🧨 Rebranded or “Gentler” Interventions That May Still Be Coercive

⚠️ Not all trauma-informed claims are what they seem. When you change the words but keep the function, it’s still coercion.

Some interventions are advertised as “kind,” “positive,” or “assent-based”—but still functionally ignore protest, suppress behavior, or reinforce compliance over autonomy.

1️⃣ Differential Reinforcement Without Choice

🪞 Looks like: “We’re ignoring the behavior and reinforcing the right one.”
⛔ Still is: Attention or tangible extinction + programmed compliance
🚨 Red flags: Protest ignored; only one behavior defined as acceptable
🎭 Masked as: Positive reinforcement
🧠 Functionally: Withholds reinforcement until compliance
💡 Could look like: Reinforcing a range of self-advocacy behaviors, honoring the function of protest, and offering real options—not just adult-approved replacements

2️⃣ Planned Ignoring with Praise “Upon Compliance”

🪞 Looks like: “We just wait until they’re calm.”
⛔ Still is: Attention extinction
🚨 Red flags: Must suppress distress to regain connection
🎭 Masked as: Emotional regulation training
🧠 Functionally: Reinforces masking, invalidates protest
💡 Could look like: Co-regulation first, honoring distress, responding to protest while teaching emotional language alongside the child—not contingent on silence

3️⃣ “Earned Breaks” Instead of Honoring Break Requests

🪞 Looks like: “They can take a break—after they do the task.”
⛔ Still is: Escape extinction
🚨 Red flags: Breaks are conditional on compliance
🎭 Masked as: Communication training
🧠 Functionally: Denies autonomy under the guise of skill-building
💡 Could look like: Teaching when/how to request a break with options to accept or delay the demand, ensuring breaks are offered preventively—not as rewards

4️⃣ “Delayed Reinforcement” or “Wait Programs”

🪞 Looks like: “We’re building their tolerance.”
⛔ Still is: Tangible extinction
🚨 Red flags: Delays imposed without consent or distress support
🎭 Masked as: Patience training
🧠 Functionally: Withholding to reduce behavior, not build regulation
💡 Could look like: Teaching waiting with visual supports, timers, and co-regulation—gradually extending wait time with consensual, supported practice

5️⃣ “Behavior Momentum” or High-P Traps

🪞 Looks like: “Start with something easy!”
⛔ Still is: A demand trap
🚨 Red flags: Builds trap-door compliance
🎭 Masked as: Motivation
🧠 Functionally: Disguised escalation into forced participation
💡 Could look like: Using behavioral momentum to connect, not control—giving the person clear opt-outs and recognizing when to stop momentum to preserve autonomy

6️⃣ Token Economies as “Choice Systems”

🪞 Looks like: “They get to pick their reinforcer!”
⛔ Still is: Operant control over access to joy
🚨 Red flags: Access to regulation tools tied to compliance
🎭 Masked as: Empowerment
🧠 Functionally: Compliance-based economy using deprivation
💡 Could look like: Empowering the individual to design the system, including access to non-contingent joy, sensory tools, and rest without needing to earn them

7️⃣ “Natural Consequences” That Were Engineered

🪞 Looks like: “They forgot, so they lost it.”
⛔ Still is: Punishment in disguise
🚨 Red flags: Adult controls access but avoids responsibility
🎭 Masked as: Real-life preparation
🧠 Functionally: Shaming under the guise of consequence
💡 Could look like: True natural consequences supported by coaching, collaboration, and repair—not silence, exclusion, or weaponized neutrality

8️⃣ “Respectful Redirection” or “Kind Ignoring”

🪞 Looks like: “We calmly don’t respond to that.”
⛔ Still is: Extinction dressed in civility
🚨 Red flags: Person still dismissed or suppressed
🎭 Masked as: Trauma-informed
🧠 Functionally: Suppression of expression
💡 Could look like: Acknowledging emotion, using co-narration, and redirecting with curiosity and flexibility, not control

9️⃣ Noncontingent Reinforcement With Rigid Demands

🪞 Looks like: “We give it to them freely to prevent behavior.”
⛔ Still is: Satiation control
🚨 Red flags: No flexibility in demands or access
🎭 Masked as: Relationship-building
🧠 Functionally: Controlling reinforcement to block protest
💡 Could look like: Pairing free access with true flexibility in demands, allowing protest or refusal, and shifting from prevention to connection

🔟 Assent-Based Language with Forced Follow-Through

🪞 Looks like: “They said no… so we helped them through it.”
⛔ Still is: Escape extinction with a smile
🚨 Red flags: “No” isn't honored, just redirected
🎭 Masked as: Consent
🧠 Functionally: Weaponized assent
💡 Could look like: Asking for assent and honoring dissent, planning collaboratively for when “no” is said—using trust and flexibility, not forced follow-through

🤝 Summary Questions to Ask

Is “yes” the only acceptable answer?
Do they have the right to say no and be taken seriously?
Are emotions being honored—or managed?
Who defines “success”—you or them?
Does the strategy support communication, connection, and consent—or just look like it?

📚 Learn More

📄 Neurodivergent Rebel – “Compliance Is Not the Goal”
https://neurodivergentrebel.com/2020/10/22/compliance-is-not-the-goal/

📄 ASAN – “Informed Consent in Behavioral Interventions”
https://autisticadvocacy.org/2020/11/informed-consent/

📄 PDA Society – Respect-Based Strategies for Demand Avoidance
https://www.pdasociety.org.uk/what-is-pda/strategies/

📄 Ditch The ABA – Lived Experience of Extinction & Control
https://www.ditchtheaba.com/lived-experience