elsewhere.
Why it matters
If families first hear about diets and bleach on TV, they may delay starting ABA.
You can save time by asking, “What have you seen about autism on television?” and then clearing up myths right away.
Hand parents a one-page comparison sheet: left side lists TV favorites, right side shows what research actually supports.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one question to your intake form: “Name any autism treatments you’ve seen on TV or online.”
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Media consistently influences peoples' choices from what to buy, to the state of the social world, to treatment choices for people with mental health problems or autism. This study investigated television networks' (i.e., National Broadcasting Company, American Broadcasting Company, and Columbia Broadcasting System) representation of non‐scientifically and scientifically supported treatments for autism. Transcripts (N = 312) from 2000 to 2012 were analyzed for the inclusion of autism treatment keywords and negative or positive comments about treatments. Results indicated that networks used the most keywords about applied behavior analysis (ABA), with diet therapies a close second. Trends over the 12‐year span showed increased coverage of non‐scientifically supported treatments. Similar positive and negative descriptive words were used for both ABA and non‐scientifically supported treatments with trends decreasing over the 12 years for both positive and negative terms about ABA. The results indicate that parents continue to receive inaccurate information about effective treatments for children with autism. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behavioral Interventions, 2016 · doi:10.1002/bin.1449