Rad N Bad: Traditional vs. New ABA — Neutral Science, Values-Driven Application, and Social Validity

Is "New ABA" a Rebrand or a Real Shift?

Open any feed and the fight shows up fast. One camp says new ABA, the other says traditional ABA. Sean Yocum opened this live recording with a blunt question. Is the split a buzzword, a sales pitch, or a real movement?

Michael Carrero answered without hedging and called it a branding move. The field has changed in real ways, he said. Care grew more kind, more ethical, and more values driven. But the new label mostly tries to fix an image problem, not build a new science.

Both hosts named the same public picture of their work. Many people outside the field hear ABA and think compliance training (training a child to obey). Others think it means making autistic kids look like their peers. For some adults, that really was the care they got. Yocum said up front that he does not discount those stories. He wants the field to listen to them first.

I think it's a branding thing.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

What People Actually Mean by "Traditional ABA"

Yocum would not debate a label without defining it first. Traditional ABA, in his words, points to the earliest and most intense use of these principles. Think of work built for autistic children in the 1960s. The science itself stayed flexible. That early model is what carries the hard reputation.

The parts people cite are easy to list. Discrete trial training (short drills at a table) ran the session. The room was quiet, plain, and tightly run by the adult. Each trial used a rigid three step cycle: adult asks, child responds, adult rewards or corrects. Dosage ran high, often twenty, thirty, or forty hours a week. Reinforcers (what makes a behavior repeat) were mostly edibles, tokens, and small toys.

The goal is where the harm sits. Yocum said the aim was to make a child look just like peers. That pushed goals toward normalization (making a child look typical). Teams targeted stimming (repeated self soothing body movements), forced eye contact, and pressed feelings down. Masking (hiding autistic traits to fit in) became the real skill being taught. Aversives (harsh or painful consequences) sit in that record too. Yocum said electric shock is still used in some places today.

Carrero added two points to the picture. The field leaned too hard on results and forgot it is a human service. He also said the early work was built to understand behavior. It was not meant as one fixed recipe for every learner.

Each trial has a, has a rigid ABC sequence, basically repeated rapidly and intensely.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

The Science Is Neutral. The Application Never Was.

Then Yocum laid out the claim that holds this whole episode together. The science of behavior has not changed at all. Reinforcement still works, and behavior still serves a function (behavior works to get something). Those facts describe how learning happens with the world around us.

A tool does not pick its own job. The science tells you how behavior and the setting work together. It never tells you which behavior should change, or why anyone should change it. That answer always comes from values. So the fight over old and new is a fight about use, not about science.

Hold both models up to that test and the split gets clear. The old values were fit in and look typical. Teams used these same principles to cut stimming and raise eye contact. The newer values are choice and self direction. Now the same principles teach a learner to decline eye contact. They also teach self advocacy, or getting the sensory input their body wants.

The science does not dictate what behavior should be changed or why.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

Were We Ever Following the Seven Dimensions?

Yocum then pushed his claim one step further. The field has seven dimensions (seven marks of true ABA work) from its first published article. He argues the early work never met them. Social validity (whether the goal truly matters) was missing, and so was change that mattered to the learner.

If that holds, the old model was not doing the full job at all. New ABA is not a new science then. It is a harder try at the original seven. Yocum points at two in plain terms: applied, and generality (skills that hold up elsewhere).

Carrero met him in the middle on this one. He agreed those two were the weak spots in old practice. But he tied it back to knowing the person in front of you. What counts as meaningful shifts with the person, the label they carry, and the era they live in.

I argue we were never following the seven dimensions of ABA ever.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

Social Validity Is Not Social Acceptance

Here the two hosts hit a real split. Carrero asked a fair question. Culture and ethics have shifted, so was the old care valid for its own time? Yocum said no and drew a hard line. What Carrero described was social acceptance, not social validity.

His test was stark. Was slavery socially valid? No, because it was wrong for the person living it. Social validity rests with the person who gets the plan. Social acceptance rests with everyone around them. Old goals chased acceptance: change the person so the world feels easier.

Carrero agreed on the harm but not on the scope. Social validity, he said, covers the whole package of care. That means the learner, the parents, the peers, and the chance to learn. He still gave the learner the heavier weight. That order is what you fall back on when two parties want different things.

Social validity and social significance do not end with just the individual that you service.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

When Assent and Long Term Gains Collide

Carrero brought a case that makes the tension real. He once served someone whose hand flapping ran at a very high rate. The rate was high enough to block any learning. From the learner's view, that plan was likely unwanted. So should the team drop the goal?

He would not drop it, and he said why. Weigh the loss: time with peers, new facts, self care skills, and the power to speak up. Yocum framed that as the long view. Ignoring long term harm is its own ethics problem.

Both hosts warned that the assent (saying yes to taking part) model gets misread. Some staff treat one hard moment as a full stop. Challenging behavior shows up, the session ends, and the toy comes back out. That is not the model. Yocum pointed to discrimination training (teaching when the rules change) instead, including spots where safety limits choice.

The cleanest rule came from Carrero's own example. Do not aim at the movement. Aim at the part that is unsafe or that closes doors. He was blunt that telling a person to stop hand flapping is wrong. It strips out part of who they are. Shaping (rewarding small steps toward change) keeps the person and opens the room.

You don't need me to stop doing the movement, you need me to stop doing it unsafely.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

What to Say When a Parent Asks About Shock Therapy

Both hosts have fielded these questions for years. One parent asked at intake (the first meeting with a family) whether the team still used shock therapy. Another asked if staff would hit their child. The answer to both is short and plain: no, we do not.

The next line matters as much as the no. Carrero follows it with an apology for what the family went through. He says he is sorry that anyone thought that was the way to help. Then he builds trust and keeps pushing the field forward.

Getting defensive is the trap. Carrero compared bad press to early word learning: a child learns dog, then calls every four legged animal a dog. One bad provider becomes the whole field the same way. He said he does not blame a family for walking away and warning others.

Claiming expert status over someone's own story ends the talk. Yocum said two people with different meanings for ABA end up talking at walls. His own fix was simple. Listen, ask questions, and stop defending the label.

I had a parent a while ago ask in an intake of, do you guys still use shock therapy?

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

A Values Check for Picking Goals

Put the episode together and you get a short screen for any goal. Start with the source: is this goal about the learner's life, or about other people's comfort? Name the value you are serving out loud. Then ask who gains once the goal is met.

Next, price out the cost of not teaching it. Carrero uses a simple risk check: if I skip this skill, what doors close? Write those missed chances down in plain words. If you cannot name one, the goal may not be worth a program.

Then check the whole package without losing the ranking. Ask the learner first, then the family, the peers, and the setting. Culture belongs in that check, since norms differ by home and place. The hosts used household rules about swearing to make that point land.

Last, read what a repeated no is telling you. If the plan keeps pulling refusal, treat that as data about the goal. Ask whether you can shape the behavior rather than wipe it out. Then ask the hardest one: is this for them, or for us?

So the change isn't in the principle of the science it's in the goal setting and the ethical boundaries.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA