Same Operant Technology, Updated Packaging

 I just got a question from a parent on "new" or "modern" ABA.  They were told is is not really the ABA they have heard about.  That somehow it is different.  On the ICDL website, we discuss ABA vs. DIR very briefly on one of the webpages.  On that page, we use an example of how DIR and ABA look at eye contact differently.  So, I just took that example and did a research review on ABA research in the last few years on training for eye contact.  Of course, the concept of training for eye contact remains very active in ABA.  Even though there are ethical concerns raised about training for eye contact in recent research, the operant conditioning process continues in full swing.  

Here is a summary with some of the references I found:

Is ABA Still Focusing on Training for Eye Contact?  

ABA and Eye Contact: Recent Evidence Shows It Remains a Targeted Behavior

Despite branding shifts to “modern” or “new” ABA, behavior-analytic interventions continue to explicitly target eye contact / social gaze as a teachable behavior using core ABA procedures (e.g., shaping, prompting, reinforcement, stimulus control). Recent peer-reviewed literature demonstrates this.

Examples of Recent Peer-Reviewed Evidence

Behavior-analytic scoping review on promoting social gaze (2023): Confirms behavioral interventions are effective for social gaze/eye contact and shows it remains a common behavioral target. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946723000658

Using shaping to teach eye contact to children with autism (2018): Applied shaping and reinforcement to teach preschoolers sustained eye contact with maintenance and generalization. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6411557/

App with embedded video modeling to increase eye contact (2023): Mobile app using modeling and reinforcement increased eye contact with familiar and unfamiliar adults. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10883576221124805

Shaping social eye contact via telehealth (parent-implemented) (2025): Parents, coached remotely, shaped eye contact successfully during naturalistic interaction. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395882572_Shaping_Social_Eye_Contact_in_Children_With_Autism_Via_Telehealth_A_Parent-Implemented_Intervention

Parent intervention via video modeling (eye contact and joint attention) (2024): Children with ASD/ID improved eye contact and joint attention using graded prompting and reinforcement strategies. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38391746/

What This Shows About 'New ABA'

1. Same operant technology, updated packaging. Across studies, the operative elements are classic ABA (modeling, prompting, shaping, differential reinforcement), now often delivered via apps, telehealth, or parent-implementation—but the behavioral target is still eye contact.

2. Ongoing ethical discussion, not abandonment of the goal. Contemporary behavior analysts debate whether and when to teach eye contact, underscoring that teaching eye contact remains an active ABA topic rather than an obsolete one.

Bottom Line

Recent literature (2018–2025) documents ABA interventions that directly train eye contact/social gaze using standard operant procedures. Claims that 'new ABA' no longer trains discrete social behaviors like eye contact are not supported by the current research record.

Furthermore, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network wrote a while paper centered on ethical practices in autism interventions entitled, For Whose Benefit? Evidence, Ethics, and Effectiveness of Autism Interventions.  On page 18 of the white paper they discuss new ABA.  Here is an excerpt from that section of the paper:

“New ABA” is Still ABA

At ASAN, we have heard from parents who say that ABA as practiced in their family is different from “traditional” ABA – describing interventions that are “holistic,” “play-based,” or “naturalistic,” that focus on communication or life skills rather than on “normalizing” a child’s behaviors, and that take a respectful approach to an autistic child’s existence and needs. This is sometimes termed “new ABA.” It can be hard to determine what is really going on in any given situation. If these practices are indeed ABA, we stress that they are still harmful. We also stress that many practices termed “new ABA” are not, in fact, ABA at all.

Sometimes, parents are describing something that still sounds like ABA, in that the intervention still uses reinforcements to modify . An intervention that, at its core, still uses ABA techniques, is still ABA and still unethical, no matter what other methods it may use. It still carries the same risks of harm, the same lack of acknowledgement of those risks, and the same lack of rigorous supporting evidence. Fundamental modifications of who an autistic person is – or attempts to do so – do not suddenly become acceptable just because the techniques used are less obviously cruel.

A core component of “new ABA” is contrasting its practices with the “old,” torturous practices of Lovaas and his ilk. Leaving aside that Lovaas’s practices are hardly consigned to the past (see the section “The Brutal Beginnings and the Horrific Present”), an intervention being less abusive than a different intervention does not mean that intervention is inherently ethical. Our ethical concerns with ABA go far beyond whether an intervention uses electrical shocks or withholds food to enforce compliance. To again use the metaphor of the rotting hotel, we would still advise others to avoid renting a room there, even if the owners assured us they had repainted and brought the electrical wiring up to code.

ABA that is play-based is still ABA. It is still harmful to try and modify autistic traits or the appearance of autistic behavior, even if it is couched in toys and the appearance of fun. Play-based ABA takes the activities an autistic person enjoys and turns them into ways to attempt to make the person less autistic. For example, if an autistic child collects shoelaces, the ABA therapist might hold a shoelace near the therapist’s eye in order to elicit eye contact. Or, the therapist might do a puzzle with a child, but require the child to look at the therapist and verbally request each piece of the puzzle. While this may seem “nicer” than a traditional discrete trial, the end goal is still to modify the child’s autistic trait. Using play to train a child to appear less autistic also warps the experience of play for the child. We want to stress that we do not believe that all play-based therapy is bad or harmful. We realize that play-based therapies can be incredibly useful, especially for nonspeaking autistic children. But play-based ABA, specifically, is harmful because it is still a form of ABA.

When ABA approaches are used to teach language or speech, we are concerned because the behaviorist approach to language development has been discredited (Chomsky, 1980). ABA approaches to language development, including Verbal Behavior, ignore decades of well-established research on how children, including autistic children and children with significant structural language impairments, learn language (Birner, 2021; Feldman, 2019; Kuhl, 2000). When children appear to gain language in these programs, it is important to understand that this progress is in spite of, not because of, ABA’s outdated and disproven methodology. Autistic children are best supported by a Speech-Language Therapist familiar with best practices for supporting their specific language challenges, including augmentative and alternative communication systems, or AAC.Teaching language via ABA is ineffective and not worth the harm it causes to those subjected to it.

Similarly, there are better ways to teach other core life skills, such as through non-ABA occupational and physical therapies. We once again reference that there are non-autism specific supports that can and do help autistic people build skills and lead more independent and self-directed lives. An autistic person with severe apraxia, for example, could benefit from some of the same occupational and physical therapies, along with the same assistive technology, as apraxic people with other developmental disabilities.. It is also important to remember that just because an autistic person needs a highly individualized or adapted intervention to help them, this does not mean they need ABA. ABA does not have sole claim to individualized or customized therapies and services.

We sometimes hear from parents that their child likes their ABA therapist or assents to an ABA intervention. We would still have concerns in these situations – liking one’s therapist does not make the intervention effective or ethical. Our ethical concerns with ABA (and all other autism therapies and services) do not center around the likeability of the practitioner or whether they can build a rapport with the autistic person.  (ASAN, 2021, p 18-19)