The Three Fundamental Flaws of ABA: Why It Will Always Be Harmful
Dr. Scott Frasard is an autistic autism advocate who is a published author and an outspoken critic of operant conditioning approaches to change natural autistic behaviors to meet neuronormative social expectations.
This is my steadfast position: Applied behavior analysis (ABA) cannot be fixed, because it was broken from the start. If you strip ABA down to its core, you’ll find three fundamental, inescapable flaws:
It uses neuronormative standards to define “acceptable” behavior.
It is rooted in behaviorism, a flawed teaching philosophy that ignores cognition, emotion, and intrinsic motivation.
It violates autonomy and self-determination, forcing compliance over self-advocacy.
These are not minor issues that can be “fixed” with softer techniques, more rewards, or kinder practitioners. They are built into the very foundation of ABA, which is why, regardless of how much it’s rebranded or modified, it remains fundamentally harmful. As long as these core flaws exist, ABA will always be an unethical, coercive practice that undermines the well-being of those subjected to it.
This isn’t just an abstract debate for me. As a social constructivist, I believe learning happens in relationships—through meaning-making, dialogue, and shared experiences, not through conditioned compliance. True learning happens when people are active participants in their own growth, not passive recipients of externally imposed lessons. Learning should be about exploration, curiosity, and empowerment. ABA does the opposite. It strips away agency and forces autistic individuals into predefined boxes without giving them the chance to discover themselves, make their own choices, or engage with the world on their own terms.
Flaw #1: ABA Defines “Acceptable” Behavior Using a Neuronormative Standard
At its core, ABA operates on the assumption that autistic ways of being are inherently wrong and must be corrected. It defines “progress” in terms of how well an autistic person can appear neurotypical—how much they can suppress stimming, make eye contact, or engage in socially expected small talk. This is not about helping autistic people thrive—it’s about making them palatable to the neurotypical world.
ABA doesn’t measure success based on whether an autistic person is happy, fulfilled, or truly learning; it measures success by how much they conform to neurotypical expectations. Imagine if a therapy existed for left-handed people where the entire goal was to make them act right-handed. No matter how much “praise” or “reinforcement” they got for using their right hand, it wouldn’t change the fact that their natural way of being was treated as a problem. That’s exactly what ABA does to autistic people.
A truly ethical approach would start with the assumption that autistic ways of being are valid and worthy of respect—full stop. Learning should begin with the individual, honoring their lived experience and the ways they naturally engage with the world. But ABA, by design, does not allow for this. It forces autistic people into a framework where their natural state is seen as broken or incorrect, and no amount of reward-based teaching can make that acceptable.
Flaw #2: Behaviorism is an Outdated, Dehumanizing Teaching Philosophy
The entire foundation of ABA is behaviorism—the idea that learning happens through reinforcement and punishment, without the need to consider a person’s thoughts, emotions, or intrinsic motivations.
Behaviorism assumes that people are nothing more than input-output machines who can be trained to behave in desirable ways. It doesn’t consider why an autistic person might engage in a certain behavior. It doesn’t seek to understand their inner world. It reduces learning to a process of stimulus and response, completely ignoring that real human growth comes from curiosity, intrinsic motivation, and meaningful engagement. As a social constructivist, I reject this view entirely. I believe learning happens when people engage in relationships, when they have the space to question, reflect, and connect ideas in a way that is meaningful to them. Learning is not about control—it’s about empowerment.
In ABA, autistic people are not given the chance to construct their own understanding of the world. Instead, they are trained to react in a way that pleases others, conditioned to respond to external reinforcement rather than developing an internal sense of why something matters. This approach does long-term damage. Autistic people who go through ABA often struggle with:
Decision-making skills because they were never taught to think critically—just to respond correctly.
Emotional regulation because their internal experiences were ignored in favor of controlling external behaviors.
Intrinsic motivation because they were conditioned to act for rewards, not because they understood or valued the action itself.
In any ethical model of education, the goal should be to support people in developing their own perspectives, making informed choices, and understanding their own needs. ABA prevents this by reducing learning to a mechanical process, rather than a dynamic, relational experience.
Flaw #3: ABA Violates Autonomy and Self-Determination
Consent is a fundamental human right. But ABA is designed to override consent at every turn. Someone in ABA does not get to say no. If they resist, their refusal is met with redirection, repetition, and persistence until compliance is achieved. This teaches them that:
They do not have the right to refuse.
Their boundaries are meaningless.
Compliance is the only way to receive approval and avoid punishment.
This is especially dangerous because autistic people are already at high risk of coercion, abuse, and exploitation. Teaching them that their boundaries don’t matter only increases this vulnerability. I don’t just see this as a philosophical problem—it’s deeply personal. As a late-identified autistic person, I once accepted behaviorism as a legitimate teaching and learning philosophy. It wasn’t until I pursued higher education in education, adopted a learner-centered teaching approach, and incorporated those philosophies into my own teaching repertoire that I recognized its fundamental flaws. Through this shift, I came to understand how behaviorist methods, particularly ABA, condition autistic individuals to prioritize compliance over autonomy.
ABA Cannot Be Redeemed
Many defenders of ABA argue that it has “evolved.” They claim that newer versions are gentler, more positive, less harmful. But as long as neuronormativity, behaviorism, and forced compliance remain its guiding principles, ABA will never be ethical. You cannot make a coercive practice humane. You cannot reform a system built on oppression. If we truly care about autistic well-being, we must reject ABA in all its forms and invest in approaches that:
Respect autistic ways of being.
Prioritize intrinsic learning and meaningful engagement.
Honor autonomy, self-advocacy, and self-determination.
As a social constructivist, I believe education should be about
Thank you for taking the time to read this post. If you enjoyed it, please do click LIKE and click SHARE to share it with your network. Be sure to check out my book, "A Reflective Question to Ponder: 1,200+ Questions on Autism to Foster Dialogue" available in paperback and eBook. My newest book, "Autism Advocacy Unleashed: A Socratic Journey to Social Justice" is also available in paperback and eBook.
Thank you!