Demand avoidance describes situations where a person appears opposed to doing something as a reaction to it being perceived as a demand. From the outside, this may look like the person is deliberately choosing to act defiant or stubborn, hence the name ‘demand avoidance’.
Many terms around autism and ADHD suffer from a gap between the surface-level observation of a neurodivergent trait and the actual lived experience of that trait. This is the kind of dissonance that results in terms to be called things like ‘demand avoidance’. That might be the reason that the internal workings of this trait seem to be about much more than demands, and have very little to do with deliberate avoidant behaviour. The reality is much more complex, and has many variations based on:
- Is there an actual demand, or request to begin with? Is the communication instead translated or interpreted as a demand?
- Is the demand external, or internal?
- Is it coming from an authority figure, real or perceived?
- Is a negative response triggered because the external request represents a distraction or a sequence break?
- Is a response triggered because, or in spite of, the neurodivergent person actually agreeing with the request or even already carrying it out?
Overall, what is called ‘demand avoidance’ seems to be less about deliberate behaviour, and much more likely to be one or more of the following:
- involuntary
- automatic
- a trauma or self-preservation response
- triggered by a sequence break, cognitive overload, forced transition, or a perceived threats to autonomy.
All in all, understanding whatever ‘demand avoidance’ actually is starts with accepting the premise that it’s not a neurodivergent person’s conscious decision to be difficult or confrontative.
Because of its complexity, ‘demand avoidance’ has to be considered carefully, which we will attempt to attempt below.
Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
What is PDA?
PDA stands for Pathological Demand Avoidance. While it’s not yet an official diagnosis in diagnostic manuals, the framework helps identify traits and develop effective strategies and accommodations to support individuals. PDA is considered a profile variation of autism, but also overlaps with traits seen in OCD and ADHD. The term ‘pathological’ has been criticised for being stigmatising, which has led to alternative interpretations of the acronym.
What is behind PDA?
Demand avoidance is not out of spite or stubbornness—it is an automatic self-preservation response to perceived danger and the expression of a fundamental need for safety and autonomy.
Tomling Wilding came up with the definition of PDA as Pervasive Drive for Autonomy to be less pathologizing and more accurately describing the core need. Autonomy is the core value for people with PDA and any demand that threatens this autonomy triggers a danger-response (fight, flight, freeze). 1
Internally, what others see as ‘avoidance’ often feels like being suddenly paralysed by confusion, overwhelm, or a sense that completing the task would somehow be unsafe. The person may genuinely want to do the requested activity, but the way it’s presented as a demand creates an internal barrier that feels impossible to overcome in that moment.
This response can be triggered by explicit demands (‘Clean your room now‘), implicit expectations (‘Everyone knows you should be on time‘), or even self-imposed demands (‘I should finish this project today‘). The intensity of the response often doesn’t match what others perceive as the significance of the demand, which leads to misunderstandings.
How demand avoidance is misunderstood
Demand avoidance is frequently misinterpreted as laziness, defiance, or manipulation. From the outside, it can appear that the person is being deliberately difficult or oppositional. However, this external perception rarely matches the internal experience.
To understand the underlying thought processes and triggers that manifest as what is commonly seen as ‘demand avoidance’, let’s look at a few examples from everyday life. These stories illustrate the disconnect between how demand avoidance appears to others and what’s actually happening inside the person experiencing it.
Example 1 – Dora is not making the bed
In the morning, when they’re getting ready for the day, Mom tells Dora to make her bed. Dora just says ‘No,’ and proceeds to leave the house.
What happened? For Dora, the request didn’t make any sense at the time for multiple reasons. For starters, in the spur of the moment, it’s incomprehensible what Mom meant: To change the sheets? To fold the duvet? Did she mean to do it right now? Why is this even important?
Also, for Dora, mornings are filled with anxiety: She is mentally preparing to go to school, and for her, being on time is of the utmost importance. And ‘being on time’ in Dora’s mind is being at least 30 minutes early, so she absolutely needs to catch the 7:46 bus.
If Mom took the time to sit down with Dora in a calm moment to talk through how making the bed could be incorporated into her morning routine, what the task entails exactly, and why it is important, Dora would be on board and set up to complete the request instead of ‘avoiding it’.
Example 2 – Lenny is not doing the presentation
At the office, Boss asks Lenny to create the presentation for the proposed market research design for their esteemed client, the Door Framing Company, by Friday. Lenny absentmindedly nods and goes back to what he was doing. The set deadline comes and goes, and Lenny still hasn’t created anything or asked any questions about the project. The Boss is wondering what’s going on there, so he messages Lenny and receives the reply that Lenny is still working on the presentation. Yet another week passes, and in reality, Lenny can’t even bring himself to start working on the presentation.
So what happened? For Lenny, there should be a clear process in place titled ‘Creating Presentation for Proposed Market Research Design’ that is logical for Lenny’s brain. He is an expert researcher but not accustomed to this new workplace’s workflows, so he’s at a loss about where to start and what the output should look like or feel like. He is paralysed by the lack of information clarity and feels unable to think straight. As it’s a new workplace for him, he is also scared to ask questions that would seem ‘too basic’, so he instinctively avoids engaging with the task — not because he wants to, but because it seems too daunting to even start contemplating it.
To overcome the paralysis, Lenny could catch a good moment at his peak time of the day and sit down with pen and paper to map out how he would approach such a task with his pre-existing experience, and then approach the Boss with specific questions. Also, the Boss could set up a meeting with Lenny to go through the usual format for research presentations and answer any questions he may have to preempt delays in the completion of the task.
Example 3 – Sunshine is not folding the laundry
In the living room, some clothes have been languishing on the drying rack. Sunshine and their partner have been eyeing them for a couple of days now without either of them actually folding and putting them away. On Wednesday, Sunshine’s partner says, ‘When you’ve got a minute, could you please just fold those clothes?’ Sunshine freezes, leaves the room silently, then goes on to load the dishwasher, mow the lawn, tidy the bedroom and the study, open all letters, do a quick 5k lap around the park before collapsing on the couch. They are still barely able to look at their partner or talk to them without tensing up. For their partner, this is clearly demand avoidance. What can be so complicated about folding clothes? Why the ‘silent treatment?’
So what happened? Sunshine has actually been thinking of folding the clothes and doing the laundry, and has even been looking forward to completing this chore! However, their partner’s request reminded them that this task is long overdue, so they feel some remorse. Worse, they feel called out, as they must have created the impression that they are slacking or not sharing the burden of running the household! And now they are being watched, and surely they won’t be able to live up to their partner’s expectations regarding the completion of the task, so they are so anxious they can’t fathom completing the task or being in the same space with their partner, as they fear some sort of punishment.
Sunshine is known to be hardworking and conscientious when it comes to household management, so it really should go without saying that they’ll fold the clothes — and here, ‘it goes without saying’ means that their partner can skip the request in good faith and trust that Sunshine will get to the task.
Avoidance as a response to ambiguity, uncertainty, or feelings of inadequacy
These examples highlight several important patterns in demand avoidance:
In Dora’s case, what appears as simple defiance is actually a response to ambiguity and competing priorities. The demand lacks context and clarity, and it conflicts with her need to maintain her carefully planned morning routine.
For Lenny, his avoidance stems from uncertainty about expectations and fear of failure. Without clear parameters and processes, the task becomes overwhelming, triggering paralysis rather than productivity.
Sunshine’s situation reveals how even gentle requests can activate intense feelings of shame and inadequacy. Their avoidance isn’t about the task itself—which they actually wanted to do—but about the complex emotions triggered by having the task pointed out.
In all three cases, what looks like ‘avoiding demands’ is actually about needing clarity, predictability, autonomy, and emotional safety. The avoidance is a symptom, not the core issue.
PDA and ODD
The behaviours associated with demand avoidance are sometimes labelled with other diagnoses, particularly Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) in children. This happens because surface-level observations of behaviour (saying “no,” not following directions, appearing to resist authority) can look like defiance from the outside.
However, understanding the internal experience behind these behaviours reveals important differences. What might be classified as “defiance” in an ODD framework could actually be a stress response to perceived threats to autonomy, clarity, or safety when viewed through a demand avoidance lens.
ODD largely represents an outsider’s view that pathologises perceived “difficult” behaviours without adequately exploring the internal experiences driving them. The diagnosis focuses on the impact of the behaviour on others (particularly authority figures) rather than understanding what the person is experiencing themselves.
This distinction matters because diagnoses like ODD often lead to behavioural interventions aimed at compliance rather than accommodations that address underlying needs. By reframing these behaviours as reasonable responses to genuine distress rather than willful defiance, we can develop more compassionate and effective approaches that work with rather than against a person’s neurology.
In contrast, understanding demand avoidance from a neurodivergent perspective centres the internal experience: recognising that what appears as “defiance” is actually a stress response to perceived threats to autonomy, clarity, or safety.
Affirming approaches to PDA
Traditional behavioural approaches that rely on rewards, consequences, praise, and punishment are often ineffective or counter-productive for people with demand avoidance. Instead, approaches that honour autonomy and reduce anxiety tend to be much more successful.
Strategies to try
- Provide choice and control: Offering genuine options rather than direct commands helps preserve a sense of autonomy. “Would you prefer to do this now or after lunch?” works better than “Do this now.“
- Collaborative problem-solving: Approach challenges as partners rather than through hierarchy. “How can we make sure this gets done in a way that works for both of us?“
- Balance directness with autonomy: Find the sweet spot between clear communication and preserving choice. Rather than vague statements like “The plants need watering” (which, although depersonalised and non-direct, creates ambiguity) or commanding “You need to water the plants now” (which can feel controlling), try “I notice the plants need water. Would you be able to handle that today, or should we figure out another plan?“
- Create clarity: Provide explicit, detailed information about what a task involves, why it matters, and what success (or “done”) looks like. Answer follow-up questions honestly and try to take them at face value. Often, these questions are not presented to question authority; they are genuine requests for more clarity and information that help the person understand and engage with the task. Questions are part of the clarity-seeking process, not resistance to it.
- Build flexibility: Allow for different approaches to reaching the same goal, and being open to timing adjustments.
- Be mindful about reminders: Recognise that reminders, even well-intentioned ones, can be experienced as accusations or expressions of distrust. For many people with demand avoidance, a reminder about something they were already planning to do can trigger shame and actually make task completion harder. Have open conversations about when reminders are helpful versus harmful, and develop a shared understanding about which tasks might benefit from reminders and which are better left unmentioned.
- Reduce demand load: Be mindful of the cumulative effect of multiple demands and creating space for recovery.
The core principle is to give a sense of control, autonomy, and agency while building trust through flexibility, collaboration, and equal partnership. This approach recognizes that demand avoidance isn’t willful defiance but a genuine need for safety and self-determination.2
