January 05, 2024
Mixed Messages in the News for Autism Treatment:
Choose the Best and Mute the Rest (The Sequel)
The news influences decisions you make across a lot of areas of your life, from health decisions to political opinions. Sorting through all of the information to make any decision can be difficult. The media especially can make it difficult for making decisions on if to treat behavior or teach skills to autistic individuals. The media may seem to recommend specific treatments ranging those with no research support to outright harmful treatments (Schreck & Ramirez, 2016; Schreck, Russell, & Vargas, 2013). Deciding if a treatment is necessary or which treatment to use can be quite difficult. This may lead to choosing treatments not supported by research evidence or even harmful treatments (Schreck, 2014; Schreck et al., 2016; Schreck & Mazur, 2008). Choosing the wrong or harmful treatment can result in significant delay in treatment of dangerous behaviors or reduced quality of people’s lives.
Trying to decipher if media is providing accurate information or using propaganda for an agenda (e.g., Language: A Key Mechanism of Control; GOPAC, 1990) can be difficult. The Penn State Harrisburg Laboratory for the Critical Study of Pseudoscience researched autism treatment coverage on major television networks to determine accurate news coverage. All treatments related to autism covered by television news networks (2010-2023: ABC, CBS, NBC; 2012-2023: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC) were recorded. We also evaluated journalists’ possible agendas about treatments.
More than 90% of television coverage of autism treatments was for treatments classified as having no research support to even possibly harmful treatments (e.g., sports, Christmas light therapy, facilitated communication, bleach therapy). Over the last 4 years, 100% of all of the negative comments made by television journalists were about treatments not supported by science. However, television journalists’ positive comments about treatments without scientific support also increased over the decades. The majority of all of the positive comments about treatments in the last 10 years were about treatments without scientific support. This support used a variety of positive words that could possibly persuade or recommend the use of treatments rated as harmful or discounted by scientists. These positive comments included convincing, persuasive words, such as “greatest blessing”, “ totally safe”, “life altering”, “medically necessary”, and “miracle”.
Although television journalists used negative words about treatments not supported by science, their positive comments about these same treatments could cause confusion about what treatment to choose. Including more coverage for treatments without scientific support may increase exposure to ineffective treatments. Television may not be the best source of information for deciding if or how to treat behaviors or teach skills for autistic individuals. —KS
References
- Brodhead, M. T. (2015). Maintaining professional relationships in an interdisciplinary setting: Strategies for navigating nonbehavioral treatment recommendations for individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 70-78.
- GOPAC (1990). Language: A Key Mechanism of Control. Retrieved at https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
- Schreck, K. A. (2014). Parents and autism treatment choices. In V.B. Patel, V. R. Preddy, & C. R. Martin (Eds.), A comprehensive guide to autism (pp. 2283-2296). New York: Springer.
- Schreck, K. A., Karunaratne, Y., Zane, T., & Wilford, H. (2016). Behavior analysts' use of and beliefs in treatments for people with autism: A 5-year follow up. Behavioral Interventions, 31, 355-376.
- Schreck, K. A., & Miller, V. A. (2010). How to behave ethically in a world of fads. Behavioral Interventions, 25(4), 307-324.
- Schreck, K. A., & Ramirez, J. (2016). TVs representation and recommendations for ASD treatments: Choose the best and mute the rest. Behavioral Interventions, 251-264.
- Schreck, K. A., Russell, M., & Vargas, L. (2013). Autism’s alternative treatments in print: Media’s support of science and fads. Behavioral Interventions, 28, 299-321.
About the Author
Kimberly Anne Schreck, Ph.D., BCBA-D® is a Professor at Penn State Harrisburg, where she assisted in creating the Master’s in Applied Behavior Analysis program. She directed the ABA Master’s for the majority of the program’s existence. Dr. Schreck has worked in the field of Psychology and ABA for over 30 years, with 24 years as a faculty member. She received her Ph.D. in Psychology (specializing in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities) from the Ohio State University. Dr. Schreck completed a post-doctoral fellowship in Pediatric Psychology at Columbus Children’s Hospital (now Nationwide Children’s Hospital) with co-appointments with the Heinzerling Memorial Foundation, the Heinzerling Developmental Center, and the Ohio State University. Dr. Schreck’s clinical and research interests include ethical practices and evidence-based treatments, autism and related issues (e.g., sleep), intellectual and developmental disabilities (e.g., MPS-IIIA), interventions for skill acquisition, and children’s behavior issues. She is a regular reviewer of scientific manuscripts, a member of journal editorial boards, reviewer for national and international dissertations, and a grant reviewer. She has served in a variety of professional service positions including Associate Editor of Behavioral Interventions, member of the Penn ABA Executive Council, grant consultant, member of human research review and human rights committees for various organizations, and a senior research mentor for multiple professionals.
Kimberly Anne Schreck, Ph.D., BCBA-D® —Dr. Schreck, professor of psychology with the School of Behavioral Sciences and Education at Penn State Harrisburg, was awarded a grant from Penn State's News Literacy Initiative her research.