When the Self is Never Challenged
Over-Support and the Limits of Unconditional Accommodation
There is a failure mode in the development of autistic children that receives far less attention than the one described in the previous post, and that is understandable. The harm done by correction environments, by the chronic overriding and shaming and demanding of conformity that so many autistic children experience, is visible and well documented (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Pearson & Rose, 2021). It produces outcomes that are recognizable as suffering: anxiety, depression, burnout, the particular exhaustion of a person who has spent years performing a self they were never meant to be (Mantzalas et al., 2022; Pearson & Rose, 2021; Zhuang et al., 2023).
The failure mode this post is about produces outcomes that are harder to recognize as suffering, because they arrive dressed as kindness. They arrive as love, as acceptance, as the well-intentioned determination of caregivers and educators and clinicians who have watched autistic children be hurt by correction environments and have resolved, with genuine moral seriousness, to do something different.
The something different, when it tips into removing all challenge, accommodating everything, and organizing the environment entirely around the autistic child's immediate comfort and preference, is not the opposite of harm. It is a different kind of harm, one that is rarely named because it is so easy to confuse with care (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kegan, 1982).
What Kegan Actually Said
Robert Kegan was precise about what a holding environment requires, and precision matters here because the concept is easy to misread in a direction that produces exactly the failure mode this post is describing (Kegan, 1982).
A holding environment, in Kegan's framework, is not a comfortable space. It is not an environment organized around the elimination of difficulty or the satisfaction of every preference. It is something more demanding and more respectful than that: a context that simultaneously confirms a person where they are and challenges them toward where they are going (Kegan, 1982). Both at once. Not first one and then the other. Not mostly one with a little of the other. Both, simultaneously, held in genuine tension.
The confirmation without challenge half of this equation is what over-supportive environments provide in abundance. The autistic child is accepted as they are, their preferences are respected, their difficulties are accommodated, and the environment bends itself around them with a flexibility and attentiveness that is, in many individual moments, genuinely loving and genuinely appropriate.
But the challenge half is missing. The environment is not asking anything of the autistic child that they have not yet fully mastered. It is not offering the calibrated demand that Baumrind identified as the second essential dimension of developmental environments, the demandingness that, held alongside responsiveness, produces growth rather than simply comfort (Baumrind, 1966, 1991). It is not providing the slight excess of challenge over current ability that Csikszentmihalyi identified as the condition of optimal development (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). It is providing, instead, a kind of developmental stasis: a space that is safe to be in but not spacious enough to grow in.
And a space that is safe to be in but not spacious enough to grow in is not a holding environment. It is a container. Containers do not produce development. They preserve what is already there (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Kegan, 1982).
What the Autistic Developmental Pathway Actually Needs
MacMillan's Spiral and Staircase Model™ is clear about what allows the autistic developmental pathway to move upward: the staircase rises when the environment provides clear, accurate, and calibrated feedback alongside challenge that is genuinely matched to current ability. The horizontal surface of the staircase, the period of consolidation and application that follows each vertical rise, is a necessary and legitimate phase of development. But it is meant to be followed by another vertical rise. When the environment removes all challenge, when it treats the horizontal surface as the destination rather than as a resting point, the next vertical rise never comes. The staircase does not fall. It simply stops moving.
This is not a failure of the autistic person. It is a failure of the environment to provide what the pathway needs. And it is a failure that is genuinely difficult to recognize from the inside, because the autistic child on the extended horizontal surface may appear content, may appear settled, may appear to be thriving in the absence of the demands that previously caused distress. The distress is real and its reduction is real. What is also real, and what is harder to see, is that something developmental is not happening that should be happening (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Self-determination theory, developed by Deci and Ryan, identifies three basic psychological needs that must be met for healthy human development: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Over-supportive environments typically do well on autonomy, in the sense of respecting the autistic child's preferences and reducing external demands, and on relatedness, in the sense of offering warmth and acceptance. Where they tend to fail is on competence: the experience of being genuinely challenged, of stretching beyond current ability, of discovering through effortful engagement with difficulty that the self is capable of more than it currently knows (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Competence, in self-determination theory, is not the experience of being told you are capable. It is the experience of actually doing something difficult and finding that you can (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). That experience requires difficulty. It requires the environment to ask something of the person that they have not yet fully mastered. And it requires feedback that is accurate enough to tell the person when they are getting closer and when they need to adjust their approach (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Shogren et al., 2021). An environment that removes difficulty, that succeeds before the autistic child has to, that smooths the path so thoroughly that the child never has to navigate the unsmoothed version, is an environment that is quietly, consistently, and lovingly depriving the child of the experience of competence.
Autonomy Without Its Counterpart
There is a particular way that over-support distorts the autonomy stage that is worth naming carefully, because it looks so much like respecting autonomy that it can be genuinely difficult to distinguish from the real thing.
Erikson's autonomy stage is not simply about the child getting what they want. It is about the child discovering that they have a will, that the will can be expressed, that the expression of the will produces responses from the environment, and that through the negotiation of the will against the wills of others and the limits of the world, the child builds a robust and flexible sense of themselves as an agent (Erikson, 1963, 1980). The operative word is negotiation. Autonomy develops through encounter with limits, not through the absence of them (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017).
When the environment removes limits entirely, when every preference is accommodated and every resistance is treated as a problem to be solved by further accommodation, the child does not develop autonomy in the Eriksonian sense. They develop something that looks like autonomy from the outside but functions differently from the inside: a sense of the self as the center of the environment's organization, without the corresponding experience of the self as something that must also reckon with the legitimate needs and limits of others (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Erikson, 1963, 1980).
Healthy boundaries require two capacities that develop together: the capacity to assert the self's own limits, and the capacity to recognize the limits of others. Both depend on the same developmental experience, the experience of being in genuine negotiation with a world that has its own contours, its own resistances, its own legitimate demands (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Erikson, 1963, 1980). An environment that removes those contours in the name of acceptance and making accommodations is not teaching the autistic child about boundaries. It is teaching them about a version of the world that will not hold when they step outside the space that has been so carefully organized around them. And the encounter with the world's actual contours, when it comes without developmental preparation, tends to be significantly harder than it needed to be (Curtiss et al., 2020; Shogren et al., 2021; Tomaszewski et al., 2021, 2022).
Initiative and the Uncleared Path
Erikson's initiative stage is where the child reaches outward, tries things, proposes things, discovers competence through action (Erikson, 1963, 1980). For autistic children in over-supportive environments, initiative can develop in a particular and somewhat paradoxical way: it may flourish within the contained space the environment has organized around the child's preferences, and remain underdeveloped in the wider world that has not been organized in that way (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017).
The autistic child whose environment has consistently cleared the path ahead of them, who has rarely had to negotiate difficulty or navigate failure or recover from the experience of reaching and not quite succeeding, may arrive at the wider social world of school and peers and eventually adulthood with a significant mismatch between their sense of what the world should do for them and what the world is actually prepared to do. The initiative they have developed is real, but it has been exercised primarily in conditions of unusually high support, and the transfer to less supported conditions can be jarring in ways that neither the child nor the caregivers have been prepared for (Curtiss et al., 2020; Tomaszewski et al., 2021, 2022; Wolpe et al., 2023).
This is not a small problem. Research on autistic transition-aged youth consistently identifies the transition from the structured, highly supported environments of childhood and adolescence to the less structured, less supported environments of adult life as one of the most significant developmental challenges autistic people face (Curtiss et al., 2020; Howlin, 2021; Tomaszewski et al., 2021, 2022; Wolpe et al., 2023). Part of what makes that transition difficult is skill-based: the skills needed for adult independence are different from the skills needed for supported childhood. But part of what makes it difficult is developmental in the deeper sense this series is exploring: the person's inner sense of what they can manage, what they can ask for, what they can expect from others, and what they have to navigate themselves has been shaped by an environment that provided more support than the wider world will reliably offer (Shogren et al., 2021; Thompson-Hodgetts et al., 2023; Wolpe et al., 2023).
The holding environment was too comfortable. The staircase did not rise far enough. And the gap between where the staircase is and where adult life requires it to be is experienced not as a skill deficit but as a self in a world it was not quite prepared for.
Industry and the Absent Measuring Stick
If the correction environment offers the wrong measuring stick for the industry stage, the over-supportive environment can offer something equally distorting: no measuring stick at all, or a measuring stick so calibrated to the child's current level that it never asks them to reach beyond it (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Erikson, 1963, 1980).
Industry, in Erikson's sense, is built through the experience of effortful engagement with genuine challenge, of working toward something difficult and discovering that the effort produces results (Erikson, 1963, 1980). The child who navigates this stage well comes out of it with a felt sense of their own competence, a knowledge in the body and below conscious awareness that they can do things, that their efforts matter, and that they have something to contribute to the world beyond themselves.
That felt sense of competence cannot be produced by an environment that only confirms what the child can already do. It requires the experience of encountering something the child cannot yet do and finding, through effort and feedback and sometimes failure and renewed effort, that they can eventually do it (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). An environment that shields the autistic child from that experience in the name of protecting them from the distress of failure is not protecting their competence. It is protecting them from the only experiences through which genuine competence is built (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Shogren et al., 2021).
This is a painful thing to name, because the protective impulse is so understandable. Autistic children who have moved through correction environments carry real wounds, real experiences of having their genuine efforts met with feedback that was not about their competence but about their difference. The caregiver who responds to that by removing challenge entirely is responding to something real and responding with love. The problem is not the love. The problem is that love expressed as the removal of all difficulty does not give the autistic developmental pathway what it needs to rise (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Kegan, 1982).
The Feedback Loop the Staircase Actually Runs On
What both failure modes described in this and the previous post have in common is this: they deprive the autistic developmental pathway of the accurate, calibrated, responsive feedback that is its primary fuel.
The correction environment provides feedback, but it is inaccurate feedback, feedback shaped by non-autistic norms rather than genuine perception of this particular child's actual capacities and needs (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021). The over-supportive environment withholds feedback, replacing the encounter with genuine limits with a managed smoothness that feels like acceptance but functions like silence (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kegan, 1982).
In both cases, the staircase is not receiving what it needs. In both cases, the developmental consequence is a self whose sense of where it stands is less robust than it should be, whose capacity to act from itself with confidence has been shaped by an environment that could not quite hold both dimensions of the holding environment at once: the confirmation and the challenge, the responsiveness and the demandingness, the warmth that says you are enough as you are and the expectation that says you are capable of more (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kegan, 1982).
What the autistic developmental pathway needs, at every stage, is an environment that can hold both. An environment that can read this particular child's signals accurately enough to know where they actually are, and that can offer challenge calibrated to that actual position rather than to a non-autistic norm or to the child's own preference for comfort. An environment that confirms the autistic self where it actually is, not where it is performing itself to be, and challenges it toward where it is genuinely capable of going (Kegan, 1982; Shogren et al., 2021; Thompson-Hodgetts et al., 2023).
That is the holding environment. That is what the staircase runs on. And that is what, in the absence of a coherent developmental framework for autistic development, most autistic children have not consistently had (Kegan, 1982; Leadbitter et al., 2021).
What Both Posts Are Really Saying
Taken together, Posts 2 and 3 are making a single argument: the autistic developmental pathway toward healthy boundaries requires an environment that is neither too controlling nor too accommodating, that is calibrated to the actual position and actual capacities of this particular autistic child, and that can hold the genuine tension between confirmation and challenge without resolving that tension prematurely in either direction (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kegan, 1982).
MacMillan's Spiral and Staircase Model™ gives us the language for what that looks like in practice. The autistic developmental pathway moves upward in a distinct rhythm: a vertical rise of concentrated learning, followed by a horizontal surface of consolidation and application, followed by another vertical rise. That rhythm is not a deficiency. It is the architecture of the pathway, and it has its own integrity and its own logic. But it depends on the environment providing what the staircase actually runs on: clear, accurate, and calibrated feedback, challenge that is genuinely matched to current ability, and the patience to understand that the horizontal surface is not stagnation but preparation.
The correction environment interrupts the upward movement by demanding that the staircase perform like a spiral, insisting on a continuous, ambient responsiveness to social feedback that the autistic developmental pathway is not structured to produce (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021). The over-supportive environment interrupts it differently, by removing the conditions that allow the next vertical rise to happen at all, leaving the pathway extended indefinitely on a horizontal surface that has become a destination rather than a resting point (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kegan, 1982).
Both interruptions deprive the autistic developmental pathway of the same thing: the optimal developmental channel that Csikszentmihalyi described, the narrow space between overwhelm and stagnation where challenge slightly exceeds current ability and feedback is immediate and accurate (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). That channel is where the staircase rises. And building it requires caregivers, educators, and clinicians who understand what the autistic developmental pathway actually needs, what challenge looks like for this neurotype, what feedback needs to be explicit rather than ambient, and what consolidation periods are legitimate developmental phases rather than problems to be solved (Shogren et al., 2021; Thompson-Hodgetts et al., 2023).
It also requires a cultural shift in how autistic development is understood: away from the binary of correction on one side and unlimited accommodation on the other, and toward the more demanding and more respectful middle ground that genuine development requires (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Leadbitter et al., 2021; Ryan et al., 2024). Not the middle ground of compromise, of doing a little less correcting and a little more accommodating and hoping the balance works out. But the middle ground of genuine understanding, of environments that can read this particular child accurately enough to know exactly where they are and exactly what they need next.
Both pathways are building toward the same destination. Both need to be held well to get there.
Next in this series: Boundaries, Narcissism, and the Optimal Environment, how both failure modes can produce the same boundary dysfunction through different routes, and why the quality of the developmental environment is the variable that matters most.
This was Article 3: When the Self is Never Challenged
This is Series III — Boundaries Across Neurologies: Autistic Development, High Body Empathy, and Neurodiverse Relationships
Articles in the Series:
The Boundary Gap
What Developmental Psychology Has Never Quite NamedWhen the Self Is Not Allowed to Choose
Over-Control and the Autistic Developmental PathwayWhen the Self Is Never Challenged
Over-Support and the Limits of Unconditional AccommodationNarcissistic Behaviors, Autistic Development, and the Optimal Environment
A Theoretical Framework for Future ResearchMasking as Boundary Collapse
What Happens When the Self Learns to Override ItselfThe Other Side of the Boundary
How the Same Developmental Gap Produces Two Problems at OnceThe Other Architecture
High Body Empathy, Boundary Vulnerability, and the Non-Autistic Developmental PathwayBoundaries in Neurodiverse Relationships
When Two Architectures Meet
References
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004
Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0014
Cristescu, L., Rzyski, E., Nind, M., & Forrester-Jones, R. (2025). A systematic review of interventions on self-determination aimed at young people with autism and young people with learning disabilities. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-025-00508-y
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Curtiss, S. L., & Ebata, A. T. (2019). The nature of family mealtimes: A new vision of families of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(2), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3720-9
Curtiss, S. L., & Ebata, A. T. (2020). Building capacity to deliver sex education to individuals with autism. Sexuality and Disability, 38(3), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-020-09649-9
Curtiss, S. L., Lee, G. K., & Ebata, A. T. (2020). Autistic young adults’, parents’, and practitioners’ expectations about the transition to adulthood. Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(3), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420967662
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dieleman, L. M., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Prinzie, P., Laporte, N., & De Pauw, S. S. W. (2019). Daily sources of autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting in mothers of children with ASD: The role of child behavior and mothers’ psychological needs. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(2), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3726-3
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. W. W. Norton.
Howlin, P. (2021). Adults with autism: Changes in understanding since DSM-III. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(12), 4291–4308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04847-z
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press.
McCoy, S. M., Jakicic, A. M., & Gibbs, H. D. (2016). Comparison of obesity, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors between adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and without. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(7), 2317–2326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2762-0
Ryan, J., Brown, H. M., Borden, A., Devlin, C., Kedmy, A., Lee, A., Nicholas, D. B., Kingsley, B., & Thompson-Hodgetts, S. (2024). Being able to be myself: Understanding autonomy and autonomy-support from the perspectives of autistic adults with intellectual disabilities. Autism, 28(12), 3117–3130. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241254432
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Shogren, K. A., Mosconi, M. W., Raley, S. K., Dean, E. E., Little, T. D., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2021). Advancing the personalization of assessment and intervention in autistic adolescents and young adults by targeting self-determination and executive processes. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0010
Thompson-Hodgetts, S., Ryan, J., Coombs, E., Brown, H. M., Xavier, A., Devlin, C., Lee, A., Kedmy, A., & Borden, A. (2023). Toward understanding and enhancing self-determination: A qualitative exploration with autistic adults without co-occurring intellectual disability. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, Article 1250391. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1250391
Tomaszewski, B., Kraemer, B., Handen, B. L., & Wadsworth, D. D. (2021). Student, educator, and parent perspectives of self-determination in high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 14(10), 2164–2176. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2566
Tomaszewski, B., Kraemer, B., Handen, B. L., & Wadsworth, D. D. (2022). Self-determination in autistic transition-aged youth without intellectual disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(9), 3955–3968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05298-4
Wolpe, S. M., Dean, E. E., & Shogren, K. A. (2023). Navigating the transition to adulthood: Insights from caregivers of autistic young adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 55, 1230–1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-06114-5
