The Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS®) created by Andy Bondy, PhD and Lori Frost, M.S., CCC-SLP is an AAC system based on rewards and compliance. PECS® requires a non-speaking child to give a picture to a communication partner (trainer) in order to receive a concrete outcome (high value reinforcer), (Bondy & Frost, 1994). Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is embedded throughout PECS® because the system is based upon the work of behavioral scientist B.F. Skinner’s 1957 Verbal Behavior framework of language training curricula for persons with severe developmental disabilities[1]. Specifically, PECS® uses Operant Conditioning, which is a behavior technique that can be used to target and increase a behavior by pairing performance of the target behavior with a positive or rewarding outcome.[2] Per Andy Bondy, inventor of PECS®, “Skinner’s analysis of Verbal Behavior forms the basis for teaching particular skills at specific points in the training sequence and also provides guidelines for how best to design the teaching strategies.[3]” PECS® uses picture-based prompting and reinforcement tied to error correction in order to teach language skills. The method allows the trainer to artificially cause frustration through the withholding of highly desired objects or food until the targeted behavior is achieved, even if the communicator becomes upset or angry. It is not a natural or nice way to teach language.

PECS® is low-tech Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). There are six phases:

In 1967, Noam Chomsky, the father of modern linguistics and a founder of the field of cognitive science, in a critique of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior said, “… the controlling variables are to be described completely in terms of such notions as stimulus, reinforcement, deprivation, which have been given a reasonably clear meaning in animal experimentation. In other words, the goal of the book (Verbal Behavior) is to provide a way to predict and control verbal behavior by observing and manipulating the physical environment of the speaker.[5] Chomsky goes on to say, “Skinner’s thesis is that external factors consisting of present stimulation and the history of reinforcement (in particular, the frequency, arrangement, and withholding of reinforcing stimuli) are of overwhelming importance, and that the general principles revealed in laboratory studies of these phenomena provide the basis for understanding the complexities of verbal behavior.”[6]

The functions of human communication include so much more than requesting or responding to the withholding of highly favored objects and food, but PECS® is based exactly on this – the communicator receives a tangible reinforcement (“a highly desired item/food”) in exchange for a picture, or the communicator uses the picture to request. The problem is, most communication attempts are not always, or even generally about requesting a tangible object or food.

Even the animals communicate for reasons other than responding to withheld reinforcing stimuli. In fact, “Prairie dogs appear to have one of the most extensive vocabularies in the animal world. Not only can they use words to tell each other about an approaching threat, but they can also add in descriptive language to communicate the type of threat, including size, shape and even advancing speed.”[7]

When infants and then toddlers begin to develop language, they learn to label common nouns such as Mama and Daddy, ball, cookie, dog. They greet and take leave. They ask for help. They protest, a lot. Young communicators make comments and share information. As their language develops, young communicators begin to ask and answer Who?” “What?” “Where?” and “Why?” questions all day long, much to the chagrin of parents. Young communicators share their feelings when they are “sad,’ “happy,” “mad,” or “excited.” They are silly with their communication. Young communicators are playful. And as language abilities increase, young communicators begin to predict and answer “What would happen if …” or “Why do you think …” questions. Between two and three years of age, a typically developing child acquires a 400-word vocabulary.[8] To be limited to responding to or making requests for Scooby snacks is not true language development, nor is withholding a favored object or food until someone complies, treating that person with dignity. Children are not rats; we should not train them like rats.

Some other reasons PECS® is problematic:

By “only targeting requesting, the frequency of requesting increases which leads to more opportunities for denials to these requests triggering more externalizing problems (Nugai et al. 2017). This can lead to the cycle of requesting and externalizing problems as discussed in Dorney, K. E., & Erickson, K. (2019) Transactions Within a Classroom-Based AAC Intervention Targeting Preschool Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Mixed-Methods Investigation. Exceptionality Education International, 29, 42-58.” – Kathryn E. Dorney, M.A., CCC-SLP

A PECS® system is expensive, both for the initial training, and the purchasing of cards. The expense is ongoing. The cost to maintain and grow a PEC system is more expensive than the cost of many AAC apps on an iPad.  Additionally, there are even free AAC applications available, like LetMeTalk.

Many communicators benefit from the benefits of motor planning on a familiar board. When a board is used over and over, the communicator memorizes exactly where pictures/words are located.

With PECS®. there may not be immediate access to the card a child needs, and there may not be PECS® cards at all to communicate the kind of message a child may want to communicate. In order for a child to use PECS® to communicate with another person, there must always be access to a communication notebook. Pictures can be lost or damaged.

PECS® is an extremely cumbersome way to communicate. Additionally, it is time-consuming. The trainer must constantly adjust the binder or picture board holding the picture cards (Communication Notebook). Binders must go everywhere with the user.

PECS® does not respect body-autonomy, as the child is physically prompted or manipulated to comply with card requests. This operant conditioning method rejects communicative attempts that do not comply with the compliance training’s goals, such as looking at, grabbing for or trying to reach a highly desired object or food. It violates human dignity by ignoring the child.

The Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS®) is a trademarked AAC system that includes training, on-site consultation, and products. The PECS® method is operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is ABA. The PECS® cards are used in conjunction with tangible reinforcement. Reinforcement is withheld until the child complies with exchanging the card. PECS® is not the same as a therapist or parent using laminated picture cards to model language as they acknowledge any total communicative attempts made by the child. If an adult knows a child wants something (they’ve brought it to you, pointed, looked in that direction, made any attempt to communicate their desire for a highly favored item or food), why would the adult artificially cause frustration by withholding it until the child complies with the method in which the adult wants them to communicate? Not acknowledging someone else’s communicative attempts, even if the communication is through behavior from a non-speaking child, is controlling and cruel.

Therapist Neurodiversity Collective does not recommend PECS® as an AAC system. We have strong ethical concerns and philosophical differences pertaining to the use of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) on human beings, including ABA-derived therapy models. We do not force compliance through the earning of snacks, checkmarks, behavior charts, stickers, access to favorite toys, activities or similar. The fundamental goal of ABA is compliance with the will of the person in the position of authority; this is completely counter-intuitive to self-advocacy, self-determination, and upholding human rights and dignity. Therapist Neurodiversity Collective advocates for communication choice that is free from coercion and/or compliance. We are advocates for removing both access and opportunity barriers to communication. Robust AAC, including access to core language, is our first and primary choice for aided communication.

[1] Investigating the Acquisition, Generalization, and Emergence of Untrained Verbal Operants for Mands Acquired Using the Picture Exchange Communication System in Adults With Severe Developmental Disabilities

[2] Domjan, M. (2010). Principles of Learning and Behavior, 6th Edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage.

[3]   PECS: Potential benefits and risks.


[5] A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior by Noam Chomsky. In Leon A. Jakobovits and Murray S. Miron (eds.), Readings in the Psychology of Language, Prentice-Hall, 1967, pp. 142-143

[6] Ibid.

[7] Irish Examiner: Appliance of Science – Can animals communicate with each other?


5 Responses

  1. The Therapist Neurodiversity Collective’s goal is not to debate with ABA practitioners, but rather to inform our therapists and family followers about empathetic and respectful practice models, as well as to inform about ABA derived therapy models we believe to be objectionable, because they may cause trauma, violate body autonomy, self-determination, and human dignity. In the past three years, it’s become clear that such a debate is futile.
    The Therapist Neurodiversity Collective flat out does not practice ABA derived therapy models. One of our executive board members is Julia Bascom, Executive Director at Autistic Self Advocacy Network. She and Kieran Rose, Autism Campaigner and International Public Speaker are our mentors for all things neurodivergent and ABA.
    Of course, ABA works – at least initially – but at what cost to the client? Loss of body-autonomy, self-determination, loss of self-esteem secondary to masking, or to their emotions and sensory differences and preferences being ignored, or having to earn access to favorite items, foods, and activities? Compliance training is not speech therapy or occupational therapy. We honor all communication attempts, including behavior. There is no reason to debate.

  2. Hello Julie. You are the 1st SLP that I have read about that doesn’t practice ABA and I applaud that! Now, having said that how do I help my four-year-old son, who is uttering more words here and there learn to speak at home if all there is out there being taught is ABA?

    Thanks much!

    Aaron Shuck

  3. Exchanging a picture as a means of communication – just fine.

    Picture Communication Exchange System (PECS) – not fine.

    PECS incorporates an ideology, the core of ABA, operant conditioning, nasty anti-autistic programming. Reward(for NT)/Punishment(for Autistic). Unseen coercives. Forced compliance. Nagged to anxiety. Neverending frustration as a ‘breaking-in’ tool. Demanded conformity. The message of ‘defective’.

  4. Hi Julie,
    I find this approach really, really intriguing and I’m glad I’m not the only one feeling that some of the methodology for teaching language seems a bit punitive! As someone with little AAC experience-though I did take the intro to PECS course two years ago-could you direct me to any podcasts, videos, books, articles, that might add to my knowledge. I’d love to see what one of your sessions looks like, or to watch someone who is a member of this collective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *