The Volitional Authorship and Need-Protection Model (VANP) is a developing theoretical model created by Danielle Cook, founder of Child Behaviour Alliance™.
It asks a different question about PDA.
Instead of beginning with:
“Why is this person avoiding the demand?”
VANP asks:
“What might this response be protecting?”
The model proposes that some responses currently described as “demand avoidance” may arise when a person predicts interference with their volitional authorship — their experience of being the author of their own actions — or threat to another psychologically important human need.
This could help explain something many PDA people and their families recognise:
A person may want to do something.
They may be capable of doing it.
They may have done it successfully before.
They may even have been about to do it.
And yet something can change when the action becomes expected, directed, observed, controlled or no longer feels entirely their own.
The behaviour may not primarily be protecting the person from the demand. It may be protecting the person from what complying with that demand is predicted to cost them.
Autonomy is often described as having choices.
VANP proposes that choice may only be part of the picture.
Imagine a child chooses to do an activity.
They chose it. So technically, they had autonomy.
But then someone else decides:
when they must start
how they should do it
how quickly they should do it
whether they are doing it correctly
whether they can accept or refuse help
when they must finish
what they must do afterwards
The child may still technically have chosen the activity while progressively losing the experience of being the author of the action.
VANP calls this Volitional Authorship.
It considers authorship across the course of an action, including:
Intention → Selection → Initiation → Execution → Continuation → Termination → Outcome
This creates a different question from simply asking whether somebody was given a choice:
Did the person continue to experience the action as their own?
This is one of the experiences that originally led to the development of VANP.
Parents may see a child independently begin something they have previously been unable to do when asked.
An adult might understandably think:
“So you could do it all along.”
VANP suggests another possibility.
The person's physical or cognitive ability to perform an action and their ability to perform that action under particular conditions of expectation, observation or control may not be the same thing.
The action hasn't necessarily changed.
The person's relationship to the action may have changed.
VANP also proposes that threat may sometimes be predictive.
A person doesn't necessarily need to hear a direct instruction before recognising what is expected.
They may notice:
tone of voice
facial expression
another person's emotional state
previous patterns
who is asking
whether “no” is genuinely available
whether they are being watched
what usually happens next
the possibility of correction
the expectation to continue
the possibility that they won't be allowed to stop
The nervous system may therefore be responding not simply to:
“Please do this.”
but to a predicted chain of events that the request represents.
VANP explores this through:
Attunement → Simulation → Prediction → Perceived Threat → Protective Response
Volitional authorship is an important part of VANP, but VANP does not propose that every PDA response is about autonomy.
A response may potentially protect needs relating to:
authorship • regulation • certainty • safety • sensory or interoceptive experience • identity • esteem • equality • connection • self-perception • dignity
And the same situation may threaten several needs at once.
This is why VANP uses a broader Need-Protection Architecture:
Active Need → Perceived Threat → Prediction of Loss or Harm → Protective Response → Other Person/System Responds → Escalation or Recovery
The response we eventually call behaviour appears relatively late in that process.
PDA has historically been identified largely through observable behavioural characteristics.
VANP asks whether we may sometimes be starting at the wrong end of the process.
A refusal, negotiation, escape, shutdown, angry response, attempt to control a situation or apparent avoidance is something we can see.
But what happened before it?
What did the person perceive?
What did they predict?
What became threatening?
What did they believe would happen if they complied?
What was their capacity at that moment?
And what might their response have been trying to preserve?
Behaviour can be evidence. It doesn't necessarily tell us the whole mechanism that produced it.
Protection does not always look like refusal.
VANP considers both externalised and internalised protective responses.
One person may:
refuse, negotiate, escape, become angry, take control, distract or use humour.
Another may:
become anxious, mask, freeze, ruminate, withdraw, self-monitor, shut down or become intensely afraid of disappointing somebody.
This raises an important possibility:
Different-looking behaviour may sometimes be protecting against similar perceived threats.
And similar-looking behaviour may sometimes be protecting entirely different needs.
VANP does not assume that a person's capacity remains constant.
Sleep, sensory load, pain, uncertainty, previous demands, transitions, social processing, hunger, emotional load and cumulative stress may all influence how much capacity somebody has available.
That means:
“They did it yesterday”
does not automatically mean:
“They can do it under today's conditions.”
VANP therefore considers the interaction between threat and current capacity, rather than interpreting behaviour solely as willingness or unwillingness.
VANP does not end when the protective response occurs.
The response of the adult, professional or system becomes part of what happens next.
Pressure, judgement or increased control may sometimes confirm the original prediction of threat.
Alternatively, restoring safety, time, capacity or authorship may allow threat to reduce.
Once threat reduces, something important may become possible:
Recovery → Reflective Processing → Communication → Repair → Re-engagement
A person's ability to reflect afterwards does not necessarily mean they could access that same reflective capacity during the moment of threat.
VANP does not ask us to ignore behaviour.
It asks us to become more curious about it.
Instead of only asking:
How do we stop this behaviour?
How do we get them to comply?
Why won't they just do it?
VANP invites us to ask:
What did this person perceive?
What did they predict was going to happen?
What happened to their experience of authorship?
What important need may have become threatened?
What was their capacity at that moment?
And ultimately:
VANP is a developing theoretical model, not an established scientific explanation of PDA.
It has developed from lived experience, caregiving, parenting, long-term naturalistic observation and the integration of those observations with existing psychological concepts and research.
The model is deliberately presented with testable and falsifiable predictions.
The purpose is not to prove VANP correct.
The purpose is to make it possible for researchers to determine whether the model is true, partly true, or needs replacing.
Independent critique, research and empirical testing are welcomed.
Beyond Demand Avoidance: The Volitional Authorship and Need-Protection Model (VANP) as a Working Theoretical Model of PDA
Danielle Cook
Child Behaviour Alliance™
Version 1.0 — 9 September 2026
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22673869
The complete working paper contains the theoretical architecture, observational basis, relationship to existing research and ten falsifiable predictions proposed for future investigation.
→ Read the full VANP Working Paper
For researchers, academics or organisations interested in discussing, critiquing or independently investigating VANP, please contact Child Behaviour Alliance™.
VANP sits within a wider body of work being developed by Child Behaviour Alliance™ around understanding behaviour in context.
Our starting point is simple:
When we stop treating behaviour as the entire story, we can begin looking for the patterns underneath it.
If you're a parent trying to understand what your child's behaviour may be communicating, the Child Behaviour Evidence Tool™ (CBET™) provides a structured way to organise your observations and look more closely at patterns involving capacity, recovery, expectations, autonomy and protective behaviour.
→ Explore the Child Behaviour Evidence Tool™
See What Others Miss™
VANP is a developing theoretical model and has not been empirically validated as an explanation of PDA. It should not be used as a diagnostic or clinical assessment. The Child Behaviour Evidence Tool™ is an observational and reflective tool and does not replace appropriate medical, psychological, educational or other professional advice.