Written by Amanda Mentzer, PhD, BCBA-D, LBA, QBA
As I began writing this post, I recalled my first undergraduate psychology course where we explored the concept of “Nature versus Nurture,” a framework that positions biology and environment as opposing forces in human development.
Years later, while teaching an undergraduate course in learning and behavior analysis, I introduced students to a more integrated approach: “Nature via Nurture.” That seemingly minor shift, from “versus” to “via,” reframed how I thought about development. It softened the artificial divide and emphasized the interdependence of biology and environment. We are not either / or beings — we are products of both.
This post invites a similar shift in perspective, from “Mutual Cooperation versus Compliance” to “Compliance via Mutual Cooperation.” Just as nature is influenced through nurture, so too can compliance be collaboratively cocreated through mutual cooperation. In doing so, we honor the dignity of those we serve and create the space for sustainable, meaningful change that is grounded in a foundation of safety, trust, and empowerment, and held with reverence.
Why Language Matters
While “compliance” refers to behaviors that follow a request, demand, or directive, the language we use in behavioral services carries significance. The words we choose influence how our intentions are perceived and how our strategies are received. Without thoughtful context, words like “compliance” can unintentionally signal hierarchy, power, or control.
Without ongoing self-awareness, our roles as therapists, employers, parents, partners, and friends can subtly, yet powerfully, shift from collaborative to controlling. To stay grounded in partnership, we might ask:
- Do I value the personhood of the individual receiving support?
- Am I staying aware of how easily good intentions can become vehicles for control when outcomes are prioritized over relationships?
Progress may unfold more quickly when control is asserted, but progress without safety, trust, and reverence is not true success. It is essential to self-monitor and ask:
- Are we creating space for safety, visibility, voice, autonomy, and choice?
- Are we streamlining behavior to meet predetermined goals?
Redefining the Role of Compliance
Importantly, this is not a call to discard compliance. As behavior analysts, educators, and caregivers, we understand that compliance plays a meaningful role in learning and safety. It becomes problematic, however, when treated as the primary goal — prioritized without consideration of the individual’s readiness, motivation, or perspective.
Mutual cooperation reframes compliance within a relational, compassionate context. Rather than centering on what the provider or care team wants, or the achievement of predetermined outcomes, we ask:
- How can we move forward together in a way that honors the dignity, agency, and humanity of the individual?
This requires a shift from control-based approaches to strategies rooted in shared goals, connection, and reverence.
The Power of Mutual Cooperation
Relationships grounded in mutual cooperation foster engagement, creativity, problem-solving, and trust. They support autonomy, empowerment, and personal growth for everyone involved, not just the individual receiving services. These are the outcomes we truly want.
By prioritizing cooperation, we do not discard compliance, we transform it into something more relational and inclusive. As humans, we are more likely to participate willingly when core needs are met: the need to feel safe, seen, heard, valued, and respected. From these, other essential experiences emerge: being nurtured, supported, understood, and trusted. These are not luxuries. They are prerequisites for authentic engagement.
In turn, when goals or expectations misalign with a person’s wellbeing, we do not want passive compliance. We want authentic communication, in all its forms. This includes spoken words, gestures, and the behavioral expressions of those who cannot communicate directly. We want systems that recognize and respond to all communication, including resistance, as meaningful input. When someone says “no” — whether through words, withdrawing, protesting, or any other behavioral manifestation of dissent — it deserves to be understood, not overridden.
Mutual cooperation honors both agreement and dissent. It asks us to attune to discomfort, even when expressed without vocal language. It challenges us to listen deeply — to behaviors, to cues, to the full humanity of the person before us — and to remain open to adjusting our approach. In this way, mutual cooperation becomes a living relationship, one that strengthens connection, even when perspectives differ.
The Proposition: Compliance via Mutual Cooperation
We propose reframing compliance as a byproduct of strong, cooperative relationships, not a primary demand. This requires us to value consistently the perspectives, emotions, and lived experiences of those we serve — especially individuals with limited social power, such as children and people with disabilities.
It also calls us, as service providers, to remain vigilant in examining our own behavior, ensuring that we are co-creating solutions rather than reverting to control.
This is both an ethical and practical stance. Mutual cooperation fosters environments where compliance is invited and connection emerges naturally. Compliance is not demanded, nor is connection coerced.
When we center the human experience, we begin to build systems that are both effective and equitable. Systems where everyone feels valued and behavior change is collaborative, not transactional.
May we transition from strategies rooted in external control to those that cultivate authentic participation.
May we shift from the pursuit of short-term compliance to the cocreation of long-term mutual cooperation.
May we move toward Compliance via Mutual Cooperation.
