The PDA Paradox

Understanding the Need for Autonomy

(The Extended Version)

Abstract

Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA), also referred to as Extreme Demand Avoidance (EDA), represents one of the most complex and misunderstood profiles within the autism spectrum. This comprehensive analysis explores the multifaceted nature of PDA, examining its neurobiological foundations, diverse presentations across different populations, and the profound impact it has on individuals, families, and educational systems. Through an examination of personal narratives, clinical research, and evidence-based interventions, this document argues for a fundamental paradigm shift in how we understand and support individuals with PDA—moving from compliance-based approaches to autonomy-affirming strategies that recognise the legitimate neurological basis of demand avoidance behaviours.

Section 1: Defining PDA

Understanding Pathological Demand Avoidance: A Neurobiological Profile

Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA), also known as Extreme Demand Avoidance (EDA), describes a complex neurobiological profile often associated with the autism spectrum, though it can manifest in other neurodivergent individuals [1]. The terminology has evolved significantly, with many advocates and researchers now preferring “Pervasive Drive for Autonomy”—a neurodiversity-affirming descriptor that captures the underlying neurological motivation without pathologising the individual’s differences [2].

Historical Foundation

Professor Elizabeth Newson first conceptualised PDA in the 1980s at the University of Nottingham’s Child Development Research Unit. Her groundbreaking observations revealed a distinct group of children whose behavioural patterns defied existing diagnostic categories, sharing an intense, pervasive resistance to everyday demands and requests. Crucially, Professor Newson discovered that traditional autism interventions were not only ineffective for this group but often intensified their distressing behaviours. [3]

The Core Paradox

At its essence, PDA involves an unconscious, pervasive resistance to perceived expectations—not simple defiance or disobedience. This resistance operates as an almost obsessive drive to avoid any social or daily demand, even for activities the individual genuinely wants or needs to pursue. [4]

The fundamental paradox emerges here: individuals with PDA may desperately desire to engage in specific activities yet find themselves physically and emotionally unable to comply when those same activities become framed as expectations or demands [4]. This creates a profound internal conflict between desire and neurological capacity.

Beyond Behavioural Explanations

This resistance represents far more than a behavioural choice or personality trait. It constitutes a neurobiological imperative—an instinctive drive toward autonomy and self-determination that operates as the brain’s attempt to restore equilibrium in environments perceived as threatening or beyond personal control [5].

Understanding this neurological foundation is crucial for developing effective support strategies and moving beyond punitive, compliance-based interventions that can prove not only ineffective but actively harmful to individuals with PDA [6].

Section 2: Neurobiological Foundation

The Anxious Brain: Understanding PDA’s Neurobiological Core

The neurobiological foundation of PDA centers on a hypersensitive threat-detection system that perceives demands as direct challenges to autonomy and survival [7]. This understanding transforms how we interpret and respond to PDA behaviours, revealing them as neurological responses rather than conscious choices.

The Threat Response Mechanism

When individuals with PDA encounter any demand—whether external (such as “please put on your shoes”) or internal (like feeling hungry)—their brain’s threat-detection system activates before conscious thought occurs [5]. This subcortical response, primarily centered in the amygdala, interprets demands as potential dangers to self-determination and control [8].

The brain’s response mirrors life-or-death situations, triggering the same neural pathways involved in genuine survival threats [9]. This explains why seemingly minor requests can provoke intense physiological and emotional responses—the nervous system genuinely perceives these situations as emergencies requiring immediate defensive action.

The Survival Response Cascade

This perceived threat activates one of four primal responses [9][10]:

Fight: Arguing, negotiating, or becoming oppositional

Flight: Physical or emotional withdrawal, avoidance behaviours

Freeze: Appearing “stuck,” unable to initiate action

Fawn: Over-compliance, people-pleasing to reduce perceived threat

Each response involves powerful neurochemical cascades—cortisol and adrenaline flood the system, preparing the body for emergency action [8]. When routine daily requests trigger this system repeatedly, individuals experience chronic physiological stress with significant long-term consequences.

The Neurochemical Landscape

Several key neurochemical factors contribute to the PDA profile [8]:

Stress Hormone Dysregulation: Chronic activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis leads to persistent elevated cortisol levels, affecting mood, sleep, immune function, and cognitive processing.

Dopamine and Reward Processing: Altered dopamine pathways may contribute to difficulties with motivation and reward anticipation, particularly when activities become externally imposed rather than intrinsically motivated.

GABA and Inhibitory Control: Disrupted gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function affects the brain’s ability to regulate anxiety and maintain emotional equilibrium.

Serotonin Regulation: Imbalances in serotonin levels influence mood stability, anxiety levels, and overall emotional regulation capacity. [8]

The Autonomy Imperative

This neurobiological understanding reveals PDA as a disability of autonomy regulation rather than willful defiance [5]. The brain’s primary concern becomes self-preservation through maintaining control, overriding rational thought processes and voluntary behavioural responses.

This constant neurological drive for autonomy creates the distinctive constellation of characteristics that define the PDA profile, forming a coherent pattern when viewed through this neurobiological lens rather than as separate behavioural issues [11].

Section 3: Masking And Hidden PDA

The Hidden Struggle: Understanding Masking in PDA

Masking represents one of the most complex and consequential aspects of the PDA profile, often rendering the condition invisible to outside observers while creating profound internal distress for the individual [12]. This sophisticated form of social adaptation serves as both protection and prison, allowing individuals to navigate social expectations while suppressing their authentic neurological needs.

The Architecture of Masking

Masking in PDA operates through multiple interconnected mechanisms [12]:

Conscious Mimicry: Deliberate imitation of neurotypical behaviours and responses to blend into social environments and avoid unwanted attention or demands.

Unconscious Adaptation: Automatic behavioural adjustments in response to environmental cues and social pressures, often occurring without awareness.

Strategic Performance: Sophisticated use of social skills and persona management to deflect demands, manage social situations, or maintain relationships [5].

Identity Suppression: The systematic hiding of authentic thoughts, feelings, and responses to meet external expectations of compliance and normalcy [12].

The Jekyll and Hyde Effect

This constant performance creates what many families recognise as the “Jekyll and Hyde” phenomenon [12]. Individuals may appear remarkably composed, compliant, and capable in public settings—schools, workplaces, or social gatherings—while experiencing intense emotional dysregulation, meltdowns, or shutdowns in the safety of home.

This pattern creates cascading challenges:

Parental Confusion: Families struggle to reconcile the capable public persona with the distressed private reality.

Professional Misunderstanding: Teachers and healthcare providers may dismiss family concerns or attribute home difficulties to parenting approaches.

Delayed Recognition: The masking obscures underlying difficulties, preventing timely support and intervention.

Relationship Strain: The disconnect between public and private presentations can damage family relationships and trust. [12]

The Psychological Cost

The sustained effort required to maintain a neurotypical facade exacts a severe psychological toll:

Chronic Exhaustion: The constant cognitive and emotional labor of performance depletes mental and physical resources.

Identity Confusion: Prolonged suppression of authentic responses can lead to uncertainty about genuine preferences, needs, and identity.

Mental Health Vulnerability: The internal pressure significantly increases risks of anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges.

Emotional Dysregulation: Suppressed emotions and stress accumulate, often resulting in delayed but intense emotional releases. [12]  [13]

Internalised PDA: The Invisible Presentation

For many individuals, particularly those socialised toward compliance, PDA manifests internally rather than through obvious external resistance [14].

This internalised presentation includes:

Passive Resistance: Subtle avoidance through slowness, “forgetting,” or minimal compliance.

Selective Engagement: Participating only in preferred activities while avoiding others.

Perfectionism: Setting impossibly high standards as a form of demand avoidance.

Physical Manifestations: Headaches, stomach aches, or other somatic complaints when facing demands.

Dissociation: Mental withdrawal or “checking out” during demanding situations. [14]

The Over-Compliance Trap

Particularly concerning is the pattern of over-compliance, where individuals consistently exceed expectations and requirements. While society often rewards this behaviour, it comes at tremendous psychological cost, leading to chronic self-doubt, difficulty expressing personal preferences, and eventual burnout.

This “invisible suffering” frequently goes unrecognised because the individual appears to function exceptionally well externally, while internally experiencing constant stress and anxiety about maintaining their performance. [14]

Recognition and Response

Understanding masking in PDA requires looking beyond surface behaviours to recognise the underlying neurological drive for autonomy. Support involves creating environments where individuals feel safe to express their authentic responses without judgment or pressure to maintain neurotypical presentations.

The goal is not to eliminate all masking—which can be a valuable social tool—but to ensure individuals have spaces and relationships where they can authentically exist without constant performance pressure. [12]

Section 4: The Low-Demand Framework

Building Bridges: The Low-Demand, Low-Arousal Approach

The low-demand, low-arousal framework represents a fundamental paradigm shift from traditional behavioural management to neurobiologically-informed support [6][15]. This approach recognises that behavioural responses in PDA stem from anxiety and physiological threat responses, requiring regulation-focused interventions rather than compliance-based strategies [6].

Core Principles in Action

The framework operates through six essential principles designed to reduce nervous system activation and honor neurological differences: [6]

Minimise Demands Strategically

Eliminate non-essential requests and expectations that don’t serve genuine safety or learning needs.

Combine necessary tasks to reduce the total number of separate demands. [16]

Timing matters: Present unavoidable demands when the individual’s nervous system is most regulated.

Question everything: Regularly evaluate whether each expectation truly serves the individual’s wellbeing [6]

Empower Through Choice

Offer genuine options whenever possible, even in constrained situations.

Create choice within structure: “Would you like to brush teeth before or after putting on pajamas?”. [16]

Honor preferences: Respect choices even when they differ from adult preferences.

Build autonomy gradually: Expand choice-making opportunities as trust and regulation improve. [6]

Communicate Indirectly

Replace commands with observations: “I notice the dishes need washing” instead of “Go wash the dishes”. [16]

Use collaborative language: “I wonder if…” or “What do you think about…” [6]

Embed requests in conversation: Natural mentions rather than direct instructions [16]

Respect processing time: Allow space for individuals to respond without pressure [6]

Prioritise Connection Over Compliance

Relationship comes first: Maintain warmth and connection even when tasks remain incomplete [17]

Validate experiences: Acknowledge the difficulty without trying to fix or change responses [6]

Stay curious, not judgmental: Approach behaviours with genuine interest in understanding [6]

Repair when needed: Address relationship ruptures before addressing task completion [17]

Regulate Before Requiring

Assess nervous system state before introducing any expectations. [6]

Provide co-regulation: Use your calm presence to support their regulation. [18][19]

Create safety first: Ensure physical and emotional safety before addressing behaviours. [6]

Allow recovery time: Build in decompression periods after challenging situations. [20][21]

Adapt Environment, Not Individual

Modify physical spaces to reduce sensory overwhelm and demand perception. [22]

Adjust social expectations to match individual capacity rather than forcing conformity.

Create predictability: Establish routines that feel safe rather than controlling.

Remove unnecessary pressure: Eliminate time constraints and performance pressures when possible. [6]

Low-Arousal Implementation Strategies

Environmental Design

Calm physical spaces: Reduce clutter, harsh lighting, and overwhelming stimuli. [22]

Quiet communication: Use gentle tones and avoid raised voices or urgency. [6]

Predictable routines: Create structure that feels supportive rather than restrictive. [6]

Escape options: Ensure individuals can access safe spaces when overwhelmed. [20]

Interaction Approaches

Non-confrontational presence: Avoid power struggles and argumentative interactions.

Patience with processing: Allow extra time for responses and decision-making.

Flexible expectations: Adapt requirements based on current capacity and regulation state.

Collaborative problem-solving: Work together to find solutions rather than imposing them. [6]

Implementation Across Settings

Home Environment

Morning routines: Create visual schedules with built-in choices and flexibility.

Homework approaches: Focus on learning over completion, offer alternative demonstration methods.

Household responsibilities: Frame as family contributions rather than individual obligations.

Bedtime strategies: Prioritise regulation over strict timing, allow for individual sleep needs. [16]

Educational Settings

Classroom modifications: Provide quiet spaces, alternative seating options, and sensory breaks.

Assignment adaptations: Offer choice in topics, formats, and demonstration methods.

Social navigation: Support peer relationships without forcing social participation.

Crisis prevention: Recognise early signs of dysregulation and provide proactive support. . [23][24]

Professional Contexts

Workplace accommodations: Flexible scheduling, quiet workspaces, and project choice when possible.

Meeting modifications: Provide agendas in advance, allow written input, respect processing styles.

Task management: Break large projects into smaller components with built-in choice points.

Communication preferences: Honor individual styles for receiving feedback and direction. [14]

Measuring Success

Success in the low-demand approach is measured not by compliance rates but by:

Nervous system regulation: Decreased frequency and intensity of stress responses

Relationship quality: Improved trust and connection with support people

Authentic engagement: Increased voluntary participation in meaningful activities

Self-advocacy development: Growing ability to communicate needs and preferences

Overall wellbeing: Improved mood, sleep, and general life satisfaction  [6]

Common Implementation Challenges

“But they need to learn to follow directions”: 

Focus shifts to building capacity for autonomous decision-making rather than blind compliance.

“This seems like giving in”: 

Reframe as providing neurologically appropriate support, similar to glasses for vision differences 

“What about real-world expectations?”: 

Build resilience gradually while advocating for reasonable accommodations in demanding environments. 

“Other people won’t understand”: 

Education and advocacy become part of the support process, creating understanding in key environments. 

The low-demand framework requires patience, creativity, and a willingness to challenge conventional approaches. However, it offers the most effective path toward supporting individuals with PDA in developing their full potential while honoring their neurological differences. [6]

Section 5: The Paradigm Shift

Transforming Understanding: From Compliance to Compassion

The recognition and support of Pathological Demand Avoidance demands nothing less than a revolutionary shift in how we understand human behaviour, neurodiversity, and the fundamental right to autonomy [11]. This transformation challenges deeply embedded assumptions about compliance, control, and what it means to support another person’s development and wellbeing.

The Critical Reframe: From “Won’t” to “Can’t”

At the heart of this paradigm shift lies a profound reframe that changes everything: moving from viewing PDA behaviours as willful defiance (“won’t do”) to understanding them as neurological incapacity (“can’t do”) in the face of perceived threats to autonomy.

This isn’t semantic wordplay—it’s a fundamental recognition that PDA represents a disability of autonomy regulation, not a behavioural choice. Just as we wouldn’t expect someone with a visual impairment to see clearly without appropriate support, we cannot expect individuals with PDA to respond typically to demands without neurologically-informed accommodations. [5]

The Transformation Imperative

Why Change is Essential, Not Optional

Traditional approaches don’t just fail individuals with PDA—they actively cause harm [6]. Compliance-based interventions trigger the very threat responses they aim to eliminate, creating cycles of escalation, trauma, and relationship breakdown. The stakes couldn’t be higher. 

Without this paradigm shift, we risk:

• Systematic trauma through repeated activation of threat responses [9]

• Identity suppression that disconnects individuals from their authentic selves [12]

• Relationship destruction between individuals and their support networks [17]

• Missed potential as unique strengths remain unrecognised and undeveloped [11]

• Mental health crises stemming from chronic stress and misunderstanding [13]

The Five Pillars of Transformation

1. Acknowledge the Harm of Compliance-Based Approaches

Old Thinking: “They need to learn to follow directions like everyone else.”

New Understanding: Compliance-based approaches trigger neurological threat responses, causing trauma and preventing genuine learning and growth.

Action Required: Audit current practices, eliminate punitive measures, and retrain professionals in neurodiversity-affirming approaches. [6]

2. Embrace Neurological Reality

Old Thinking: “This is attention-seeking behaviour or manipulation.”

New Understanding: behaviours stem from neurological differences in threat perception and autonomy regulation, not conscious choice. [5]

Action Required: Educate all stakeholders about the neurobiological basis of PDA and implement support strategies that address underlying neurological needs. [11]

3. Revolutionise Reward and Consequence Systems

Old Thinking: “Consistent consequences will teach appropriate behaviour.”

New Understanding: Traditional behavioural systems often backfire, increasing anxiety and resistance while failing to address core neurological needs.

Action Required: Replace behavioural modification programs with relationship-based, regulation-focused approaches that honor individual neurological differences. [6]

4. Recognise and Cultivate Strengths

Old Thinking: “Focus on fixing deficits and problem behaviours.”

New Understanding: Individuals with PDA possess sophisticated cognitive abilities, creative problem-solving skills, and unique perspectives that benefit communities.

Action Required: Identify and nurture individual strengths, create opportunities for meaningful contribution, and value neurodivergent perspectives. [11]

5. Commit to Autonomy-Honoring Relationships

Old Thinking: “Adults know best and children/students should comply.”

New Understanding: Genuine growth occurs through collaborative relationships that respect individual autonomy and decision-making capacity.

Action Required: Develop partnership-based approaches, involve individuals in decisions affecting them, and create environments where authentic self-expression is safe and valued. [17]

The Ripple Effect: Systemic Change

This paradigm shift extends far beyond individual support strategies—it demands transformation across systems [11]:

Educational Revolution

Curriculum Design: Move from compliance-based to choice-rich learning environments [23]

Assessment Innovation: Develop alternatives to traditional testing that honor diverse learning styles [24]

Teacher Training: Comprehensive education in neurodiversity and trauma-informed practices [24]

Policy Reform: Advocate for legislation protecting neurodivergent students’ rights to appropriate accommodations [23]

Healthcare Transformation

Diagnostic Accuracy: Improve recognition of PDA across diverse populations and presentations [3]

Treatment Approaches: Shift from behavioural modification to nervous system regulation and family support [6]

Professional Development: Train healthcare providers in neurodiversity-affirming practices [11]

Research Investment: Fund studies on effective interventions and long-term outcomes [11]

Workplace Evolution

Accommodation Innovation: Develop creative workplace supports that honor autonomy needs.

Leadership Training: Educate managers in neurodiversity and inclusive leadership practices.

Culture Change: Create environments where different working styles are valued and supported.

Legal Advocacy: Strengthen disability rights protections for neurodivergent individuals. [14]

The Call to Action

For Families: 

Embrace your role as advocates and allies. Trust your instincts about your loved one’s needs, seek out neurodiversity-affirming professionals, and connect with communities that understand and support your journey [25][26].

For Educators: 

Question traditional approaches that prioritise compliance over wellbeing. Advocate for training in neurodiversity, implement low-demand strategies in your classroom, and become a voice for systemic change in your school [24].

For Healthcare Providers:

Commit to understanding the neurobiological reality of PDA. Move beyond behavioural explanations to address underlying nervous system needs, and support families with compassion and evidence-based approaches [11].

For Policymakers: 

Recognise that neurodiversity is a civil rights issue. Invest in research, training, and systemic supports that honor the full spectrum of human neurological diversity [11].

For Society: 

Embrace a broader definition of normal that includes and values neurological differences. Challenge ableist assumptions about behaviour and compliance, and advocate for inclusive communities where everyone can thrive [12].

The Vision: A Neurodiversity-Affirming Future

Imagine educational environments where individual learning differences are celebrated rather than pathologised [24].

Picture workplaces that harness the unique strengths of neurodivergent minds [14].

Envision communities where different ways of being are understood as natural variations rather than deficits requiring correction [12].

This vision is not utopian—it’s achievable through committed, systematic change guided by understanding, compassion, and respect for human neurological diversity [11].

The Time is Now

The paradigm shift from compliance to compassion, from control to collaboration, from deficit-focused to strength-based approaches isn’t just beneficial—it’s a moral imperative [11]. Every day we delay this transformation, individuals with PDA continue to experience unnecessary trauma, families struggle without adequate support, and society loses the valuable contributions of neurodivergent minds.

The research exists [3][11]. The understanding is available [5][6]. The strategies are proven effective [6][15]. What’s needed now is the courage to challenge existing systems and the commitment to create something better.

The future of neurodiversity support depends on our willingness to embrace this paradigm shift today.

Together, we can create a world where every individual—regardless of their neurological profile—has the opportunity to thrive, contribute, and live with dignity and autonomy [11].

References

1. Wikipedia. (2025, September 13). Pathological demand avoidance. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_demand_avoidance

2. PDA Society. (2025, September 13). Pathological Demand Avoidance. Retrieved from https://www.pdasociety.org.uk/

3. O’Nions, E., Viding, E., Greven, C. U., Ronald, A., & Happé, F. (2014). Identifying features of ‘pathological demand avoidance’ using the Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders (DISCO). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(7), 523-533. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4820467/

4. Discovery ABA. (2025, September 13). PDA Profile In Autism. Retrieved from https://www.discoveryaba.com/aba-therapy/pda-profile-in-autism

5. Neurodivergent Insights. (2025, September 13). Autism PDA Explained: The Core Characteristics of Pathological Demand Avoidance. Retrieved from https://neurodivergentinsights.com/autism-pda-explained/

6. Low Arousal Approach. (2025, September 13). Retrieved from https://www.lowarousal.com/

7. Young Scholars Academy. (2025, September 13). PDA in Gifted + 2e Children: Understanding The Nervous System Response + Supporting Autonomy. Retrieved from https://youngscholarsacademy.org/blog/understanding-pda-in-gifted-and-2e-children

8. Bandelow, B., et al. (2017). Biological markers for anxiety disorders, OCD and PTSD: A consensus statement. Part II: Neurochemistry, neurophysiology and neurocognition. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 18(3), 162-214. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5341771/

9. McLeod, S. (2025, September 16). Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fawn: How We Respond to Threats. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/fight-flight-freeze-fawn.html

10. Pacific Health Group. (2025, September 16). Understanding Fight, Flight, Freeze, Fawn Responses to Stress. Retrieved from https://mypacifichealth.com/fight-flight-freeze-fawn-stress-responses/

11. Attwood & Garnett Events. (2025, September 13). PDA: Current Understanding and Future Research Directions. Retrieved from https://www.attwoodandgarnettevents.com/blogs/news/pda-current-understanding-and-future-research-directions

12. Reframing Autism. (2025, September 13). Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) and Autism: A Guide For Allies. Retrieved from https://reframingautism.org.au/pathological-demand-avoidance-pda-and-autism-guide-for-allies/

13. Child Mind Institute. (2025, September 13). Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) in Kids. Retrieved from https://childmind.org/article/pathological-demand-avoidance-in-kids/

14. Bloksberg, R. (2025, September 13). Living with pathological demand avoidance: strategies for dealing with PDA in adults for autism and ADHD. Retrieved from https://rachellebloksberg.com/living-with-pathological-demand-avoidance-strategies-for-dealing-with-pda-in-adults-for-autism-and-adhd/

15. McDonnell, A., et al. (2024). The Low Arousal Approach: A systematic review. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11002904/

16. HES Extraordinary. (2025, September 13). 15 Effective Parenting Strategies for Pathological Demand Avoidance. Retrieved from https://hes-extraordinary.com/parenting-strategies-for-pathological-demand-avoidance

17. PDA North America. (2023, June). It’s All About Trust. Retrieved from https://pdanorthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ItsAllAboutTrust.pdf

18. Havern School. (2025, September 13). Using Co-Regulation To Help A Child Develop Self-Regulation. Retrieved from https://www.havernschool.org/blog/using-co-regulation-to-help-a-child-develop-self-regulation

19. Reframing Autism. (2025, September 13). Emotional Regulation, Part Two: Using Co-regulation to Teach Emotional Regulation. Retrieved from https://reframingautism.org.au/emotional-regulation-part-two-using-co-regulation-to-teach-emotional-regulation/

20. Neurodivergent Insights. (2025, September 16). The Window of Tolerance | How to Expand Your Capacity for Stress. Retrieved from https://neurodivergentinsights.com/window-of-tolerance/

21. Mi-Psych. (2025, September 16). Your Window of Tolerance | Emotion-Regulation Skills. Retrieved from https://mi-psych.com.au/understanding-your-window-of-tolerance/

22. IntelliStars ABA. (2025, September 13). How to Use Sensory Strategies to Support Emotional Regulation. Retrieved from https://www.intellistarsaba.com/blog/how-to-use-sensory-strategies-to-support-emotional-regulation

23. Hive Parents. (2025, September 13). 10 Reasonable School Accommodations for PDA. Retrieved from https://www.hiveparents.com/blog/ten-reasonable-school-accommodations-for-pda

24. Behaviour Help. (2025, September 13). Ten Effective Classroom Strategies for Teachers Supporting Students with PDA. Retrieved from https://behaviourhelp.com/a-z-conditions-disorders/pathological-demand-avoidance/ten-effective-classroom-strategies-for-teachers-supporting-students-with-pathological-demand-avoidance

25. At Peace Parents. (2025, September 13). About. Retrieved from https://www.atpeaceparents.com/about

26. Pathological Demand Avoidance Australia & New Zealand. (2025, September 13). Retrieved from http://pdaanz.com/