Evaluating the function of social interaction for children with autism

Abstract

Several researchers have assessed whether or not social interaction is reinforcing; however, few studies have evaluated methods of assessing whether social interactions function as reinforcing, neutral, or aversive stimuli. We extend this research by evaluating a new method of assessing the function of social interaction. Twenty-one children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) participated. Social interactions were found to function as reinforcers for 9 participants, neutral stimuli for 7 participants, and aversive stimuli for 5 participants. The method evaluated was found to be more efficient, may be more feasible, and was similarly as decisive as methods evaluated in previous research. Implications of this study and its methodology as well as future directions in this line of research are discussed.

Evaluating the effects of social interaction on the results of preference assessments for leisure items

“…The experimenters evaluated whether there was a difference in the reinforcing value of social stimuli for children with ASD compared to their typically developing peers. Similar to Call et al (2013) and Morris and Vollmer (2020b, 2021), the results revealed that participants with and without ASD worked harder for access to items and social stimuli as compared to the solitary items in a progressive ratio (PR) assessment, which reveals the influence social interaction may have on participant preference for the leisure items included.…”

“…Another variable that may influence the results of the SPA is whether social interaction (e.g., praise, conversation, physical attention; Vollmer & Hackenberg, 2001) is provided along with the delivery of the item or activity during the access period. A recent series of studies utilized a time allocation procedure to evaluate the function of social interaction for young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Call et al, 2013; Morris & Vollmer, 2020b, 2021). All three studies measured the duration of time participants spent on either side of a room divided into two, with each side containing similar (or identical) leisure items.…”

“…Previous research on preference for different types of social interaction suggest social interaction is often preferred, and different types of social interaction may be more preferred than others (Harper et al, 2021; Kelly et al, 2014; Morris & Vollmer, 2019; Piazza et al, 1999; Stephenson & Hanley, 2010). Further, the evaluations of preference and reinforcing efficacy of social interactions suggest leisure items paired with social interaction may be more or less reinforcing for different individuals (Call et al, 2013; Morris & Vollmer, 2020a, 2020b, 2021). Thus, it is possible that the presence or absence of social interaction may influence the outcome of SPAs, which may in turn influence the efficacy of particular stimuli as reinforcers in subsequent teaching or intervention programs.…”

Increasing social time allocation and concomitant effects on mands, item engagement, and rigid or repetitive behavior

“…Recently, that same methodology has been extended to the identification of preferred types of social interactions that are likely to function as reinforcers (e.g., Kelly et al, 2014; Morris & Vollmer, 2019). However, recent research has also developed and evaluated methods of assessing the function of generic, nonindividualized social interactions or social interaction in general (Call et al, 2013; Morris & Vollmer, 2020d, 2021). Such methods, which we will term assessments of sociability, serve a function that is distinct from those that identify preferred, individualized items or interactions.…”

“…Assessments of sociability are designed to emulate these naturalistic conditions. In such assessments (Call et al, 2013; Morris & Vollmer, 2020d, 2021) the experimenter delivers only generic descriptions of the environment (e.g., “It looks like you are having fun with the blocks.”) and positive, praise‐like statements (e.g., “Wow, that is so cool!”). Experimenters avoid prompting or initiating more specific, individualized types of play or interaction unless the client mands for them.…”