Who they are
Andrew McDonnell (BSc, MSc, PhD) is a British clinical psychologist who developed the low-arousal approach to supporting people with intellectual disabilities and autism who display behaviours that services find challenging. He is the founder of Studio III, a training and consultancy organisation that has trained over 70% of its work in learning disabilities and autism settings across the UK. See Low-arousal approaches for the wiki’s strategy page.
McDonnell’s low-arousal approach is one of the most widely adopted frameworks in UK care settings for autistic people with intellectual disabilities. It represents an alternative to behaviour-modification paradigms (ABA, PBS) that the neurodiversity community has critiqued.
Key contributions
The low-arousal approach
McDonnell developed a framework for preventing and de-escalating distress that locates the responsibility primarily in the environment and in carer behaviour, not in the person displaying challenging behaviour. The core principles: reduce demands, reduce environmental stimulation, avoid known triggers, regulate your own arousal first, and never use aversive responses as a first line.
The approach aligns with the social model of disability: challenging behaviour results from environmental stressors, not from the person.
Carer-focused training
A distinctive feature of McDonnell’s work is the emphasis on training carers to monitor and regulate their own arousal. The insight: an escalated carer escalates the person they are supporting. If you want a calm environment, you start with calm staff. Studio III training focuses as much on carer self-regulation as on understanding the person they support.
Non-aversive philosophy
McDonnell has advocated for non-aversive approaches in care settings—against restraint, punishment, and compliance-focused interventions. This positions him as an ally to neurodiversity, though his work comes from clinical psychology and disability services rather than autistic self-advocacy.
Critical assessment
The evidence base for the low-arousal approach is limited. Published peer-reviewed outcome research is sparse; the strongest published evidence is a 2024 qualitative study of parents reporting increased confidence and empowerment after low-arousal training. This is valuable but does not constitute rigorous outcome evidence.
The hyperarousal hypothesis — that autism and ID involve chronically elevated physiological arousal, and that reducing arousal is inherently beneficial — is contested in the research. Not all autistic people are hyperaroused, and some may be hypoaroused. A blanket low-arousal environment may understimulate people who are sensory seekers.
Low-arousal approaches are de-escalation and prevention strategies, not comprehensive frameworks. They need embedding in broader approaches that include skill-building, sensory enrichment, communication support, and meaningful activity. In isolation, low-arousal can become passivity—demands reduced until the person’s life empties.
Selected works
- McDonnell, A. (2010). Managing Aggressive Behaviour in Care Settings: Understanding and Applying Low Arousal Approaches. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. — The comprehensive text.
- McDonnell, A. et al. (2015). “The role of physiological arousal in the management of challenging behaviours in individuals with autistic spectrum disorders.” Research in Developmental Disabilities, 36, 311–322.
Last reviewed
2026-04-15