The Analysis ofVerbal Behavior 2004, 20, 31-36

Autistic Behavior, Behavior Analysis, and the Gene

Richard W. MalottWestern Michigan University

This article addresses the meaning of autism, the etiology of autistic behavior and values, the nature-nurture debate, contingencies vs. genes, and resistance to a behavioral analysis of autism.

PROLOGUE

I am a radical, fanatical behavior analyst whothinks he knows everything there is to knowabout the use and misuse ofreinforcement con-tingencies. Two semesters ago, I started work-ing with a beautiful, non-verbal 4-year-old boyin the preschool autism classroom at CroydenAvenue School-my first hands-on experiencewith these kids. And like all my students whodo their practica there, I fell in love with mychild.One day, we are quietly standing outside,

waiting for the school bus, hand in hand, whenI notice a little tear sliding down his beautifulcheek. My heart breaks and I immediately givehim a warm, caring, supportive hug, and ananosecond later I realize I am reinforcing in-appropriate behavior, whatever behavior it wasthat squeezed out that little heart-breaker tear.Only the coldest, most calculating of refrig-erator professors could have resisted, even af-ter having come to grips with the overwhelm-ingly counter-intuitive notion that, usually, ifnot always, emotional behavior may be con-trolled by its reinforcing consequences.

Last semester I had the privilege ofworkingwith another five-year-old boy; this boy hadlearned to speak during the year he had beenin the program. And as his six-hour work daywould enter its last two hours, he would askwith increasing frequency, "I see Mommy?"And the discrete-trial trainer would reassurehim, "Yes, at the end ofthe day." "In two min-utes?" "OK, yes, in two minutes." They wouldfrequently interrupt their discrete-trial trainingto do that Mommy-two-minutes dance.

Address correspondence to Dick Malott, Behav-ior Analysis Program, Department of Psychology,Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI49008; e-mail: DickMalott@DickMalott.com. Youcan download this article from DickMalott.com.

But, we more-experienced behavior analystsknew that this disruptive behavior was con-trolled by the social reinforcers ofattention andperhaps by briefescapes from the training task.So we ignored it, not prepared for the disas-trous consequences, the escalation from awhine to a full scale tantrum so effective that itbrought over all the staff to see what horriblethings we were doing to the poor child. How-ever, the staff agreed that extinction was theintervention of choice; so they implementedextinction classroom wide-everyone wouldignore this behavior.And, of course, I was the most consistent in

implementing this extinction procedure; I wasthe consummate professional, with the cold eyeand the warm heart. At least until the childlearned to say my name. "Dr. Malott." Whatpowerful music, at least to my ears, "Dr.Malott." He knows me, he respects me, heneeds me, he appreciates me, he loves me. Andprobably, he even knows that my calculatedextinction of his Mommying is with his bestinterest at heart. So I continued the extinctionwith graceful ease, until after several ignoredI-see-Mommy's, he said, in the most heart-breakingly plaintiff voice, "Dr. Malott, I seeMommy?" Me! He needs me! He needs Dr.Malott to reassure him. It was all I could do torefrain from rushing to his aid with the per-functory reinforcer, "In two minutes"; and ifmy students had not been covertly watchingme, I would have. It is so hard to come to gripswith the notion that emotional behavior maybe more ofa learned response controlled by itsreinforcing consequences than an expressionof inner need, a cry for help from deep withinthe soul of the child.

In any event, this five-year-old boy had be-come so skilled in his autistic behavior that hebrought us all to our knees, radical, fanaticalbehavior analysts included; eventually, we of-ficially copped out with some cognitive, face-saving variant of "In two minutes."

31

32 RICHARD W. MALOTT

Now, dear reader, you may be chuckling toyourself, "Of course, why get into a powerstruggle with a five-year-old?" And you maybe right, or you may not be. But my point isthat even when we think we know what we aresupposed to do, applied behavior analysis canbe so counterintuitive, so against our gut reac-tions, so against the immediate contingencies,that even the most dedicated of true believerssometimes have trouble doing it right.Now, take 100 million average moms and

dads, without Ph.D.s in behavior analysis, ormore important, without ten years doing dis-crete-trial and natural-environment training.And take some little, accidental contingencythat happens to get some insignificant, littleautistic behavior going in their one or two yearold. There is no way Mommy and Daddy aregoing to do it right. No way are they not goingto reinforce that crappy little behavior and failto reinforce that tiny, little appropriate behav-ior. And depending on the roll of the dice, afew of those episodes can spiral into a smallpercentage ofchildren who do not learn to talkbut do learn all sorts of dreadful alternatives.The amazing thing is not that there are so manychildren who do not talk and do all sorts ofbad alternatives. The amazing thing is that somany children do learn to talk and keep theirbad alternatives to a minimum. There but forthe grace of a few rolls of the dice, go we all.

WHY THE RESISTANCE?

Public Relations

As readers of this journal know, the mostsuccessful interventions with autistic reper-toires and values have involved removing thecontingencies that functional analysis suggestssupport autistic behavior, adding performance-management contingencies that support thelearning of appropriately functional behavior,and pairing ofstimuli and events with reinforc-ers to create appropriately functional learnedreinforcers (values). So the obvious, logicalplace to look for the etiology of those autisticrepertoires and values is in the behavioral his-tory, not the gene. Yet most parents and, maybe,most behavior analysts hang on to the gene,perhaps in large part as defense against beingconsidered inept parents and inept profession-als. Unfortunately, the victim-blaming conceptof the refrigerator mom still has not thawed.

(The refrigerator mother was the concept in-vented by psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim(1967) to explain why some children were "au-tistic"-the mothers were too cold, they didnot show enough love and affection to theirchildren. Wow!)

But, the need for such a defense against vic-tim blaming may result from the difficulty ofappreciating the power of subtle behavioralcontingencies. The occasional preschool acqui-sition of autistic repertoires, etc., may be in-evitable, unless all children are raised by twoPh.D. behavior analysts with specialties in au-tism supported by a gang ofM.A. behavior ana-lysts. That is the point ofthe prolog. No one isto blame. No one can resist the natural contin-gencies, not the child, not the parent, and noteven the professional, at least when no one islooking. And even ifMom or Dad happens tobe a professional behavior analyst, it is onething to come in a few hours a day and consultwith the classroom teacher or the parents, pointout what they are doing wrong and what theyshould do right. That is their job and, moreimportantly, their onlyjob while they are wear-ing their consultant's hat. But I have not beenoverwhelmed with the success behavior-ana-lyst parents have had consistently implement-ing appropriate behavioral contingencies whenthey return to their own homes, where, like allparents, they concurrently wear so many hatsthey get headaches. Without outside profes-sional help, it is almost impossible to do it ac-cording to the book, especially with a child whois becoming increasingly skilled in autisticbehaviors. The problem is not so much the re-frigerator moms; it is the warm, caring, lovingmoms who are doing everything our culturehas trained them to do-attending to theirchild's every need, his every whimper, etc. Itjust ain't easy.

Trojan and I (1999) did an ABA PowerPointpresentation of our take on an earlier versionofthe Drash and Tudor (1993) behavioral-con-tingencies analysis of the etiology of autism.Afterward, one of the most prominent autismexperts came up to me and politely said, "Ex-cellent presentation," and then got to the realpoint, "Of course, you wouldn't want any au-tism parent to hear this." However, the chairof ABA's Verbal Behavior SIG placed ourPowerPoint presentation on their Web site, withour permission. The results soon demonstratedthe reason for the prominent autism expert's

AUTISTIC BEHAVIOR, BEHAVIORANALYSIS, & THE GENE 33

concern; at least one autism parent was out-raged.The problem is distinguishing between sci-

entific discussion and public relations. We donot want to hurt the autism parents' feelings,for two reasons: First, these parents have al-ready been hurt more than enough; I can'timagine the amount of suffering they gothrough. And second, they pay the bills; theypay the prominent autism experts. But behav-ior-analytic scientists, theorists, and practitio-ners need to be able to consider and discussvarious views ofthe etiology ofautism, includ-ing the contingency-analysis view, without fearof public-relations censoring. And whereshould they do this considering and discuss-ing? At professional conferences and in scien-tific journals, of course. Except, who consti-tutes half the autism audiences at ABA? Au-tism professionals? No. Autism parents. Andwho reads every behavior-analytic autism ar-ticle published? Autism professionals? No.Autism parents. They may be the world's bestinformed laity. Therefore, both parents andprofessionals must understand that a contin-gency analysis of the etiology of autistic rep-ertoires is not a scholarly form ofvictim blam-ing, not an attempt to retrieve the discreditedconcept ofrefrigeratormom from the overflow-ing junk yard of disreputable psychologicalconcepts. And it is that understanding I haveattempted to enhance in much of the first partof this article.And, in this context, let me commend the

editors of TA VB for their intellectual integrityand courage in publishing the controversialDrash and Tudor (2004) behavioral contin-gency analysis ofthe etiology ofautism, in spiteof the well-founded fears ofother professionalbehavior analysts.

The Gene Made Me Do It

In addition to problems of public relations,there is another reason for resistance to ananalysis of the etiology of autistic behavior interms of behavioral contingencies. As natureabhors a vacuum, humankind abhors a phe-nomenon unexplained. First, we had the ani-mistic notion that we could explain why thingshappen as they do because of the spirits in thetrees, rocks, animals, and people, and becauseof external spirits not embodied in the mate-rial world, and because of the evil spirits and

the good spirits (Harris, 1983). However, theseeasy explanations in terms ofinvented fictionshave tended to give way to more complex, morepainstaking, more difficult scientific analysesthat in turn have generated more effective tech-nologies for dealing with the world, for guid-ing it in directions more supportive of a hu-mane environment. We no longer torture thementally ill in order to drive the evil spirits fromtheir bodies and souls.But the complexities and subtleties of hu-

man behavior have been a most recalcitrantsubject for scientific analysis, with the resultthat many people have switched explanatoryfictions, moving from spirits to the mind. Whydo people behave as they do? Because oftheirminds, because their minds tell them what todo, because oftheir cognitions, their cognitivestructures, their IQ, their self-efficacy, theirexpectancies, their wants; obviously, if some-one does something, it is because they wantto; QED, question answered, and so easily an-swered. However, for behavior analysts, theseeasy explanations in terms ofinvented fictionshave tended to give way to more complex, morepainstaking, more difficult scientific analysesthat, in turn, have generated more effectivetechnologies for dealing with the world, forguiding it in directions more supportive of ahumane environment. We no longer label chil-dren "autistic," automatically pronounce themincurable, and stick them in institutions for therest of their lives.But in spite ofthe many successes ofbehav-

ior analysis, the complexities and subtleties ofhuman behavior often remain a recalcitrantsubject for scientific analysis, with the resultthat even behavior analysts have hopped on theband wagon switch in explanatory fictions,moving from the mind and its cognitions to thegene. Why do people behave as they do? Be-cause of their genes, because their genes tellthem what to do; question answered, and soeasily answered. However, for some behavioranalysts, perhaps only an unhappy few, theseeasy explanations in terms ofinvented fictionsare not good enough. The IQ gene, the crimi-nality gene, the hetero/homo/bi/transsexualgene, the addictive-personality gene, the au-tism gene are too simplistic as explanations ofcomplex, subtle differences in human behav-ior, even when these new forms of biologicaldeterminism are expressed in terms of bloodchemistry, amniotic fluid, brain chemistry, or

34 RICHARD W. MALOTT

whatever; it does not suffice simply to invent agene or a combination of genes to account forcomplex, hard-to-change behavior, such asautistic behavior. We do not want to be a west-ern version of the Pacific-island cargo cults(Harris, 1983), waiting generation after gen-eration for the ship to arrive laden with thegene-fixing, autism-curing pills that will soeasily take care of all our problems.

The Drash-Tudor Contingency Analysis

Therefore, we owe a great debt to Drash andTudor (2004) for their pioneering efforts to giveus a more complex, more painstaking, moredifficult scientific analyses of the etiology ofautism, in terms of behavioral contingencies,an analysis that, in turn, may generate moreeffective technologies for dealing with theworld, for guiding it in directions more sup-portive of a humane environment, for helpingto prevent early childhood acquisition of au-tistic repertoires and values.

I think the Drash and Tudor article is one ofthe most important in the field ofautism, ifnotthe field ofbehavior analysis. It is one thing tosay, "Yeah, all that autism stuff is learned." Butit is something else to point to a plausible setof detailed environmental configurations andcontingencies that could potentially account forthe acquisition of an autistic repertoire of ex-cesses and deficits.However, when I read their earlier article that

presented a similar analysis of the contingen-cies responsible for preschool verbal delays(code words for autism) (Drash & Tudor,1993), my enthusiasm was mildly attenuatedby the possibility that they had generated theirbrilliant analysis from the comfort oftheir armchairs, with little real autism experience. So Ipresented their analysis at los Horcones, oneofthe best and one ofthe two oldest behavior-analysis autism programs in the world (over30 years old). And I asked them how this jelledwith their considerable autism experience. Andthey unanimously said 100% (los Hvcones,personal communication, 1999). Then I had theopportunity to discuss that article with Drashhimself, and asked him how much was fromthe armchair and how much was from experi-ence. He said 100% was based on their exten-sive history ofworking with families and chil-dren with autistic behavior (Drash, personalcommunication, about 2000). And fortunately,

Drash and Tudor have sprinkled a few illustra-tive case studies throughout their most recentarticle (2004).Of course, a few case histories/case studies

do not an experimental analysis make; they mayconvince only the already convinced. But a fewcase histories/studies can be the first step to-ward the systematic collection ofa much larger,more convincing set of case histories/studies,a set that would more clearly confirm, or dis-confirm, the Drash and Tudor contingencyanalysis of the etiology of autism. And I hopethe field ofbehavior analysis broadens its scopeofacceptable research methodologies so that athousand such studies will blossom.

The Pill

But it will not be easy; the Drash-Tudor con-tingency analysis has a well-heeled opposi-tion-the pharmaceutical industry. That indus-try is playing a major role in the privatizationof basic, university and medical-school re-search. Paying the piper, they are calling thecurrent pop tune which so many biological,medical, and even behavioral researchers play.The genre of that pop tune is frame all behav-ioral problems in terms ofbiological determin-ism, and now with the human genome at thetop ofthe charts, that specific pop tune is frameall behavioral problems in terms of the gene.Why is the pharmaceutical industry spendingso much money on basic genetic and bio-be-havioral research? So it can spend even moremoney advertising and selling pills it claimswill cure those problems-for example, autism.So they can make even more money sellingthe pill or the vaccine that will prevent or curethe dreaded genetic disease autism. And justas our population is becoming increasinglyobese, while waiting for the fantasy anti-obe-sity pill that is so much more attractive thandoing the really hard work ofrigorous diet andexercise, families suffer the increasing horrorsof autism while searching for the fantasy anti-autism pill that seems so much more plausibleand reassuring than the 24/7, excruciatinglyhard, careful contingency management neededto reverse their child's slide into a nearly irre-versible set of autistic behaviors and values.And society waits, too, for the autism-genemarker rather than doing the really hard workof developing and implementing early behav-ioral screening procedures that will detect the

AUTISTIC BEHAVIOR, BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS, & THE GENE 35

early acquisition of autistic behavior and val-ues early enough to significantly increase posi-tive outcomes ofbehavioral interventions. Be-ware the medical/pharmaceutical-industrycomplex. (For a more carefully reasoned pre-sentation of the data supporting my hysterical,anti-pharmaceutical-industry rant, please seeRampton and Stauber [2000], Valenstein[1998], and Whitaker, [2001]).Nature vs. Nurture vs. Nature and Nurture

In a misguided effort to appear broadminded,most people, including most behavior analysts,say it is not a question of nature vs. nurture. Itis a question of nature and nurture. Everythingwe do is partially a result of our inherited na-ture and partially a result ofour nurturing, whatwe have learned. And of course that is true,but only in an obvious, trivial sense. The ques-tion is not what is the basis for what we do?The question is what is the basis for the differ-ence between you and me? And that basis maybe all genetic (e.g., our different eye colors) orit may be all learned (e.g., my preference forThelonius Monk vs. your preference forBritney Spears). And ifyou are pretty sure youhave a Britney Spears gene, consider this ex-ample: Two rats, each in a Skinner box. Wewater reinforce left-lever presses for one ratand right-lever presses for the other, with theobvious results. And that resulting differencein right vs. left lever pressing is 100%learned-100% a result of the contingenciesof reinforcement. Of course there is a biologi-cal basis for the lever press itself, for the rein-forcement process, etc., but no difference ingenes or any other pre-experimental biologyaccounts for the differences in right-left leverpreferences.And it is equally meaningful to ask about

the basis ofthe differences in water reinforcedoperant responses in two children. One childsays, "Water, please," and gets a class of wa-ter, while another child tantrums and gets aglass of water. As in the Skinner box, the dif-ference between the two children in the fre-quencies of "water, please" vs. tantruming mayalso be 100% learned-100% a result of thecontingencies of reinforcement described byDrash and Tudor (2004). In other words, it isoften not a question of nature and nurture, butrather nature vs. nurture. Nature determines ourunlearned reinforcers, but nurture determinesthe behavior that is reinforced.

VERBAL BEHAVIOR ABOUTAUTISTIC BEHAVIOR

It seems like almost everything I read aboutautistic behavior starts off explaining that au-tism is no single disorder, but rather a rich ar-ray of disorders: some kids do not talk, somedo; some tantrum, some do not; some aggress,some do not; some self-stim, some do not, etc.,with all possible combinations of the preced-ing problems and many more. My question iswhy clump all these problems under the labelof autism? Why not just say there are almostan infinite variety ofways kid's repertoires andvalues can go awry? And sometimes some kidsend up with so many problems of such sever-ity that they need professional help; and thenlet it go at that. Why do even we behavior ana-lysts continue to be shackled by our psychodi-agnostic ancestry, with its need to put labelson everyone, labels that turn into reified, psy-chodynamic or genetic causes of human be-havior?

Furthermore, many people, including me, areuncomfortable with applying labels to people,such as saying, "Jimmy is autistic." It wouldbe more accurate to say, "Jimmy has an autis-tic repertoire." Some have started using theexpression, "with autism," as in, "Jimmy is withautism." And while the desire to stop labelingpeople is a noble one, such expressions as "withautism" may cause even more problems. Theysuggest that autism is a thing like a disease ora cold that a person has caught. This then leadsto inferring a causal entity from a person's be-havior, an illogical form of analysis-reification, circular reasoning: Why doesJimmy act strangely? Because he has autism.How do you know he has autism? Because heacts strangely. Better just to say he has a "rep-ertoire of autistic behaviors" and then look in-dependently for the causes (Malott & Trojan,2004).However, repertoire does not quite cover it.

The child may have too many inappropriatebehaviors, like tantruming and not enough ap-propriate behaviors, like verbal behavior (aka,language). But also, the child may have prob-lems with learned aversive conditions andlearned reinforcers; for example some stimulithat should be reinforcers, like smiles fromparents, may have no reinforcing value; andother stimuli that should be reinforcers, likecaresses and cuddling from parents, may have

36 RICHARD W. MALOTT

even become learned aversive conditions. (I usevalues to encompass a person's reinforcers andaversive conditions.) So, it may be safer to talkabout a child's autistic repertoire (behaviors)and his autistic values (reinforcers and aver-sive conditions). This may help us avoid un-thinkingly adopting a simplistic medical/ge-netic/pharmaceutical model.The term disorder may also tend to support

a reifying medical model, implying that thereis a disease called autism and it is a biologicaldisorder. We would not say that the Skinner-box rat that has not yet learned to press thelever has a disorder, nor would we say that Iwho have not yet learned to speak Russian havea disorder, nor should we say that my tendencytoward irony and sarcasm is a disorder, nomatter how offensive it may be. These are allbehaviors and values that have or have not beenlearned, just like the child's autistic behaviorsand values that have or have not been learned.

Similarly, we might do well to ban developfrom our psychological lexicon, with its sug-gestion that we biologically develop passivelylike a flower or a tumor. To say autism is adevelopmental disorder is like saying the rat'snot learning to press the lever or my not learn-ing Russian is a developmental disorder.And the fashionable term communication

may also get us in trouble. Even behavior ana-lysts have a slight tendency to say every inap-propriate, autistic act is the child's effort tocommunicate, to express his needs. So ofcourse we must try to find out what the childneeds, we must meet his needs; and, as a re-sult, we end up reinforcing all sorts of autisticbehavior that has nothing to do with needs butis merely an operant response reinforced by itsconsequence.And professional behavior analysts may be

taking one step backward with every two stepsforward when they cater to this misleading ex-pressive-communication model by calling thesimple differential reinforcement of alternativebehavior functional communication training.No wonder so many people fell victim to

facilitated communication-just a logical ex-tension of the expressive-communicationmodel.We do a disservice to the important concept

of communication, when we attempt to gainsocial validity by using communication to jus-

tify our basic behavior-analytic contingencies.We should not debase communication in orderto give everyone, including ourselves, a warmfeeling. We might do better to reserve commu-nication for our much higher-level language-training goals.

CONCLUSIONS

I suggest that the Drash-Tudor contingency-analysis model ofthe etiology ofautism (2004)is a major contribution to the fields of behav-ior analysis and autism, that we should not letpolitical agenda interfere with our appreciationof its scientific and practical value, of its po-tential for both alleviating and preventing theprofound suffering of families with childrenwho have autistic repertoires, and that an un-derstanding of the subtleties and complexitiesof behavioral contingencies should make itclear that the Drash-Tudor model in no wayblames the victim (i.e., the family).

REFERENCES

Bettelheim, B. (1967). The emptyfortress: In-fantile autism and the birth ofthe self NewYork: The Free Press.

Drash, P. W., & Tudor, R. M. (1993). A func-tional analysis of verbal delay in preschoolchildren: Implications for prevention andtotal recovery. The Analysis of Verbal Be-havior, 11, 19-29.

Harris, M. (1983). Cultural Anthropology.Cambridge: Harper & Row.

Malott, R. W. & Suarez-Trojan, E. W. (2004)Principles of behavior (5th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rampton, S., & Stauber, J. (2002). Trust us,we're experts! New York: Putnam.

Trojan, E. W., & Malott, R. W. (1999) AutismandElementary Principles ofBehavior 4.0.Paper presented at the Association for Be-havior Analysis, Chicago.

Valenstein, E. S. (1998). Blaming the brain:The truth about drugs and mental health.New York: The Free Press

Whitaker, R. (2001). Mad in America: Badscience, bad medicine, and the enduringmistreatment ofthe mentally ill. Cambridge,MA: Perseus.