Eric Emerson and the Origins of the Term “Challenging Behaviour”

A parent or practitioner engaged in a calm, supportive interaction with a child, illustrating the values behind understanding challenging behaviour.

When I first came across the term “challenging behaviour,” I remember thinking, challenging for who?
It sounded vague… a bit clinical… and strangely polite for something that can feel very stressful for families.

It wasn’t until I dug into the history — and the work of Professor Eric Emerson — that the meaning started to make sense.
And honestly, the origins of the term are more compassionate and progressive than most people realise.

Why the Term “Challenging Behaviour” Exists in the First Place

The phrase “challenging behaviour” didn’t come from psychology textbooks or behaviour management manuals.
It emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, largely through the work of Eric Emerson, a researcher who questioned the way society labelled people with learning disabilities.

Back then, many support systems still used phrases like:

  • “problem behaviour”
  • “maladaptive behaviour”
  • “difficult behaviour”

None of these terms were neutral.
All of them pointed the finger at the person, rather than the environment or unmet need.

Emerson wanted to change that.

The Shift: From “Problem Behaviour” to “Challenging Behaviour”

Emerson argued something deeply human and deeply PBS-aligned:

Behaviour is only “challenging” because it challenges the support system — not because there is something wrong with the person.

This shift did two important things:

1. It changed the focus from “fixing the person” to “fixing the support.”

If behaviour challenges us, it means something in the environment, support plan, or expectations needs to change.

2. It reduced blame and increased dignity.

Instead of saying,
“They’re a problem,”
we began saying,
“Their behaviour is communicating something we need to understand.”

That’s a profound shift in values — and it underpins nearly everything in modern PBS and NICE guidance.

Emerson’s Core Message: Behaviour Has Meaning

In his early work (especially the influential 1995 text Challenging Behaviour: Analysis and Intervention in People with Learning Disabilities), Emerson emphasised that:

  • Behaviour is contextual
  • Behaviour is communicative
  • Behaviour occurs when the individual’s needs are not met
  • The quality of support plays a major role
  • Interventions must focus on quality of life first, not suppression

And this is where Emerson’s work beautifully prefigures modern PBS.

When I supervise PBS practice, I see the same principle come alive:
once we understand the function and reduce the stressors, behaviour often shifts long before we introduce any “strategies.”

Why the Term Still Matters Today

I often meet people who tell me they dislike the phrase “challenging behaviour.”
And I understand why.
It can feel like a label, and labels can feel heavy.

But when you look at the original intention, the phrase becomes:

  • protective
  • respectful
  • values-based
  • and rooted in dignity

It reminds us that behaviour doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
It’s shaped by:

  • communication
  • sensory needs
  • trauma history
  • environment
  • skill gaps
  • relationships
  • expectations

In other words, behaviour is feedback.

How Emerson’s Ideas Show Up in Modern Guidance

You can see Emerson’s influence everywhere:

NICE Guidelines (NG11)

Emphasise function, person-centred planning, and reducing restrictive practices.

PBS Competence Framework (2019)

Centres quality of life, values, function, and positive reinforcement.

Educational practice

Shifts from “behaviour management” to “behaviour understanding.”

EHCP assessment

EHCP assessments move towards identifying needs, not compliance.

It’s all part of the same evolution:
from blame → to understanding → to dignity.

What This Means for Your Child

Here’s where the term becomes practical.

If your child shows “challenging behaviour,” Emerson would argue that the challenge is not your child — it’s:

  • the system responding
  • the environment mismatching their needs
  • the communication not being understood
  • the stress too high or the support too low
  • the demand exceeding the available skills

There is nothing shameful, embarrassing, or “bad” about behaviour.
It’s a message.

Our job — professionals and parents — is to listen before we intervene.

There’s a moment I often see when parents realise that “challenging behaviour” isn’t their child being difficult — it’s their child trying their best with the skills they have.

It’s a softening.
A breath.
A release of guilt they didn’t even realise they were holding.

That’s the heart of Emerson’s contribution:
a reminder that behaviour is not a flaw — it’s communication in its rawest, most human form.

References

Emerson, E. (1995). Challenging behaviour: Analysis and intervention in people with learning disabilities. Cambridge University Press.

Emerson, E. (2001). Challenging behaviour: Analysis and intervention in people with intellectual disabilities (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2015). Challenging behaviour and learning disabilities: Prevention and interventions for people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges (NICE Guideline NG11). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng11

Gore, N. J., McGill, P., Toogood, S., Allen, D., Hughes, J. C., Baker, P., Hastings, R. P., Noone, S. J., & Denne, L. D. (2019). Positive Behavioural Support: A competence framework. International Journal of Positive Behavioural Support, 9(1), 1–16.

Beadle-Brown, J., Grey, B., & Ashton-Smith, J. (2020). Implementing positive behavioural support: Changing social and organisational culture. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 33(4), 584–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12702

Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Anderson, J., Albin, R. W., Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070200400102