This informal CPD article ‘Misinterpreting Distress: When Behaviour Is a Signal, Not a Choice’ was provided by Freda McEwen of Insideout Programme, an organisation offering systemic, trauma-informed, and reflective training for parents, carers, and professionals supporting neurodivergent children and families.
Behaviour that is described as challenging, defiant or non-compliant is often misunderstood within professional practice. Across health, education and social care settings, behavioural presentations can be approached through control-based or corrective responses, with limited attention paid to the emotional, sensory, relational and contextual factors that shape behaviour. This article reframes behaviour as a signal of distress rather than a deliberate choice, drawing on trauma-informed, neurodevelopmental and relational perspectives.
Using established literature on trauma, interpersonal neurobiology and autism, the article explores how distress commonly presents through behaviour when regulatory capacity is exceeded (1, 2, 3). Particular attention is given to the role of emotional presence and co-regulation. When professionals or caregivers are emotionally unavailable, task-focused or inconsistently attuned, individuals with trauma histories or neurodevelopmental differences may experience increased insecurity. In such contexts, behaviour can escalate as a means of signalling unmet relational needs rather than intentional disruption.
Introduction: Why Behaviour Is Often Misunderstood
Across health, education and social care settings, professionals can regularly encounter behaviour described as challenging, defiant, non-compliant or controlling. These descriptions often reflect the impact the behaviour has on systems rather than the lived experience of the individual. While such interpretations are understandable in pressurised environments, they risk reducing complex emotional, sensory and relational experiences into surface-level judgements.
A growing body of evidence suggests that behaviour is rarely a deliberate choice to disrupt others. Instead, it is more accurately understood as a signal of distress, unmet need or reduced capacity to cope within a given context (1, 2). When behaviour is misinterpreted, professional responses may inadvertently escalate distress rather than resolve it, reinforcing cycles of dysregulation and relational breakdown.
What Distress Looks Like in Everyday Practice
Distress does not always present in obvious or socially acceptable ways. In professional practice, distress may manifest as aggression, withdrawal, shutdown, avoidance, heightened control, rigidity or sudden emotional outbursts. These behaviours are frequently observed across settings such as classrooms, foster placements, residential care, clinics and family homes.
Importantly, these responses often emerge when an individual’s regulatory capacity has been exceeded. Factors such as sensory overload, emotional overwhelm, unpredictable environments, relational insecurity, cumulative stress or unresolved trauma can significantly reduce a person’s ability to self-regulate (3). In these moments, behaviour becomes the most accessible form of communication available, particularly where verbal expression or emotional literacy is limited.
Trauma, the Nervous System and Survival Responses
Trauma-informed literature highlights that many behaviours labelled as challenging are survival responses mediated by the autonomic nervous system (3). When an individual perceives threat, whether physical, emotional or relational, the nervous system prioritises survival over social engagement.
Responses such as fight, flight, freeze or shutdown are not conscious choices but automatic physiological reactions shaped by previous experiences and patterns of relational safety or threat (2). In this context, attempts to control, sanction or punish behaviour may reinforce threat rather than restore safety, leading to further dysregulation and escalation.
Differences in sensory processing
Autism, Sensory Processing and Diagnostic Overshadowing
For autistic individuals, distress is particularly likely to be misunderstood. Differences in sensory processing, communication, emotional regulation and executive functioning mean that stress is often expressed behaviourally rather than verbally (5).
Diagnostic overshadowing occurs when behaviours are attributed solely to autism or assumed intentionality, rather than explored within environmental and relational contexts. Practice guidance consistently emphasises the importance of understanding behaviour in relation to sensory input, predictability, transitions and emotional safety (6). Failure to do so can result in inappropriate interventions and increased distress for individuals and their families.
Why Misinterpretation Matters
When distress is misinterpreted, the consequences can be significant. Individuals may experience increased exclusion, placement instability, inappropriate behavioural interventions or the use of restrictive practices. Families and carers often report feeling blamed, unheard or marginalised when contextual and relational factors are overlooked.
From a systems perspective, repeated misinterpretation can erode trust, increase professional burnout and reduce the likelihood of sustainable change. Trauma-informed frameworks emphasise that safety, connection and understanding are prerequisites for behavioural change (4).
Emotional Presence and Co-Regulation
Emotional presence is a critical but often overlooked component of regulation. Evidence from interpersonal neurobiology demonstrates that individuals learn to regulate emotions through relationships before they can regulate independently (1).
Emotional presence includes attunement, responsiveness, warmth and the ability to remain emotionally available, even when behaviour is challenging. When professionals or caregivers are emotionally unavailable due to time pressures, procedural focus, competing demands or emotional exhaustion, individuals may experience heightened stress responses. From a neurobiological perspective, a lack of attunement can activate threat systems, leading to behavioural escalation as a means of seeking safety, reassurance or connection (3). In this context, behaviour is not an act of defiance but a relational signal of unmet emotional need.
A Practice Shift: From Control to Curiosity
A meaningful shift in professional practice involves moving away from control-based responses towards curiosity and meaning-making. Rather than asking how behaviour can be stopped, professionals are encouraged to ask what the behaviour may be communicating.
Reflective questions that support this shift include: What might this behaviour be signalling? What sensory, emotional or relational demands are present? Has anything changed in the individual’s environment or relationships? How safe does this person feel in this moment?
Implications for Professional Practice
Professionals can make meaningful changes through relatively small but intentional adjustments in practice. These include slowing responses, observing behavioural patterns over time, actively listening to families and carers and creating predictable, emotionally safe environments.
Evidence consistently indicates that regulation is best supported through co-regulation rather than punishment. When professionals focus on connection, attunement and consistency, individuals are better able to regain a sense of safety and control, reducing the need for behavioural escalation (3, 4).
Conclusion
Behaviour that appears challenging is often an expression of distress rather than defiance. When professionals interpret behaviour through a lens of curiosity, compassion and context, responses become more effective, ethical and sustainable.
Reframing behaviour as communication supports trauma-informed, neuroaffirming and relationally responsive practice. This shift not only improves outcomes for individuals and families but also strengthens professional confidence, reflective capacity and system-wide sustainability.
We hope this article was helpful. For more information from Insideout Programme, please visit their CPD Member Directory page. Alternatively, you can go to the CPD Industry Hubs for more articles, courses and events relevant to your Continuing Professional Development requirements.
REFERENCES
(1) Siegel, D. J. (2020). The Developing Mind (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
(2) van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score. Penguin.
(3) Porges, S. W. (2018). The Polyvagal Theory. Norton.
(4) Bath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3).
(5) American Psychiatric Association. (2022). DSM-5-TR. APA Publishing.
(6) NICE. (2022). Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management (CG170).
