The 1980s were a turning point in the understanding and treatment of autism, marking a significant shift away from discredited psychological theories toward a neurodevelopmental perspective. Previously, the condition was often misunderstood and misdiagnosed, confused with childhood psychosis or schizophrenia. By the mid-1980s, treatment focused systematically on behavioral and educational interventions. This period saw a formal change in how professionals defined autism, paving the way for more specialized and targeted support methods.
Etiological Theories and Diagnostic Shift
The decade formally rejected the long-standing psychogenic theories, such as the “refrigerator mother” hypothesis, which incorrectly blamed autism on a parent’s emotional coldness. This shift was driven by research suggesting a biological basis for the condition, emphasizing neurological and genetic underpinnings. The focus moved toward understanding autism as a difference in brain development.
The most significant change arrived with the publication of the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1980. This manual officially separated “Infantile Autism” from schizophrenia, categorizing it as a Pervasive Developmental Disorder. The DSM-III provided the first standardized diagnostic criteria, requiring a pervasive lack of responsiveness, gross deficits in language development, and bizarre environmental responses, all with an onset before 30 months of age. This formalization standardized diagnoses and spurred focused research and funding.
Structured Behavioral Interventions
The evidence-based approach to treatment centered on early forms of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), a methodology rooted in the principles of learning and behavior. These highly structured, intensive interventions often required one-on-one instruction to teach new skills and reduce challenging behaviors. The core technique was Discrete Trial Training (DTT), which involved breaking down complex skills into small, teachable steps, followed by immediate reinforcement.
The pioneering work of psychologist Ivar Lovaas at UCLA gained prominence, particularly his model for Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI). Lovaas advocated for extremely intensive therapy, often recommending 35 to 40 hours of one-on-one sessions per week, starting in early childhood. His landmark 1987 study suggested that young children receiving this intervention achieved substantial developmental gains, including improved intellectual functioning and placement in regular education classrooms. This intensive behavioral model became a foundation for autism treatment.
Emerging and Alternative Treatments
The 1980s saw limited options for targeted medical treatment, as no medication was specifically approved to address the core symptoms of autism. Psychotropic medications were occasionally prescribed off-label to manage severe associated behaviors, such as aggression, hyperactivity, or self-injury. The antipsychotic haloperidol was the most studied drug, with research showing it could reduce behavioral symptoms and facilitate discrimination learning.
A range of alternative or controversial interventions were also explored by families. Fringe therapies like “holding therapy” were sometimes practiced, based on the debunked idea that autism stemmed from a lack of parent-child attachment. This method involved physically restraining the child to force eye contact, a practice that was ineffective and potentially harmful. Early attempts at dietary interventions, such as restrictive diets or vitamin megadosing, lacked scientific consensus and robust evidence.
Institutional and Educational Environments
The decade was defined by a transition in how individuals with autism received support, moving away from large, isolated state institutions. This shift was mandated by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142), which became fully implemented in the 1980s. This federal law required public schools to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
For autistic students, this meant a legal right to special education services, often resulting in placement in segregated special education classrooms within public schools. Although the law aimed for inclusion, the lack of trained specialists and established protocols meant that specialized, often separate, environments were the common reality for treatment delivery. The law also required the creation of an Individualized Education Program (IEP), a written statement outlining specific educational services to meet the student’s unique needs.