The analysis of challenging relations: influences on interactive behaviour of staff towards clients with intellectual disabilities.
A staff member's harsh-dominant attitude—not low emotional intelligence—predicts cold, controlling responses to clients with ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked direct-care staff about their daily contacts with clients who have intellectual disabilities. Staff filled out a survey rating their own attitudes and how they usually respond when clients show challenging behavior.
The survey looked at two things: the staff member's general style (harsh, friendly, or controlling) and their emotional intelligence. The goal was to see which factor most shapes staff-client interactions.
What they found
Staff who described themselves as harsh-dominant-resentful also reported less friendly and more controlling behavior toward clients. Emotional intelligence scores showed almost no link to how they acted.
In plain words: your overall attitude toward people matters far more than how well you read emotions on a test.
How this fits with other research
Chou et al. (2010) predicted this result. Their earlier theory paper said staff attachment styles can block warm care, and Whitehouse et al. (2014) now supplies real-world survey evidence that harsh attitudes do in fact drive colder interactions.
Subramaniam et al. (2023) extends the story. They interviewed staff who saw adult attachment behaviors as "challenging." Together the two studies show the same cycle: staff label client behavior as difficult, then respond with less warmth.
Austin et al. (2015) conceptually replicated the survey approach with a different focus. They found staff attitudes toward inclusion—not skills—predict extra effort. The pattern is consistent: attitude beats training on the job.
Why it matters
If you supervise residential or day-program staff, target attitude change first. Emotional-intelligence workshops likely won't shift day-to-day warmth. Instead, use video feedback, peer coaching, or values clarification to chip away at harsh-dominant styles. Small attitude gains can ripple into friendlier, less controlling client interactions almost immediately.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one staff member, watch a 10-minute interaction together, and praise two warm moments to start shifting their attitude.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Relationships between support staff and clients with intellectual disability (ID) are important for quality of care, especially when dealing with challenging behaviour. Building upon an interpersonal model, this study investigates the influence of client challenging behaviour, staff attitude and staff emotional intelligence on interactive behaviour of one of these relationship partners, being support staff. METHOD: A total of 158 support staff members completed a questionnaire on staff interactive behaviour for 158 clients with ID and challenging behaviour, as well as two questionnaires on staff interpersonal attitude and emotional intelligence. RESULTS: Confronted with challenging behaviour as opposed to no challenging behaviour, staff reported less friendly, more assertive control and less support-seeking interpersonal behaviour. Also, staff used more proactive thinking and more self-reflection in dealing with challenging behaviour. Staff interpersonal attitude in general, mainly a harsh-dominant-resentful attitude, had a significant influence on most staff interactive behaviours towards an individual client with challenging behaviour. The influence of staff emotional intelligence, specifically intrapersonal abilities, on staff interactive behaviour towards an individual client with challenging behaviour was somewhat limited. CONCLUSIONS: This research supports the necessity for training staff in general interpersonal attitudes towards clients as well as training in intrapersonal emotional intelligence, when confronted with challenging behaviour. Future research should focus more on the bidirectional dynamics of staff and client interactions.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2014 · doi:10.1111/jir.12027