ADHD: An Active Suggestion

Act, Don’t Yak

by Tracy Taggart, M.A., based on the work of Dr. Russell Barkley.
Tracy Taggart is a School Psychologist, and an Associate with Dr. John Swaine and Associates.

Many young people with ADHD respond better to a system of “Act, Don’t Yak”. This statement describes a method of dealing with behavior by applying a consequence, as opposed to using a more traditional system of reasoning and explaining the appropriate and inappropriate behavior. This (former) system is often more effective because it is aimed at teaching children automatic responses that do not necessarily entail a thoughtful reasoning process between their thoughts and actions.

For example, children with ADHD who have done something wrong can often correctly answer the question “What should you have done instead?” but when asked, “Then why did you do (the inappropriate behavior)?” most children with ADHD respond with, “I don’t know.” This is, in fact, truthful; they really don’t know why they did it because they were not thinking at the time they committed the inappropriate behavior. The average person engages in some personal self talk, between having a thought and acting on it. We ask ourselves such things as: “Should I do this? - What would be the best thing to do? - What will happen to me?” This does not mean we always reach the correct decision, but it does mean there is some reasoning behind it.

Children with ADHD tend to miss that step: they have a thought and act on it without engaging in any self talk in between. Medication can sometimes help slow down their thought processes enough so that they are able to engage in this self talk but first children with ADHD must be taught what self talk needs to include. It is not something that comes naturally to them or something that they pick up vicariously through their environment.

“Act, Don’t Yak” means that children with ADHD respond better to swift consequences and will modify their behavior based on the consequences of their behavior, more so than modifying their behavior based on a reasoned explanation or discussion about it. Some discussion may occur after the consequence has been delivered, but it is best if the consequence, either positive or negative, is delivered as immediately as possible. These consequences, both positive and negative, need to be as consistent as possible and the behaviors being consequenced need to be defined as clearly as possible.

Providing a youngster with a consequence for being “good” is not as effective as providing a youngster with a positive reward for “not talking out during class, using appropriate language, or completing an activity within the allotted time frame.” This is an example of specifically defining appropriate behaviors instead of assuming the child knows what his good or bad behavior was. Be specific!

A similar theory applies with regard to consequencing negative behavior when the child needs to be told what was wrong. It is better to say: “You are receiving a time-out because you swore,” rather than “You are receiving a time-out because you did not behave properly.” Again, being specific helps the child to learn.

Following this method of consequencing can provide greater results in terms of gradually helping the young person learn more appropriate behavior and respond to situations in a more positive way, even when they are responding automatically.