All Behavior is Communication. Or is it?

If you’ve been in IEP land for even 10 minutes, and have dealt with behaviors either as a parent or staff member….you’ve no doubt heard the phrase “all behavior is communication.” Phrase. Mantra. Some people treat it as gospel, or a daily mantra.

Parents and teachers everywhere have watched kids do some pretty unusual things…and wrack our brains with “well, what was that trying to communicate? what’s the message here?” And, as knowledge and philosophies evolve, there’s a movement underway to get people to stop chanting that phrase.

Where I have a problem is with that last part. Sure, all behavior is communication. But not all communication is done with intent. And that matters. So let’s get into it.

Who said it first?

The idea is often attributed to Paul Watzlawick in his communication axioms. One of his famous axioms is:

“One cannot not communicate: Every behavior is a form of communication.” Wikipedia
This is a close match in spirit.

The wording “all behavior is communication” is more modern and used widely in special education, behavior analysis, therapeutic circles, autism support, etc. But I couldn’t locate a primary source that uses the exact phrasing and credits an originator.

Some suggest behavior analysts like Carr (1977) used a related phrase: “All behavior has a communicative intent.” But again, it’s not clear whether that’s the first time or who was first.

In the field of developmental and therapeutic work, many practitioners invoke the phrase without attribution; it’s become part of the shared language (kinda like “oxygen is necessary for life”). It’s widely accepted and recycled.

Others point out that “behavior is communication” is used in practices like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), Positive Behavior Support (PBS), trauma-informed care, etc., without a single “inventor” being named.

All Behavior is Communication

When a person does something—especially something unexpected, difficult, or disruptive—they’re trying to tell you something.

Even if they don’t have the words, even if it doesn’t make sense to you, and even if it looks like “bad behavior” on the surface… they’re communicating a need, a feeling, or a struggle.

Think of it like this:

• A baby cries = “I’m hungry” or “I’m tired.”
• A toddler hits = “I don’t know how to say I’m frustrated.”
• A student rips up their paper = “This work is too hard and I’m overwhelmed.”
• A teen walks out of class = “This place feels unsafe or unbearable for me.”

It’s especially important in special education because:

Many kids in special ed struggle with:

• Language (can’t say what they feel)
• Processing (don’t even know what they feel)
• Regulation (can’t manage how they feel)
• Trust (don’t feel safe enough to express it)

So they “speak” through behavior. And when schools only see the behavior—without digging into the why—they miss the real message. And then kids get punished instead of supported.

Why do some argue against this phrase?

It can oversimplify complex behavior

Critics say the phrase flattens all behavior into one category—like every tantrum, meltdown, or punch is just a sweet little cry for help.

But… sometimes behavior is:

• A habit
• A sensory reaction
• Impulsive or compulsive
• The result of trauma or neurological differences

Not everything has a clear communicative intent, especially if the person doesn’t know what they’re feeling, or it’s an involuntary reaction (like stimming, self-injury, etc.).

It can put the burden on others to “figure it out”

Parents and teachers already feel overwhelmed. Some say this phrase puts more pressure on them:

• “If I don’t understand the behavior, I’m failing.”
• “So now everything is my fault because I didn’t decode the behavior?”

People push back when they feel blamed or like they’re expected to be behavior detectives 24/7.

It’s been misused in behavior plans

This one drives me nuts.

Some schools and therapists say “behavior is communication” in BIPs or FBAs—but then they turn around and still write punishment-heavy plans.

Like: “He’s hitting because he wants attention” and then the “intervention” is to ignore him completely. If the team says, “He’s just doing that for attention,” ask: “Do you mean on purpose or as a regulation strategy?”

That’s not decoding the message. That’s just slapping a label on it and calling it a day.

It can be used to dismiss safety concerns

Some critics say the phrase gets used to excuse dangerous behavior, especially in schools where safety is a real issue. For example: A child throws a chair, and the team says, “Well, it’s communication.”

The teacher might be thinking: “Cool. But what about the safety of the other 25 kids?” So they feel like this phrase dismisses their need for safe, structured environments too.

When is Behavior Not Communication

Neurological “glitches” (involuntary behaviors)

Some behaviors are just… brain stuff. Not intentional. Not even semi-conscious.

• Tics (like in Tourette’s)
• Stimming in autism (flapping, rocking, spinning)
• Seizure-related movements
• Involuntary vocalizations

These aren’t cries for help, they’re neurological outputs. And, there are dozens of different kinds of seizures–including just blinking, and even uncontrolled laughter. Trying to “analyze” these as communication is like trying to interpret why someone blinked.

Sensory-seeking or sensory-avoidant behaviors

Sometimes kids chew pencils, hide under tables, or spin in circles—not because they’re telling you something—but because their nervous system needs it. It’s like scratching an itch or adjusting your posture. It just feels better.

Examples:

• Chewing on shirt collars
• Covering ears
• Flicking fingers in front of eyes

These may signal a need, but that’s not the same as communication with intent.

Impulsivity or poor inhibition

Think: ADHD, trauma, executive dysfunction.

• A child blurts out in class
• Grabs someone’s toy
• Knocks over a chair when frustrated

They’re not always intending to send a message. It’s a failure of impulse control. Treating it like communication can confuse the situation and even shame the child. And we tend to treat behaviors with discipline, rather than teach emotional regulation skills.

Medication side effects or medical conditions

Behavior changes can result from:

• Medication (stimulants, anti-seizure meds, SSRIs, etc.)
• Low blood sugar
• Pain (headache, toothache)
• Fatigue

None of these are attempts at communication, they’re the side effects of something physical.

A kid slumped on a desk may not be “noncompliant”—they might be exhausted or nauseated.

Habitual or automatic behavior

Sometimes, behaviors stick around long after the need is gone.

• A kid always asks for a break at 2:00 because that used to be the hard math time… even though the schedule changed months ago.
• A student bolts out of a room because they used to get out of work that way—even if they’re not upset now.

This is called behavioral momentum; it’s a habit, not a message.

Here’s where I land:

“All behavior is communication” is a great starting point, especially for understanding and compassion.

But it’s not the whole story. You also need:

• Data
• Root cause analysis (hello, FBA)
• Appropriate supports
• And yes… accountability (for adults too)

So if someone says, “I don’t like that phrase,” you can respond:

“That’s fair. But I think it helps us remember to look beneath the surface instead of just reacting to what we see.”

Because at the end of the day: every kid deserves to be understood, not just managed.

And we can start by assuming there’s a message in the madness, even if we don’t always decode it perfectly.

So what do we do?

Behavior isn’t always communication—but understanding the difference is how we avoid mislabeling, over-interpreting, and writing 47 useless IEP goals for “compliance.” Instead of automatically assuming all behavior = communication, try asking:

“Is this behavior purposeful? Is there a clear pattern or trigger? Could this be a habit, a reflex, or a physical need instead?”

That mindset shift leads to better BIPs, better supports, and better relationships.