Talk:Pathological demand avoidance

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Autism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Pathological demand avoidance is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The article needs to say, preferably in the lead, what PDA is.

The first paragraph of the article says it is a "pattern of difficulties". This is not a description, it is maybe an attempt at an etiology.

The second paragraph says what it is not.

The third paragraph starts "these children". WTF? No children have been mentioned. If PDA is a condition afflicting children, this should have been stated in the lead, along with characteristic symptoms.

Fixed See what you think, edit if you feel it's necessary. Lova Falk talk 10:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What I see is a huge improvement. I am not involved in this field myself, so I don't have anything to contribute myself - but the start of the article now makes sense. Maproom (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God. Psychiatry is out of control. What a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.251.45 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy with 71. I have spent much of my life avoiding demands, and have developed techniques more effective and more socially acceptable than panic attacks. I believe that there's nothing pathological about this. Maproom (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be clearer that PDA is only a proposed condition at present. It isn't in the DSM-5 or ICD-10. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it shouldn't be portrayed as a well-established and reccognised condition when it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.3.135 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this to make it clearer that PDA is a proposed condition, not a recognised one. There were some misleading statement, for example describing recognition by the National Autistic Society in a way that could imply official recognition rather than acceptance by campaigners. I've edited these to make it clearer. I've also added a section on criticisms.

I'm making changes as this text is now out of date, and not in line with current practice. NICE relates to processes and expectations and isn't a diagnostic manual. The first paragraph in 'criticism' is the view of the author, and the second relates to a paper from 2003. The PDA Society now list almost 20 peer reviewed articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.36.104 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're all this way! Especially me.

The criteria, it seems, are a bunch of intriguing mild character flaws, projected onto an overhead screen in a self-help seminar.

Or a horoscope!

Is this science, or something softer, kookier, and more fluffy? 84.226.185.221 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if so, what factors determine that 2001:558:6045:F:78DF:261:A8D5:F46F (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article is reinforcing harmful, out dated stereotypes about autism and should be reviewed 46.135.66.61 (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: I agree, the article should be reviewed.

Full comment: I'd like you to be more specific on what parts of the article you are referring to, but I have also seen a few things that are concerning from this article, (mentioned below) and I support the article being reviewed. (If I understand what you mean by reviewed correctly)

The sections coming from this article refer to those with the sub-type as "socially manipulative", and states, "If the demand persists, they may strategically escalate to intentionally shocking behaviour, such as deliberately kicking someone to get out of doing something; afterward, they feel no shame for inappropriate or infantile behavior." as well as having "an appearance of social skills that are superficially acceptable but which have odd features, such as a belief that the normal rules apply only to other people, or that they have the same authority as adults or people in positions of authority;"

Moosetwin (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC), edited 5:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moosetwin Hi all. Am putting a note here as I’ve compiled some sources and plan to do a full review / rewrite of necessary components as soon as I’m able. If you could, I’d appreciate any sourcing that might help to alleviate the issue of neutrality from your perspective. Keep in mind that all sourcing must be professionally based, and referencing should reflect the real insight displayed in the articles and not selectively cut to fit a certain narrative, as appears to be a part of the issue at present with the article. I’ll plan to greatly balance insights based on contemporary scholarship / existing scholarship which was overlooked or selectively referenced, but will likely need additional sourcing beyond what is already compiled. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Regardless, best wishes to all - CSGinger14 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of you are new, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia goes by the reliable sources. Specifically, it does not post what we think is a positive view of autism, just because we'd like to present a positive view of autism.

If you want to write about this subject, you need to do this:

1. Find high-quality reliable sources. The best sources may be found in this PubMed search and in serious reference works, such as:
   • Woods, Richard (2021). "Pathological Demand Avoidance". In Volkmar, Fred R. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders (2nd ed.). Springer International Publishing AG. ISBN 978-3-319-91280-6.
2. Write in the article what those sources say about PDA, including both "positive" and "negative" things that the sources say.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WhatamIdoing. I appreciate your taking the time to engage with this, but I think you should be careful in assuming that just because a source is considered “reliable” in the context of site guidelines, that the view the source portrays in comparison to the larger body of scholarship is necessarily justified simply because it’s deemed professional. Whether users are new to the site or not, that’s a fairly well known and widely taught principle of argumentation and/or deliberation for scholarship on any topic, and it seems a bit disrespectful to treat valid criticism of what is very outdated scholarship with such high-handedness. The site guidelines are equally geared towards the notion that the body of scholarship used within an article is to be deliberated on and edited in collaboration with other editors. There are sources as recent as the late 20th century that would be deemed wildly offensive to use on the site (from nearly anyone’s perspective), even though they might be technically considered ‘reliable’ or ‘professionally sourced’.

I’d ask that you take care to avoid this in the future, and be more willing to engage with the criticisms that these other editors chose to present, rather than simply reminding them of site guidelines that I’m sure they’ve read at one point or another. This isn’t intended to be disrespectful, as I’m sure is true of your comment as well. Regardless, it’s important to engage with a person on the level of their concerns before handing them site rules as a blanket explanation for what could genuinely be problematic writing or deletion, even if it/they technically satisfy Wikipedia’s broader code of conduct. I’ve found it’s quite common and quite easy for users to sidestep criticism by following certain regulations to a T, while selectively ignoring others only slightly further down the page, or a few links deeper down the Wiki rabbit hole.

I’ve been quite busy recently and haven’t had a chance to make good on the promise of improving several articles, including this one, but will do so soon. Regardless, I wish all of you well, and look forward to a response or potentially assistance if anyone is willing.

Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are applying a customer service model to discussions – the customer is always right, you must meet the customer where they are, the first step is to affirm the customer's emotional state, etc. This is interesting (to me) because I think it has value, but is very unusual at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to hear more about what you think the "very outdated scholarship" in this article is. WP:MEDDATE suggests using sources from the last five years for heavily researched conditions. For less-researched subjects, we often double that to 10 years. The article cites one historically important source from 2003. It cites one source from 2010 (for a historical statement). And everything else is within the last 10 years (25% in the last 10, 75% in the last 5 years).

Because this article appears to comply with the MEDRS rule to Use up-to-date evidence, I wonder whether "very outdated" means that the article presents a view of PDA and autism that you find upsetting or non-progressive, or if you simply hadn't looked at the dates in the Pathological demand avoidance#References section, so you incorrectly assumed that it was based on sources from the previous century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WhatamIdoing. I’ll admit I didn’t do a deep dive into each specific reference’s dating, but make the claim based upon the very fast paced nature of mental health scholarship’s evolution, especially and even within the past several decades. What was thought to be true from 2010-2015 could very easily have been overturned or debunked by 2023, is my point. There are simply so many unknowns in the literature body that any new development can radically and fundamentally alter our understanding of the subject. While older scholarship can suffice for generalized observations, there’s a real issue in my opinion with trusting sourcing simply because it was recently published, even if it’s deemed reliable. I appreciate the response, and wish you all the best.

Regards, CSGinger14 (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that anything from 2015 or earlier could be outdated, but my point is that there are 40 sources in this article, and only two (2) of them are from 2015 or earlier. One of those (2003) is historically important, and the other (a 2010 book titled A History of Autism) is supporting a single sentence about history: "The term was proposed in 1980 by British child psychologist Elizabeth Newson" – and obviously that kind of simple historical fact isn't the kind of thing that becomes "outdated" as scholarly understanding evolves.

In this particular case, we have no good reason to believe that any evolution of scholarly views "within the past several decades" would be relevant, because almost everything in the article is cited to something from the most recent 10 years, and an actual majority of it is from the last 5 years.

For example, I imagine that the above editors dislike these sentences:

• When people with PDA perceive a demand, they often use socially strategic tactics to avoid it.
• For example, they may try to ignore the demand or distract the person issuing the demand by changing the subject, offering imaginative excuses, or renegotiating agreements on when the demand will be fulfilled.
• If the demand persists, a PDAer may escalate to intentionally shocking behavior, such as (in children) deliberately kicking someone to get out of doing something; shame or remorse for such inappropriate or infantile behavior is often not communicated.

but we can't realistically call them "outdated", because the first cited source for each of the three sentences is:

• a book published last year
• the same book published last year
• a book published four years ago

I suspect that the underlying problem is that PDA, as originally defined, was a quite severe, quite narrow set of behaviors – people who were so extremely anxious that using physical violence in some circumstances felt as (internally) justifiable as any ordinary person might feel while fighting off a violent assault by a criminal. But it sounds like the internet has broadened this definition substantially, so that people self-identify as PDAers even when the scholarly view of PDA doesn't apply to them. The difference between the "pop culture" idea of PDA and the scholarly view may be as substantial as the difference between the presentation of Psychopathy#In fiction (such as superhero movies) and the scholarly view of psychopathy. If this continues, we may, in a few years, have the sources to create a PDA entry in Therapy speak, for yet another word that means one thing to scholars of mental health and another, significantly different thing on social media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicolemicha (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kmcmiche, Crimson Kai, Jalyn547, MPHILLI.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it means that this article is the subject of a course assignment, and I'm a bit concerned. Are students expected to review the subject, including strengths and weaknesses of this article? This article is obviously not a scholarly source, and this issue is still being discussed and studied for validity. Nothing on this page can be considered authoritative. Is this a critical thinking exercise? (FWIW, I like that idea.) Will students be taking into account criticisms of this article, such as those on this talk page? Thanks for any info. Dcs002 (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the students are going to try to improve the article as best as they can. Experienced editors are encouraged to help out with advice and ordinary assistance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are students required to make edits as part of their assignments? That carries an inherent risk of making low quality or erroneous edits with the primary intent of satisfying course requirements rather than improving WP or this article. That has happened in the past when teachers have required students to create or edit pages here, and that's my concern. As I said last year, I love the idea of a critical review assignment, but not a requirement to edit. Dcs002 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different classes have different goals, but if the teachers are enrolled in an official program, they have all been told that they can't expect the students' edits to exempt from normal editing rules, including having low-quality edits reverted.

As a general rule, I find that student edits are better than average for first-time editors, and they are far less likely to end up blocked (about 15% of new accounts that make 1+ edits get blocked each year, compared to 0.03% of new student accounts that make 1+ edits – a difference of almost three orders of magnitude). The main problem is that first-time editors are mostly just not very good editors (yet), and almost all the students are first-time editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this reply. You have certainly addressed my concerns. I didn't know this kind of work was going on. My knowledge of class projects requiring creation of WP article pages is maybe a decade old (possibly older?), and at the time student pages were being nominated for deletion (and deleted) frequently. Pages were being created for class credit for non-notable subjects of all kinds. That created a certain amount of workload for the people involved in such work, either deleting inappropriate articles or fixing them, or arguing out which would be best. It seems that WP and teachers have worked together to make a better system for using WP as a means of educating students. I love the statistics you provided. Very impressive, and a great mark of success! Dcs002 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have been some lessons learned over the years, and some of them unfortunately were learned the hard way. And there is no way to force classes or their teachers to sign up for training programs, follow the recommendations (e.g., avoid editing Featured articles), etc. The "anyone" in "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes students, and newbie teachers who are thinking "How hard could it be?" But overall I think it's both pretty good, and better than it used to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written almost entirely as if this proposed condition involves children only. There is almost zero information or acknowledgement of how this applies to adults. (Does it apply to adults?) I only learned of this proposed condition/disorder/ASD subtype yesterday, and I'd like to learn more, but as an adult on the spectrum I've encountered many roadblocks because of perceptions that ASD is something that happens to children. I think that same bias pervades this article. If this is a proposed condition for pediatric patients, the article should say so. If it is not, then the article needs drastic expansion to describe it in adults too. Dcs002 (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. 45.47.122.92 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! As with so many articles about anything autism-related (and not just on Wikipedia), it would be much more useful to actually autistic people themselves if they also mentioned what it's subjectively like to have PDA rather than just what it's like on a superficial level for other people you interact with, and most of all what it's like for adults at least as much as for children. ZoeB (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100%, while I was re-reading this article it reminded me quite a lot about how autism is often seen. Moosetwin (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression there is a need, but none of us has the expertise to add the content. Maybe someone on the Autism WikiProject could help? Dcs002 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a request on the WikiProject Autism talk page. We're not having a dispute, so I didn't know where else to go for help. Dcs002 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcs002 I came to the talk page to say exactly this! It could well be that the article is weighted so heavily towards children because it's reflecting the bias of the academic/medical literature (this wouldn't surprise me). Definitely worth flagging this issue for further investigation. Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start. I'll be busy with other things so please feel free to add to it. I'll come back tomorrow, but I am not very optimistic about finding any good secondary source containing information that can be added to the section. It may simply not exist. Lova Falk (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished. It is not much, but there is not much out there. I wrote in a way to make it possible to add a couple of (hopefully) useful links. Lova Falk (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this! Even though there is little to report on PDA in adults, the fact that there has been so little done is an important part of the story. These changes and additions satisfy the concerns I had. Thanks again! Dcs002 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Dcs002! Lova Falk (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have 2 adult relatives on the autism spectrum and they both display pervasive (Pervasive is much better than Pathological) avoidance behavior in addition to anxiety. I would love to see more references to how adults on the autism spectrum manifest these kinds of behaviors and especially how best to approach this when interacting with them.Lc224 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know not a lot is understood about Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA), so this is meant to help, constructive criticism. It may be a bit harsh a points, but I have strong feelings about this. I believe this page's terminology is misleading to the core situation to this disorder. I also believe we need to be mindful of people with this condition feelings with our choice of words. This page uses a hurtful array of words, that I believe they also mislead the audience of what this disorder truly is and those people who have it intent. We are not ignoring the demand and we are not wanting to refuse. We are stuck, stuck in uncontrollable, irrational anxiety, which sometimes might get to fear, of the demand. I know this because I am an adult with Autism with Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA). This stems from extreme anxiety, 24/7, since birth. I do not truly know what calm is. It is not that we do not want to do the task. We want everyone to be happy, just doing the task can seem so overwhelming and fills us with more anxiety.

When a demand is asked of me directly, I freeze or sometimes meltdown, depending on how stressed I already am. What has helped is when other's approach situations differently by changing the sentence. The way things are worded are very vital to one with the PDA to thrive in life. For example, instead of "It's time to get up." (which makes me freeze and not get out of bed on time), people say "Good morning." (which then I can get out of bed and can get on with my day because I know that means it's time to get up) and that has been life changing for me. Giving 2-3 options in a question are great way of helping us too. Also, forming a question about starting a step in the task helps too, such as for a shower "Are you ready to get the water turned on?".

I believe changing up words would help people understand PDA more. As well as adding some professionals ways of how to help overcome PDA's daily challenges.

Dear writer(s), may I change the approach without changing the facts, I will have a PDA professional(s) I know review it beforehand? You may review it beforehand too if you'd like. I just need to know how to get it to you (I am a bit new at this). Music907 (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, @Music907. Our community has lots of people with autism, anxiety, and other forms of neurodiversity, so I think you will fit right in.

You do not need to have a professional review your changes. Sometimes it is even unhelpful (for example, an expert might be very good with their real job, but not very good with writing). We want everyone to contribute. However, "big" or "sudden" changes often surprise people, so I suggest that you start small. Can you re-word just one or two sentences as your first contribution to the article? Then wait a few days, to give other people a chance to check it on their own schedules, with no pressure on anybody. If nobody complains, then do another small bit. (If someone does complain, then we can all talk it over to decide what we think is best.) Over time, the article will get better.

By the way, I suggest using this link to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathological_demand_avoidance&veaction=edit It works more like a Google doc, and I think it's easier for copyediting work. As always, until you click the "Big Blue Button" to post your changes, nothing gets saved or posted, so you can take a look whenever you want, and just close the tab if you want to cancel it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "pervasive developmental disorder" from the lead due to the fact that PDDs are no longer a valid classification in the ICD or DSM, so it would not be a proposed PDD any longer. In symptoms for infobox, “emotional instability” is vague and conveys not substantive. It is not necessary to use the exact wording the study has used. As it is now, “emotional instability” and “antagonism” are both undefined. From what I could understand, emotional instability was a reference to emotional lability, which has its own article. Antagonism does not and would have to be explained within this article (with a citation) to be given a proper mention on the symptoms list. My edits were reverted, though none of the editors have accounts. I would highly recommend setting one up as it makes it far easier in these situations. I will tag who I can, thank you.

@2001:4958:2807:FA01:95F8:5102:C42D:EF61, @132.203.169.229 Slothwizard (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@132.203.167.27 Tagging this IP as well. Slothwizard (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal for the first sentence is: Pathological demand avoidance (PDA), also known as extreme demand avoidance (EDA), is a behavioral profile characterized by an intense resistance to complying with requests or expectations and extreme efforts to avoid social demands. Lova Falk (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposal! Labeling it a mental disorder, particularly on the lead, is probably not what’s needed, and this fixes it. Thank you. Slothwizard (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I changed it. Also, I would propose to simply remove the sentence: "Alternatively, some children may meet the criteria for both oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and PDA, as the two are not mutually exclusive diagnoses." First of all PDA is not a diagnosis. Second, when I look for sources to support this, all I can find is website urging people to differentiate between the two. However, these websites are not WP:RS (they are blogs, parenting support sites etc) so I cannot write an alternatve sentence about the difference. Lova Falk (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can change that too. If you find anything else, feel free to be bold. Thanks. Slothwizard (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Slothwizard, I will be! Lova Falk (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few edits, and need to move on to something else, so now it is up to you to be bold and edit my edits! Slothwizard, I have scrutinised this sentence: "PDA was demonstrated to have traits are strongly associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), emotional lability, and antagonism,[clarification needed] rather than being exclusive to autism." but the problem is that the word antagonism is literally mentioned in the conclusion of Egan's article, and I cannot read the whole article to find out what they mean. On the one hand, this is primary research, on the other hand, these conclusions (that is, that PDA is associated with ADHD, emoional lability and antagonism), are interesting! So what to do with it...? Lova Falk (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary service applications have brought me varying levels of challenge as a bishop. It is not easy to determine whether a young person has the character, steadiness or temperament to patiently serve as a full-time volunteer representing our church. Recently myself and two other church leaders counseled with a young woman (now 19 years old). Living in rural Arizona, there are few mental health resources or psychiatric professionals, but every word of the PDD Wikipedia page seems directly applicable to the observable behavior of our young missionary applicant. Benolaf444 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]