Should We Be Targeting Stereotypy? Rethinking Ethics, Regulation, and Neurodiversity in ABA

What if someone told you to stop bouncing your leg during a stressful meeting?
To stop humming in the car when you’re overstimulated?
To stop talking to yourself while trying to think?

Now imagine they didn’t just ask you to stop—they tracked your behavior, took away things you love, and praised you only when you sat still.

For decades, that’s exactly how ABA has approached stereotypy.

We’ve called it “non-functional.”
We’ve written goals to reduce it.
We’ve reinforced silence over regulation.

But what if we got it wrong?

What if the flapping, scripting, rocking, and humming aren’t behaviors to eliminate—but messages to understand?
What if they’re not signs of brokenness, but signals of regulation, emotion, or joy?

And the hardest question of all:
What if our efforts to help have actually caused harm?

In this post, we’re pulling back the curtain on stereotypy, ethics, and neurodiversity. Not to point fingers—but to ask better questions.
Because the future of ethical ABA depends on our willingness to rethink everything we thought we knew.

Key Takeaways

• Stereotypy is often self-regulatory, not disruptive

• Not all stereotypies are harmful—or need to be reduced

• Suppression without understanding can cause distress

• Many stereotypies signal skill deficits or unmet needs

• Reframing language (e.g., “self-regulatory behavior”) shifts practice

• Cultural norms shape how stereotypy is perceived and addressed

• Ethical ABA supports autonomy, not just compliance

• Family and school concerns can be valid—but must be navigated with care

• Stereotypy can guide meaningful, affirming intervention

• True inclusion means accepting regulation—not punishing difference

What Is Stereotypy, Really?

In behavior analytic terms, stereotypy refers to repetitive, seemingly purposeless movements or vocalizations—behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement. That means the behavior is self-reinforcing, not dependent on external consequences.

But let’s strip away the jargon for a moment.

Stereotypy is fidgeting. It’s humming. It’s rocking, scripting, pacing, twirling, flapping, bouncing.
It’s what your body does when words fail, when energy builds, when emotion spills over, or when your nervous system needs an outlet.

You do it. Your clients do it. Everyone does it.

The difference? Some people get praised for it—“Oh, she’s so deep in thought”—and others get intervention plans.

“If you sing in the car when you’re alone, you’re engaging in a stereotypy,” says Nikki Dionne, LCMHC, BCBA®, in the podcast episode that inspired this post. “It’s a self-reinforcing behavior. You’re not doing it for anyone else—it just feels good.”

And that’s the thing: stereotypy serves a purpose.

It’s often a form of self-regulation, especially for neurodivergent individuals. It can help manage:

• Sensory overload

• Anxiety or boredom

• Emotional expression

• Cognitive processing

• Transitions or uncertainty

Yet for decades, ABA has treated stereotypy like something to “fix.” Something incompatible with learning, social inclusion, or success.

But that view isn’t just outdated—it’s harmful.

Instead of asking “How do we stop it?”, we need to ask “Why is this happening—and what does the child need?”

Harmful vs. Harmless—Drawing an Ethical Line

Not all stereotypy is the same.
And not all of it needs to stop.

Yes, some stereotypies can be dangerous—like head-banging, self-biting, or pounding the chest so hard it leaves bruises. These clearly cross into the territory of self-injurious behavior (SIB) and require intervention that is thoughtful, ethical, and trauma-informed.

But what about flapping?
Or scripting?
Or softly humming while lining up toys?

Too often, we’ve lumped all stereotypy into one bucket: problem behavior. But here’s the truth: many stereotypies are not inherently harmful. What is harmful is the way we respond to them.

“Trying to suppress a self-regulatory behavior can actually create more distress,” notes Amelia Dalphonse, MA, BCBA®, in the episode. “It’s not just ineffective—it’s disruptive to the individual.”

So how do we draw the line?

Let’s look at what really matters:

Instead of asking “Is this stereotypy?”, we need to ask:

• Is it harmful to the individual?

• Is it interfering with meaningful engagement?

• Is it a barrier to autonomy, access, or safety?

If the answer is no, it’s time to reconsider whether the behavior itself is the problem—or if it’s just uncomfortable for others.

Because when we treat harmless regulation as disruption, we risk doing more harm in the name of help.

Why Schools and Caregivers Want It Gone

You’ve seen the request in a school consult or intake form:

“The goal is to eliminate stimming.”

No function analysis. No discussion. Just a line item, often driven by adult discomfort—not child distress.

Caregivers and educators aren’t trying to be harmful. They’re responding to real pressures:

• The teacher who’s managing 24 students and can’t hear over vocal scripting

• The parent who’s been judged in public for their child’s hand flapping

• The administrator who believes “calm hands” mean classroom readiness

And sometimes, their concern is emotional—not logistical.

“I had a parent who didn’t want to discharge services,” shared Amelia, “because her child still flapped when he was excited. He wasn’t disruptive. He wasn’t unsafe. But to her, it signaled that he was still different.”

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about data.
It’s about stigma.
It’s about shame.
It’s about fear.

So how do we respond?

We start with empathy—and shift to education.

Caregivers want what’s best for their children. Educators want to create functional classrooms. We don’t have to dismiss their concerns to hold firm on ethical practice.

“I hear you. And I also want to make sure we’re not reducing something that’s helping your child cope.”

This opens the door for deeper conversation:

• What is the behavior accomplishing for the child?

• Is it truly interfering with learning, or just looking different?

• Can we offer accommodations instead of suppression?

• Can we build skills that reduce the need for stereotypy without targeting it directly?

🎧 In the Action Insights Podcast episode on stereotypy, Nikki and Amelia offer real-life strategies for navigating these tricky moments. From collaborative goal setting to using autistic voices as educational tools, they model what it looks like to protect a child’s dignity while addressing stakeholder concerns.

When we center the child’s experience—not just the environment’s convenience—we move from compliance-based treatment to compassion-driven care.

What’s Beneath the Behavior: Skill Deficits and Regulation

When we see stereotypy, our first instinct is often to reduce it.
But what if the behavior is only the surface?

Stereotypy—especially when it’s consistent, intense, or context-specific—can be a signal. A signal that something deeper is going on:

• A skill is missing

• A need isn’t being met

• The environment isn’t working for the child

• Or, the child is doing the best they can with the regulation tools they have

“I had a client who engaged in loud vocal stereotypy during unstructured social times,” said Amelia Dalphonse, MA, BCBA®, in the podcast. “It wasn’t disruption—it was discomfort. He didn’t know what to do in those moments, so he filled the space.”

That vocal stereotypy wasn’t the problem.
It was the placeholder for a skill he hadn’t yet learned: how to initiate, connect, and belong.

This is where the shift happens.

Instead of replacing stereotypy with something neutral (like reading a book to stay quiet), we build skills that serve a functional, meaningful purpose—skills the child can use on their terms.

What stereotypy might be telling us:

• “I’m anxious.” → Let’s teach self-regulation and coping strategies.

• “I don’t know what to say.” → Let’s teach social communication.

• “I need more sensory input.” → Let’s build sensory-rich routines.

• “I need to stim to stay grounded.” → Let’s protect that right.

“We talk so much about function,” said Nikki Dionne, LCMHC, BCBA®, “but when we assume stereotypy is ‘non-functional,’ we miss the real work: teaching the child how to meet their needs in ways that feel safe and authentic.”

Stereotypy can be both regulatory and revelatory.

It tells us:

• Where the child is struggling

• Where the system might be failing

• And where we have the opportunity to teach, adapt, and include

Reframing with Language and Culture

Sometimes the most powerful shift we can make starts with language.

The term “stereotypy” itself—clinical, mechanical, and sterile—frames the behavior as a deviation from the norm. Something repetitive. Something meaningless. Something to extinguish.

But when you hear autistic adults talk about their experiences, they don’t describe these behaviors as meaningless. They describe them as soothing. Expressive. Life-giving.

What if we stopped calling it “stereotypy”…
…and started calling it self-regulatory behavior?

That subtle change in language reorients everything.
It helps us see these behaviors not as deficits, but as tools—strategies that the individual uses to cope, connect, and communicate.

The Language We Use Shapes the Decisions We Make

When we label something as “non-functional,” we feel justified in targeting it.
When we label it as “regulatory,” we feel obligated to protect it.

So before we write a goal, draft a replacement behavior, or present a treatment plan, we must ask:

What story are we telling with the words we use?

Culture Complicates the Conversation

In the podcast, Amelia shared a powerful example: one of her supervisees from another country presented a stereotypy reduction plan as the sole focus of treatment. The behavior wasn’t harmful. It wasn’t interfering with learning. But in that culture, any outward display of difference was seen as unacceptable.

This happens more than we think.

We don’t practice ABA in a cultural vacuum. Every classroom, clinic, and home comes with cultural norms, values, and expectations—about behavior, communication, emotion, and “normalcy.”

As BCBAs®, we must learn to hold two truths at once:

• Cultural context matters.

• Ethical obligations still stand.

Just because a behavior is stigmatized in a culture doesn’t mean it’s ethically appropriate to suppress it—especially if it serves a regulatory purpose or supports autonomy.

“I didn’t push my worldview onto my supervisee,” Amelia explained. “Instead, I helped her ask better questions—about function, dignity, and harm. That’s what changed her treatment plan.”

Replace Suppression with Support

Here’s what that can look like in practice:

Ethical ABA Is Built on These Pillars:

• Autonomy: Does this child have the right to express themselves in ways that work for them?

• Dignity: Are we preserving or punishing a self-soothing strategy?

• Context: Are we adapting the environment—or asking the child to adapt to discomfort?

Because when we reduce a behavior without understanding it, we’re not just changing topography. We’re changing identity.

And no behavior goal is worth that.

Navigating Pushback with Confidence and Compassion

You believe in neurodiversity-affirming care.
You’ve reframed stereotypy as regulation, not disruption.
You’re ready to advocate for dignity-driven goals.

And then...
A parent says, “Can you just make the flapping stop?”
A teacher says, “It’s distracting the whole class.”
A funding source wants “measurable reduction.”

Welcome to one of the hardest parts of ethical practice: when your values and someone else’s expectations collide.

Start With Empathy, Not Authority

Caregivers aren’t wrong for wanting their child to fit in.
Teachers aren’t bad for needing manageable classrooms.

They’re navigating real fears:

• “Will my child get bullied?”

• “Will they be excluded?”

• “Will they be seen as capable?”

• “Will I be blamed if they melt down in public?”

These fears are valid—and they deserve space. But they don’t get to dictate treatment that harms the child.

The key is to meet concern with curiosity.

“I hear that the behavior is hard to manage. Can we explore what it might be telling us about what the child needs?”

Reframe With Purpose

Here are a few ways to reframe pushback without invalidating stakeholders:

In the podcast episode, Nikki shares a story about a parent who resisted discharge because her child was still flapping—despite no other concerning behaviors. Through education, empathy, and sharing autistic perspectives, Nikki helped reframe flapping from something to eliminate into something to understand. That shift allowed the parent to let go—without feeling like she was giving up.

Offer Tools, Not Just Talk

• Share videos of autistic adults explaining stimming in their own words

• Introduce inclusive classroom accommodations (e.g., fidget tools, noise-canceling headphones)

• Use social stories or visuals to normalize regulation strategies

• Model language that validates behavior and offers context (“He flaps when he’s excited—it helps him express joy.”)

Sometimes hearing it from you isn’t enough. That’s okay.
Let them hear it from someone who’s lived it.

Clinical Reality Check

There will be times when you’re pressured to write a reduction goal you know isn’t ethical.
You’ll have to get creative:

• Can the goal focus on accessing regulation strategies rather than reducing stereotypy?

• Can you align with the environment’s needs without compromising the child’s?

• Can you document why direct reduction would be harmful, and offer an alternative?

Ethical practice isn’t about avoiding conflict.
It’s about navigating it well.

Stereotypy as a Signal for Advocacy, Autonomy, and Inclusion

When we look closely, stereotypy isn’t just behavior.
It’s information.
It’s communication.
It’s an opportunity.

Every time a child rocks, flaps, or scripts, they’re telling us something:

“I’m overwhelmed.”
“I’m excited.”
“I’m not sure what to do right now.”
“I need more input.”

The ethical question isn’t “How do we stop it?”
It’s “How do we support them through it?”

Because when we suppress those behaviors without understanding them, we don’t just lose a behavior.
We lose access to:

• Emotional expression

• Sensory regulation

• Communication

• Identity

“I like to think of stereotypy as a signal,” says Amelia, “not something to fix. It tells me where support is needed—and where inclusion begins.”

Inclusion Means Acceptance—Not Assimilation

True inclusion doesn’t mean making kids look “less autistic.”
It means creating environments where regulation isn’t pathologized, and difference isn’t punished.

That might mean:

• Making space for movement in the classroom

• Normalizing fidgeting, scripting, and pacing

• Teaching self-advocacy, not just social scripts

• Listening to what behavior tells us before we decide to intervene

Because when we allow children to regulate in their own way, we give them something bigger than compliance.
We give them safety.
We give them belonging.
We give them a foundation for lifelong autonomy.

This is what ethical ABA can look like.
Not behavior for behavior’s sake.
Not change for other people’s comfort.
But real support—for real needs—in a world that’s learning to listen.

Check out the episode from Action Insights: The Intersection of ABA & Mental Health that talks about targeting stereotypies in ABA services.

References

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2022). Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts. https://www.bacb.com/ethics-code/

Cage, E., Di Monaco, J., & Newell, V. (2018). Experiences of autism acceptance and mental health in autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(2), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3342-7

Dunn, W. (1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: A conceptual model. Infants & Young Children, 9(4), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-199704000-00005

Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improvements in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analysis and treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106

Kapp, S. K., Steward, R., Crane, L., Elliott, D., Elphick, C., Pellicano, E., & Russell, G. (2019). ‘People should be allowed to do what they like’: Autistic adults’ views and experiences of stimming. Autism, 23(7), 1782–1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319829628

Wright, K. (2022). A neurodiversity-affirming approach to stimming: Reframing stereotypy as a regulatory behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 37(3), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1896