Rad N Bad: The Myth of Assent? Assent as Behavior, Escape Contingencies, and Shaping Participation

Why Assent Turned Into ABA's Loudest Fight

Assent (saying yes to taking part) is a hot fight in ABA right now. The hosts open by naming both camps. One camp says that if a learner says no, the work stops. The other says that stopping each time leaves the learner unready for life. The hosts sum up the split in two short phrases. Some treat assent as an ethical step up. Others treat it as a slide back. Both sides, they say, hold part of the truth.

Michael Carrero adds a second snag: our words get scapegoated. A person gets trained once, has one good or bad run, and that becomes the whole story. The hosts push back on that habit. The science of behavior is neutral. A tool used badly does not make the tool bad. The fix is to go back to the science and use it well.

That frame sets up the rest of the hour. The hosts are not pro assent or anti assent. They want the word pulled apart and put back in plain terms. If you cannot count it, you cannot teach to it. The show then does that work: define it, read refusal, and shape taking part.

It's the professional practice of ABA that is tarnishing the science of ABA.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

Assent as a Tact: The Radical Behaviorist Read

Radical behaviorism (a science of behavior and setting) is the lens they use. It turns down free will and inner causes. What you do is set by your past rewards and the rules of the room. It is also set by what you want right now and the cues in front of you. In field terms, three things matter. One is reinforcement history: what has paid off before. Another is motivating operations: what makes a reward matter right now. The third is stimulus control: cues that set off behavior.

Run assent through that lens and it stops being a cause. You cannot see assent itself. You can see escape behavior (behavior that ends a demand). You can see distress, task work, waiting, and joining in. So assent is a hypothetical construct (a made up inner cause). It is a tact (a label for what you see), laid on behavior under set terms.

Michael ties it to how we talk about feelings. One person hears the word sad and sees crying. The next hears it and sees laughing. The word is not the data; the act tied to it is. Assent works the same way, and it has no shape until you give it one.

What we actually observe is escape behavior.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

How to Define Assent and Withdrawal for One Learner

Michael's short form is readiness behavior. That gives a team an objective lens, not a vibe check. Assent can have a topography (a look you can score) once a team writes it down for one learner.

So write it down. Most clinicians already point to verbal agreement mixed with body language that shows cooperation. They look for a learner who seems engaged in the task. The hosts frame assent as the behavior side of consent, not a feeling behind it. Write what that looks like for one learner, then write what withdrawal looks like for that same learner. Two staff should score both lists the same way.

Michael names what goes wrong when teams skip that step. Staff read their own mood into the learner. He says his own thoughts and feelings should not drive someone else's assent. Without a written list, a team scores its own guesses, not the learner's behavior.

the easiest way that I define it is like readiness behaviors.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

Refusal Is Data: History, Aversive Conditions, Skill Gaps

If refusal is behavior, then refusal has a history. Saying no is not a moral stance. It is shaped by three things. One is what no has earned before. Another is what in the task feels bad. The third is a missing skill. In field terms, that is escape maintained behavior (behavior kept up by escape). It gets set off by aversive (unpleasant enough to avoid) conditions and skill gaps.

That swaps the question in the room. Stop asking if you should honor assent. Ask what the room is doing right now. The hosts say the first question in a hard moment is what the team is teaching. Something is getting a reward in there every minute. You get to pick what.

Both hosts use one word for refusal: data. A no is data. A yes is data too. Assent is not a rule you obey; it is a read on your own plan. So check the reward rate, the task size, the pace, and the missing skill first.

Why is this environment producing escape maintained behavior?

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

The Strong Case for Assent: Self Advocacy and Rapport

The hosts give the pro side real weight. Honoring a no teaches self advocacy. When an adult honors a no, the learner learns that their voice counts. That skill shows up in boundaries, safety from abuse, medical care, and consent. Teach a child that adults always win and you teach that their hurt does not matter.

The second pro is rapport. Drop a demand and the learner settles. The adult starts to stand for safe, good things. The work feels less bad and more worth joining. Rapport is the reward history you build with your own face and voice. Build it and you get a stronger pull to join. You also get better instructional control (the learner follows your lead) and less escape.

The hosts will not give that part up. A warm, dense start is not soft work. It is the base for every hard task that comes later.

So in other words, assent isn't just ethical, it may be actually more effective when you're using it to build rapport.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

Safety, the Reality Gap, and Staff Who Want to Be Liked

Now the cons. Safety comes first. Some moments cannot wait for a yes. That list includes a fire, a road, meds, a needed exam, hygiene, or hits aimed at staff and peers. If no always ends the task, you may reward escape and unsafe acts by mistake.

Next comes the reality gap. School has demands. Jobs ask for a level of work, even with support. Doctors need help from the patient. Laws hold. Life holds delay, dull tasks, and plain frustration. Michael jokes that he cannot tell Sean he is done and still get paid. If the work only runs when a learner feels like it, what are we getting them ready for?

The last con sits with staff, not learners. Some staff want the learner to like them. Dropping demands buys that fast. The hosts call this the 'bad guy, not the mean person' conversation. Rapport is the floor, not the job. The job is skills, tolerance, and more freedom later.

And again, it's not about compliance when we frame it this way, it's about safety and independence.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

Shaping Functional Refusal: From a Push to Not Yet

The middle ground is shaping. The hosts lay out a real path from unsafe to useful. Start with any safe way to say no. If the learner hits, teach a push instead, then honor the push. That is a functional replacement (a safe way to say no).

Then keep shaping. A push turns into a sign or a word. The word turns into break, not yet, help, or different activity. Each step gets honored and gets a reward, so the new form beats hitting on cost. Waiting grows along with it. Later, not yet can meet a real reply: I hear you, and we still have to go.

The hosts are blunt that no one would take a shove as the end state. The first form is not the goal. The point is that you never stop shaping. Pairing (linking yourself with good things) is not two weeks of free play with no asks. It runs next to teaching, not in place of it.

We built functional skills that led to an increased tolerance with delayed reinforcers that then shaped that into leave me alone.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA

Engineering Participation Without Force or Unlimited Refusal

Sean names the design test in two lines. If your work needs force, you are likely short on motivation, rapport, pairing, shaping, or reward rate. If your work stops at every no, you are likely short on tolerance, grit, and real life prep.

What is left is plain design. You set up the room so joining in pays. Antecedent moves (what you set up first) build readiness. Consequence moves (what you do after) bring a learner back when readiness drops. A dense reward schedule (many rewards during work) carries the early load.

The hosts also name the loop in the logic. If you change the room to get assent behavior, you are shaping, not waiting on a free choice. By the strict read, that is circular. The hosts are fine with that. It is good behavior analysis with a new label.

Their close gives you a better daily question. Instead of asking did they assent, ask what you rewarded and what you meant to teach. A no and a yes both land in the same column: data about your plan.

So if your therapy requires force, if it's requiring you to force somebody to do something, well, you're probably missing motivation.

From the talk — Sean Yocum, MA, BCBA, LBA & Michael Carrero, BCBA, LBA