By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Clinical decision guide

Avoiding Conflict vs. Addressing Conflict Directly: Costs, Benefits, and When Each Approach Serves Your Practice

In This Guide

Side-by-Side Comparison
Clinical Decision Framework
Key Takeaways

One of the most consequential decisions a behavior analyst makes is not just what intervention to use, but how to approach the clinical question in the first place. For comfy with conflict: practical strategies for crucial conversations, the difference between an evidence-based, individualized approach and a traditional, protocol-driven one can significantly impact outcomes.

This guide lays out the key factors side by side to support your clinical decision-making.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Factor	Evidence-Based Approach	Traditional Approach
Short-Term Emotional Cost	Avoiding: Lower — no immediate discomfort of difficult conversation	Addressing Directly: Higher — requires tolerating discomfort, preparing for potential defensiveness, managing own emotional response
Long-Term Relationship Quality	Avoiding: Lower — unresolved conflicts accumulate as relational residue; both parties are aware of the avoidance	Addressing Directly: Higher — resolution creates clarity and often strengthens the relationship, especially when handled with empathy
Clinical Outcome Effect	Avoiding: Negative when clinical concerns are at stake — performance gaps, family disconnects, and team tensions that affect treatment fidelity are not resolved	Addressing Directly: Positive when done skillfully — corrects the conditions interfering with treatment quality and maintains therapeutic alliance
Supervisee Development	Avoiding: Harms development — supervisees do not receive the feedback they need to correct gaps and develop professional skills	Addressing Directly: Supports development — honest, specific, empathic feedback is the primary mechanism of supervised professional growth
Ethics Code Alignment	Avoiding: Risks violating Code 5.05 (Feedback), Code 2.10 (Advocating for Clients) when conflicts involve clinical obligations	Addressing Directly: Aligns with Code 1.01 (Being Truthful), Code 5.05, Code 2.10 when done with honesty and clinical purpose
Skill Requirements	Avoiding: No skill required — the default response when conflict tolerance is low	Addressing Directly: Requires empathy, assertiveness, emotional self-regulation, and structural preparation — all learnable with deliberate practice

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

✓ 60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)

✓ New live CEU every Wednesday

✓ Community of 500+ BCBAs

✓ 100% free to join

Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →

Clinical Decision Framework

Use this framework when approaching comfy with conflict: practical strategies for crucial conversations in your practice:

Step 1: Is intervention warranted?

Does the data support a need for intervention? Is there a meaningful impact on the individual's quality of life, safety, or access to reinforcement?

YES → Proceed to assessment NO → Document reasoning, monitor

Step 2: Have you conducted an individualized assessment?

A functional assessment should guide intervention selection. Avoid defaulting to standard protocols without individual analysis. Consider environmental variables, setting events, and private events.

YES → Select evidence-based approach matched to function NO → Complete assessment first

Step 3: Is the individual/caregiver involved in decision-making?

Goals should be co-developed. Assent and informed consent are ethical requirements. The individual's preferences and values matter in selecting both goals and methods.

YES → Proceed with collaborative plan NO → Engage in shared decision-making

Step 4: Verify your approach

✓ Is your intervention matched to the assessed function?
✓ Are you using the least restrictive effective approach?
✓ Is assent being monitored throughout?
✓ Do you have a data collection plan?
✓ Is there a plan for generalization and maintenance?

Key Takeaways

Individualization is non-negotiable. The best approach for one individual may not be appropriate for another, even with the same topography.
Assessment drives intervention. Function-based approaches consistently outperform topography-based ones in the literature.
Ethics are active, not passive. Ethical practice requires ongoing analysis, not just initial compliance.
Document everything. Both the decision to intervene and the decision not to intervene require documentation and justification.
Stay current. The evidence base in this area is evolving. What was standard practice five years ago may not reflect current best practices.

Go Deeper With This CEU

This course covers the clinical and ethical dimensions in detail with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.

Comfy with Conflict: Practical Strategies for Crucial Conversations — Mellanie Page · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $14.99

Take This Course →

📚 Browse All 60+ Free CEUs — ethics, supervision & clinical topics in The ABA Clubhouse →

Clinical Disclaimer

All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.