Is There Science Behind That?: Zones of Regulation

Breanna Roberts, MA, BCBA, Ellie Hardesty, MA, BCBA, and Thomas Zane, PhD, BCBA-D
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas

What is Zones of Regulation?

Is there science behind that Zones of Regulation is a “social emotional learning curriculum and regulation program” developed by Leah Kuypers, MAEd, OTR/L (Kuypers, 2011, 2023). This class-wide curriculum has become popular in schools worldwide and claims to teach learners with and without diagnoses varying skills to support executive functioning. For example, the curriculum aims to help learners develop self-awareness, decision-making capabilities, and knowledge of how to use regulation strategies (Kuypers, 2023). These skills are taught by grouping feelings, states of alertness, and energy levels into four-colored zones (blue, green, yellow, and red), followed by formally introducing self-regulation and executive functioning concepts via short sessions multiple times per week for each of the 18 different lessons (depending on a learner’s age/abilities). Proponents of Zones of Regulation suggest that the application of these skills results in less time spent on behavior management and more on learning, an overall healthier and more inclusive school climate, and encouragement of the learners’ abilities to manage their thoughts, feelings, and actions (Kuypers, 2023).

How is Zones of Regulation Implemented with Individuals with Autism?

For learners with autism, the format of Zones of Regulation will differ depending on their educational setting and support needs. For example, it is recommended that learners in a general education classroom receive two or more 20-minute sessions per week compared to learners in a special-needs classroom who should receive two or more 25+ minute sessions in a small group or one-to-one format (The Zones of Regulation Implementation & Fidelity Checklist, 2017). During the sessions, the clinician or adult implementing the curriculum will introduce vocabulary and related visual supports, facilitate discussion and activities, provide feedback to learners, and evaluate student learning.

The first stage introduces learners to the four-colored zones: blue, green, yellow, and red. The blue zone describes low alertness and feelings (e.g., sadness, boredom, tiredness, or sickness). The green zone describes an alert and calm state (e.g., happy, focused, calm, or proud). The yellow zone describes high energy and emotions (e.g., worried, frustrated, silly, or excited). Last, the red zone describes states of extremely high energy and overwhelming feelings (e.g., elated, panicked, angry, terrified). Theoretically, if learners can reliably identify their zone, they can more easily talk about and engage in regulation strategies to support overall well-being.

Next, using structured lessons, learners are taught how to recognize specific triggers and manage their emotions depending on the zone and situation. For example, if in the blue zone, learners may be encouraged to use strategies to recharge, such as seeking comfort or resting. In the green zone, learners are prompted to use strategies to keep them ready and primed to meet their goals, such as eating a healthy snack, exercising, or taking a break. In the yellow zone, its recommended that learners take action to regulate their emotions, such as taking deep breaths or using mindfulness tools. In the red zone, learners are urged to pause and assess effective regulation strategies for that situation, such as self-talk or breathing techniques.

Zones of Regulation: Is there Science Behind That?

Zones of Regulation’s website has a bank of research and scholarly articles supporting their curriculum. Unfortunately, of the 22 total studies listed on their site, only four explicitly stated that they included individuals with autism (Newell et al., 2019; Piller et al., 2021; Quale, 2019; Spence & Tseng, 2018). These four publications consist of one thesis publication, and three journal articles.

Spence and Tseng (2018) emphasized the importance of incorporating social emotional learning (SEL) instruction within the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to increase students’ positive social behaviors and academic success as well as decrease emotional distress. The authors suggested combining lessons from the Social Thinking® (Winner, 2008) methodology such as Expected and Unexpected Behaviors (Garcia Winner, 2008) and Size of the Problem (Garcia Winner, 2008) with Zones of Regulation (Kuypers, 2013), to increase the likelihood that students are being directly taught SEL skills across all core curriculum areas. (For more information regarding Social Thinking®, we recommend reading McHugh et al., 2023.) While these three strategies can be used separately, there is much overlap between them, with the focus being on the student observing their and other’s behaviors and, hypothesizing how people will react, linking together what students think and feel, and how that can affect the choices they make within the ongoing core curriculum. For example, during English language arts (ELA), students can use the above strategies to practice analyzing a character’s actions, make predictions about future behavior, evaluate how the choices affected the outcome, and what actions students could take to change the story’s outcome. Although this article gave feasible strategies for incorporating SEL instruction within education settings, it was a conceptual paper and the authors provided no evidence to support the Zones of Regulation curriculum as an effective procedure.

Quale (2019) empirically evaluated the effects of the Zones of Regulation curriculum on off-task behaviors, non-compliance, and talking out of turn in education settings with three elementary students with autism or ADHD. These participants were chosen based on their classroom teachers expressing concern and seeking guidance regarding their behaviors. Participants were taught 11 out of the 18 total lessons in the curriculum using the curriculum-recommended 30-minute blocks. A typical lesson included an introduction to the zones, a corresponding activity, and feedback from the instructor. For example, one lesson consisted of reviewing the zones and viewing video clips in which an actor portrayed each zone. The participants then attempted to label the zone, and the instructor provided feedback as needed. Reported outcomes of this study showed slight decreases in non-participatory behaviors during the implementation of the Zones of Regulation curriculum. However, the author noted that increases in non-participatory behaviors were observed after the curriculum was complete, suggesting that the Zones of Regulation curriculum only positively affected non-participation behavior during implementation. There are several limitations worth mentioning. First, steps detailing the systematic implementation of the program, in addition to the extent to which the program was implemented with high integrity, were not included. Second, the extent to which replacement behaviors for non-participatory behaviors were observed is unknown. That is, the researchers did not collect data on participation or engagement in self-regulatory strategies. Last, participants in this study were in general education classrooms, and data were only collected during one 30-minute observation period during the participants’ school day. Collectively, it is unclear whether these procedures were the sole intervention, whether the effects were observed throughout the participants’ entire school day, or how effective the curriculum is for individuals needing more substantial support. Thus, the cause-and-effect relationship between Zones of Regulation procedures and decreases in challenging behavior cannot be established from this study.

Nowell et al. (2019) evaluated the efficacy of a parent-assisted intervention using a combination of components from Structured TEACCHing (Klinger et al., 2007; Mesibov et al., 2005), Social Thinking (Hendrix et al., 2013), and Zones of Regulation (Kuypers, 2013). Specifically, the researchers utilized the Structured TEACCHing framework (e.g., the environment was structured to make activities more understandable, and participant strengths in visual skills were used to supplement weaker skills), social vocabulary from Social Thinking (e.g., expected vs. unexpected behavior, whole body listening, etc.), and the self-regulation vocabulary and strategies from Zones of Regulation (e.g., identifying color zones, calming techniques, etc.). Participants included 17 first- and second-grade children diagnosed with ASD and their caregivers. All participants completed a 12-week program in which the group met weekly for 90 minutes. Sessions consisted of parent-child large and small group activities in addition to 20-30 minutes of parent breakout sessions. Results showed improvements in increasing concept knowledge for individuals with autism and their caregivers via standardized pre- and post-test measures. However, the effects of the intervention did not generalize to caregiver-child interactions. The authors noted that due to the most significant increases being observed in concept knowledge and not application, it was unlikely that the application of the skills would generalize beyond the clinic. Like Quale (2019), participants were in general education classrooms. Additionally, participants were provided a “blended intervention package,” and most reported having some exposure to at least one of the curricula previously. Since Zones of Regulation was provided within the evaluation of an intervention package, it is not possible to determine if access to the Zones of Regulation curriculum was in any way related to improvement in behavior.

In sum, the 3 experiments that included at least some individuals diagnosed with ASD listed on the website for Zones of Regulation did not provide strong empirical proof that the Zones of Regulation curriculum was solely responsible for any positive change. Thus, there is no strong empirical support for Zones of Regulation in these studies.

Recently, Mason et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review of the research on the Zones of Regulation curriculum to evaluate whether the curriculum could be considered an evidence-based practice (EBP). Inclusion criteria for the review required that articles were published in a peer-reviewed journal, written in English, and published between 2011 to 2021. Three articles consisting of two articles using pre- and posttest scores (Conklin & Jairam, 2021; Ochocki et al., 2020) and one (Romanowycz et al., 2021) summarizing results of articles regarding Zones of Regulation and measuring the risk of bias met the inclusion criteria. Overall, despite the widespread use of the Zones of Regulation, Mason et al. identified a significant research to practice gap, leading to the authors determining that the Zones of Regulation program “does not have a research foundation to be considered an EBP as outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, 2006), nor does it follow best practice guidelines within the social emotional learning (SEL) literature for measurement of outcomes (Durlak et al., 2011)” (p. 226).

Overall, our evaluation of the literature presented on the Zones of Regulation website and the reviews conducted by Mason et al. (2024) and Radzilowicz and Weiss (2024) found similar outcomes and limitations. Although some positive outcomes were reported, the research on the Zones of Regulation as a treatment for autism suggests that the curriculum alone may not be enough to produce successful outcomes for individuals with autism. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness and maintenance of skills taught through Zones of Regulation for individuals with autism. Specifically, researchers need to evaluate the casual relationship between the implementation of the Zones of Regulation curriculum and development of self-regulation skills. If a causal relationship is shown, subsequent research can provide a more comprehensive evaluation regarding maintenance of self-regulation skills, adaptations for individuals with varying abilities, and which components of the curriculum are essential for changes in self-regulation.

What Else Should We Consider?

Although we do not recommend the Zones of Regulation curriculum as an evidence-based treatment, we encourage readers to consider the importance of teaching individuals with autism to identify and express their thoughts and emotions. In addition to increasing communication, the use of self-regulation strategies especially during challenging situations, may result in fewer instances of challenging behavior as well as increased use of self-management skills, decision-making, and overall quality of life. For example, during potentially difficult situations, our goal would be to teach the individual to identify the emotion (e.g., bored, hard, easy; McHugh et al., 2011), under what condition they feel that emotion, and then how engage in a self-regulation strategy (e.g., self-instruction; Smith et al., 2016) or to engage in a functional communication response (FCR; Hanley, 2007; Tiger et al., 2008) to get their need or want met. Additionally, with appropriate oversight, some aspects of the Zones of Regulation curriculum could be incorporated within other evidence-based practices like natural environment teaching, fluency-based instruction, and discrete trial training (Lerman et al., 2016; Weiss, 2001). That is, practicing labeling emotions of themselves followed by opportunities to practice reacting to said emotions may help facilitate the development of social relationships by helping individuals with autism communicate about how they feel and respond appropriately to the emotions of others.

What is the Gist?

Overall, there is little empirical evidence to support the use of Zones of Regulation with individuals with autism. We do not recommend its use as a scientific treatment for autism. Of the studies that purport to offer evidence, details regarding the systematic implementation of the curriculum, in addition to implementation integrity, need to be clarified. Additionally, the Zones of Regulation curriculum is often implemented and evaluated in tandem with other interventions, making the exact effects of the curriculum itself unknown. Furthermore, when the curriculum is implemented with individuals with autism, they are typically in general education classrooms. Thus, the effectiveness of using the curriculum with individuals requiring more substantial support is unknown. Lastly, the presentation of numerous studies on the curriculum’s website- despite only a few directly involving individuals with autism- can be misleading for parents and teachers, potentially leading them to assume a strong research base for the use of the curriculum across all contexts. Taken together, we suggest that there is insufficient proof that Zones of Regulation has any positive effect on the development of self-regulation skills despite reported increases in concept knowledge related to emotions.

References

APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271-285.

Conklin, M., & Jairam, D. (2021). The effects of co-teaching Zones of Regulation on elementary students’ social, emotional, and academic risk behaviors. Advanced Journal of Social Science, 8(1), 171-192. https://doi.org/10.21467/ajss.8.1.171-192

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Garcia Winner, M. (2008). Think social! A social thinking curriculum for school-age students. Social Thinking Publishing.

Hanley, G. P., Heal, N. A., Tiger, J. H., & Ingvarsson, E. T. (2007). Evaluation of a classwide teaching program for developing preschool life skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 277-300. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.57-06

Hendrix, R., Palmer, K., Tarshis, N., & Winner, M. (2013). The incredible flexible you: A social thinking curriculum for the preschool and early elementary years. Think Social Publishing.

Hill, E. L. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.003

Klinger, L. G., Klinger, M. R., & Pohlig, R. L. (2007). Implicit learning impairments in autism spectrum disorders. In J. M. Pérez, P. M. González, M. L. Comí, & C. Nieto (Eds.), New developments in autism: The future is today (pp. 76-103). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Kuypers, L. M. (2011). The zones of regulation: A curriculum designed to foster self-regulation and emotional control. This Social Publishing.

Kuypers, L. M. (2013). The Zones of Regulation: A framework to foster self-regulation. Sensory Integration Special Interest Section Quarterly / American Occupational Therapy Association, 36(4), 1-4. https://www2.lib.ku.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/zones-regulation-framework-foster-self/docview/1468551154/se-2

Kuypers L. M. (2023). Zones of regulation. The Zones of Regulation. (2023). https://zonesofregulation.com/

Lerman, D. C., Valentino, A. L., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2016). Discrete trial training. In R. Lang, T. B. Hancock, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder (pp. 47-83). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30925-5_3

Mason, B. K., Leaf, J. B., & Gerhardt, P. F. (2024). A research review of the Zones of Regulation Program. The Journal of Special Education, 57(4), 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669231170202

McHugh, C. L., Leslie, S. C., & Zane, T. (2023). Social Thinking: Is there science behind that? Science in Autism Treatment, 10(2). https://asatonline.org/for-parents/becoming-a-savvy-consumer/social-thinking/

McHugh, L., Bobarnac, A., & Reed, P. (2011). Brief report: Teaching situation-based emotions to children with autistic spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(10), 1423–1428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1152-2

Mesibov, G. B., Shea, V., & Schopler, E. (2005). The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. Springer Science & Business Media.

Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., & Foster, T. D. (2014). Social skills and problem behaviors as mediators of the relationship between behavioral self-regulation and academic achievement, 29(3), 298-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.03.002

Nowell, S. W., Watson, L. R., Boyd, B., & Klinger, L. G. (2019). Efficacy study of a social communication and self-regulation intervention for school-age children with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 50(3), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0093

Ochocki, S., Frey, A. J., Patterson, D. A., Herron, F., Beck, N., & Dupper, D. R. (2020). Evaluating the Zones of Regulation® intervention to improve the self-control of elementary students. International Journal of School Social Work, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/2161-4148.1046

Piller, A., Del Pilar Saa, M., Tremino, I., Koester, A. C., & Duker, L. S. (2021). Using technology to enhance sensory-based interventions. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(1), 2-4.

Quale, M. (2019). Effectiveness of components of the Zones of Regulation on student behaviors (Publication No. 22622385) [Master’s thesis, Minot State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Radzilowicz, N., & Weiss, M. J. (2024). Research synopsis: A review of the Zones of Regulation program. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(04).

Romanowycz L., Azar Z., Dang H., & Fan Y. (2021). The effectiveness of the Zones of Regulation curriculum in improving self-regulation and/or behaviour in students. The Allied Health Scholar, 2(2).

Rosenblatt, D., & Beck, J. (2014). Emotional self-regulation in autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(10), 2596-2606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2110-3

Smith, K. A., Ayers, K. A., Alexander, J., Ledford, J. R., Shepley, C., Shepley, S. B. (2016). Initiation and generalization of self-instructional sills in adolescents with autism and intellectual disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 1196-1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2654-8

Spence, M., & Tseng, A. (2018). Integrating social and emotional learning instruction into core academic instruction for students with ASD. Journal on the Division of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, 5(1), 62-72. Retrieved from https://exceptionalchildren.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/updated_dec_doj_2018.pdf

Think Social Publishing, Inc. (2017). The Zones of Regulation implementation & fidelity checklist. https://zonesofregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Fidelity-Checklist_Zones.pdf

Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional communication training: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(1), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391716

Weiss, M. J. (2001). Expanding ABA intervention in intensive programs for children with autism: The inclusion of natural environment training and fluency based instruction. The Behavior Analyst Today, 2(3), 182-186. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099946

Winner, M. G. (2008). Social thinking: An introduction to the Social Thinking methodology. Social Thinking Publishing.

Citation for this article:

Roberts, B., Hardesty, E., & Zane, T. (2024). Zones of Regulation: Is there science behind that? Science in Autism Treatment, 21(10).

Other Treatment Summaries

Related ASAT Research Synopses:

Other Related ASAT Articles and Reviews:

#ChallengingBehavior #OTs #Psychologists #School #SocialWorkers

Zones of Regulation: Is There Science Behind That?