PSY 257 Final Project I Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: For the summative assessment in this course, you will examine research presented in the course for how social psychology has changed, and
investigate a potential gap in the research that has not been addressed. This assessment will allow you to foster and improve your skills at reading, interpreting,
and writing psychological works. It will also help you to learn your place within the field, and how to combine both your personal perspective and opinions with
established, empirical research to make original claims. The final project is meant for you to propose a hypothetical study. You are not and should not be
conducting human subjects research for this project. It is not necessary for the purposes of this assignment. All human subjects research requires written
approval from the SNHU COCE Institutional Review Board in order to protect the welfare and ensure ethical treatment of the subjects.
For this milestone, due in Module Three, you will submit a draft of the literature review due as part of your final research investigation using the three articles
that were provided for your track and topic in Module Two. In addition, for this milestone, you will need to find two additional articles to use for your final
project. You will base this milestone on the literature review practice journal assignment that you completed in Module Two. Rather than following the format of
a typical lengthier APA literature review, you will instead prepare five shorter, adapted, individual literature reviews (one for each article). Each literature review
should be one page in length (all five should be submitted as one five-page document). These literature reviews will lead up to the final literature review
submission, which will consist of a total of five literature reviews, based on the three articles provided in your track and two more articles found and selected by
you for this milestone task. The final version of the literature review will be submitted in Module Seven as part of Final Project Part I.
Prompt
First, read and review the three articles for your track. Next, using the questions presented in the Module Two literature review practice journal assignment as a
guide, you will draft three literature reviews of the articles provided in your track. You will then find two more articles to add to your literature reviews. The
questions are provided here for your convenience. These questions will support you in completing the literature reviews, which will need to address all of the
critical elements below. Please refer to the complete list of critical elements for the literature review below.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
What is the title of the article (in APA format)?
What is the purpose of the article? (Addresses critical elements I-A through I-C.)
What is the hypothesis of the study? In other words, what claims do the authors make in the article? What are the outcomes of the study, that is, the
conclusions that the authors made as a result of the study? (Addresses critical elements I-A through I-D.)
What variables (factors) are being looked at as it impacts social thinking? (Addresses critical elements I-A through I-D.)
If these variables or the relationship between these variables have been studied before, what have other studies found? This shows historical
significance. (Addresses critical elements I-C and I-H.)
Describe the research design that was used in the study. (Addresses critical elements I-E and I-F.)
Do you think the research in this article was conducted in an ethical manner? Why or why not? (Addresses critical elements I-G and I-H.)
Use the Literature Review Template to complete this task. Please refer to the Literature Review Basics document as well as the Literature Review Example to
assist you.
Please note that you are starting your literature review with the questions above, but you will need to expand the answers to these questions to meet the
critical elements of the literature review for your final submission. The following critical elements must be addressed as also outlined in the literature review
section of the Final Project Part I Guidelines and Rubric document:
I.
Literature Review: In this part of the assessment, you will analyze foundational research presented in the course for how the field of social psychology
has changed over time, how researchers have designed research to study social psychology, and how issues of ethics have been addressed historically in
the field.
A. Summarize the claims made by the authors of the foundational research presented in the course regarding how social context factors influence
human behavior. In other words, what claims are made by the research about social context factors and human behavior?
B. Summarize the claims made by the authors of the foundational research presented in the course regarding how social motives influence human
behavior. In other words, what claims are made by classic and current research about social motives and human behavior?
C. Explain how the view of social context factors and social motives has evolved over the history of social psychology. Be sure to support your analysis
with examples from research to support your claim.
D. Explain the conclusions you can reach about research in social psychology. In other words, explain what we know about social context factors and
social motives, based on your review of the research presented in the course. Be sure to support your analysis with examples from research to
support your claim.
E. Describe the specific research designs used in the foundational research presented in the course used to address research questions. For example,
what were the specific methods used to address their research question? What type of research design was used?
F. Explain how research designs were used by authors to conduct research in social psychology. In other words, how did the research designs used by
researchers help in conducting research regarding social psychology?
G. Discuss how issues of ethics have been addressed in the foundational research presented in the course. For example, how did the authors inform the
participants of what the experiment would entail? How did the authors account for any potential risks to participants associated with the study?
H. Discuss how issues of ethics in social psychology have been viewed historically. In other words, how have issues of ethics in the field been viewed
over time? Has this view changed as the field has progressed? Be sure to support your response with examples from research to support your claims.
Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Use the Literature Review Template to complete this milestone. Use APA-style citations.
Critical Elements
Literature Review: Social
Context Factors
Proficient (100%)
Summarizes the evidence
presented in the foundational
research presented in the course
regarding how social context
factors influence human behavior
Literature Review: Social
Motives
Summarizes the evidence
presented in the foundational
research presented in the course
regarding how social motives
influence human behavior
Literature Review:
History
Literature Review: Social
Psychology
Explains how the view of social
context factors and social
motives has evolved over the
history of the field using
examples from the research
Explains the conclusions that can
be reached about social
psychology, based on analysis of
the research presented in the
course using examples from the
research
Needs Improvement (70%)
Summarizes the evidence
presented in the foundational
research presented in the course
regarding how social context
factors influence human
behavior, but summary is cursory
or contains inaccuracies
Summarizes the evidence
presented in the foundational
research presented in the course
regarding how social motives
influence human behavior, but
summary is cursory or contains
inaccuracies
Explains how the view of social
context factors and social
motives has evolved over the
history of the field, but
explanation is cursory, or lacks
examples from research
Explains the conclusions that can
be drawn about social psychology
presented in the course, but
explanation is cursory, contains
inaccuracies, or lacks examples
from research
Not Evident (0%)
Does not summarize the evidence
presented in the foundational
research presented in the course
regarding how social context
factors influence human behavior
Value
12
Does not summarize the evidence
presented in the foundational
research presented in the course
regarding how social motives
influence human behavior
12
Does not explain how the view of
social context factors and social
motives has evolved over the
history of the field
12
Does not explain the conclusions
that can be drawn about social
psychology
12
Literature Review:
Research Designs
Describes the specific research
designs used in the foundational
research presented in the course
used to address research
questions
Literature Review:
Conduct Research
Explains how research designs
were used by authors in the
research presented in the course
to conduct research
Literature Review: Issues
of Ethics
Discusses how issues of ethics
have been addressed in the
foundational research presented
in the course using examples
from the research
Literature Review:
Viewed
Discusses how issues of ethics in
social psychology have been
viewed historically using
examples from the research
Articulation of Response
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Describes the research designs
used in the foundational research
presented in the course used to
address research questions, but
description is cursory, contains
inaccuracies, or response does
not reference specific research
designs from the research
Explains how research designs
were used by authors in the
research presented in the course
to conduct research, but
explanation is cursory or contains
inaccuracies
Discusses how issues of ethics
have been addressed in the
foundational research presented
in the course but discussion is
cursory, contains inaccuracies, or
lacks examples from research
Discusses how issues of ethics in
social psychology have been
viewed historically, but discussion
is cursory, contains inaccuracies,
or lacks examples from research
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact readability
and articulation of main ideas
Does not describe the research
designs used in the foundational
research presented in the course
used to address research
questions
12
Does not explain how research
designs were used by authors in
the research presented in the
course to conduct research
10
Does not discuss how issues of
ethics have been addressed in
the foundational research
presented in the course
10
Does not discuss how issues of
ethics in social psychology have
been viewed historically
10
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
Total
10
100%
PSY 257 Literature Review Example
Please note: Keep in mind that the following questions are practice and preparation for the more
detailed literature review elements to come. When you complete your literature review, you will
be addressing more specific elements. These questions are the first thing to think about when
beginning a literature review.
What is the title of the article? Provide a citation for the article in APA format.
Crooke, P. J., Hendrix, R. E., & Rachman, J. Y. (2008). Brief report: Measuring the effectiveness
of teaching social thinking to children with Asperger syndrome (AS) and high
functioning autism (HFA). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(3), 581–
91. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s10803-007-0466-1
What is the purpose of the article?
The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of the effectiveness of teaching social cognitive
(social thinking) to six selected males with Asperger’s syndrome and high-functioning autism.
The article utilizes pre- and post-tests for gauging verbal and nonverbal behavior. The study was
centered around behavior observations over an eight-week period.
What is the hypothesis of the study? In other words, what claims do the authors make in
the article?
The authors of the report concluded that intervention in regards to children with Asperger’s
syndrome and high-functioning autism would have an increase in the instances of verbal and
nonverbal social exchanges amongst the test group. The report also examined the instances in
which unexpected, or nonverbal exchanges decreased with effective interventions.
What variables (factors) are being examined in regards to appropriate social thinking?
The variables being examined were the instances in which children with Asperger’s syndrome
and high-functioning autism were able to properly gauge social situations and react in
appropriate social manners. The data collected examined pre and post interventions in regards to
behavior centered around social cognition (social thinking).
If these variables or the relationship between these variables has been studied before, what
have other studies found? This shows historical significance.
In previous studies it was concluded that previous studies centered around data collected from
participants who answered questionnaires. However, this study centered around observations
based on behaviors. The authors of this study concluded that observing behaviors gave them a
better understanding of the mindset of a child in a social interaction who has been diagnosed
with Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism.
What type of research design is used in the study?
Adolescent behaviors in the context of social interaction were calculated. Observation over an
eight-week time frame was utilized to determine appropriate outcomes and conclusions.
Do you think the research in this article was conducted in an ethical manner? Why or why
not?
Yes, only appropriate interventions were used with each child. At no time were any of the
children subjected to undue prejudice based on their disability.
PSY 257 Literature Review Template
Please note: Keep in mind that the following questions are practice and preparation for the more
detailed literature review elements to come. When you complete your literature review, you will
be addressing more specific elements. These questions are the first thing to think about when
beginning a literature review.
What is the title of the article? Provide a citation for the article in APA format.
What is the purpose of the article?
What is the hypothesis of the study? In other words, what claims do the authors make in
the article?
What variables (factors) are being looked at in regard to appropriate social thinking?
If these variables or the relationship between these variables have been studied before,
what have other studies found? This shows historical significance.
What type of research design is used in the study?
Do you think the research in this article was conducted in an ethical manner? Why or why
not?
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
DOI 10.1007/s10803-014-2195-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
College Students’ Perceptions of Peers with Autism Spectrum
Disorder
Nicole L. Matthews • Agnes R. Ly
Wendy A. Goldberg
•
Published online: 29 July 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Little is known about peer attitudes toward
college students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Affective, behavioral, and cognitive attitudes toward
vignette characters displaying behaviors characteristic of
ASD were examined among 224 four-year university students who were randomly assigned to one of three labeling
conditions for the primary vignette characters: high functioning autism (HFA), typical college student, or no label.
Students in the HFA label condition reported more positive
behavioral and cognitive attitudes toward the vignette
characters than students in the no label condition. Male
students and students with lower scores on the Broad
Autism Phenotype Questionnaire reported more positive
attitudes across study conditions. These experimental
results suggest that knowledge of a diagnosis might
improve attitudes toward college students with ASD.
Keywords Autism spectrum disorder Postsecondary
education Peer attitudes Young adults
Portions of this manuscript were presented at the 2013 International
Meeting for Autism Research in San Sebastian, Spain.
Present Address:
N. L. Matthews (&)
Southwest Autism Research and Resource Center, 300 N.
18th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
e-mail: nmatthews@autismcenter.org
N. L. Matthews A. R. Ly W. A. Goldberg
Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of
California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
Present Address:
A. R. Ly
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of
Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
123
Introduction
Adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families are making plans for postsecondary education at a rate that has outpaced empirical
research (Camarena and Sarigiani 2009). Despite years of
encouragement for increased and more focused research on
adolescents and adults with ASD (Friedman et al. 2013; US
Department of Health and Human Services, Interagency
Autism Coordinating Committee 2010), the current literature on the postsecondary educational experiences of
individuals with ASD is limited, especially when compared
to the volume of research on early educational practices for
children with ASD.
Although ASD in postsecondary academic settings has
been historically understudied, some quantitative and
qualitative research provides insight into the magnitude
and experiences of this group. In terms of magnitude, data
based on a nationally representative sample of 2- and
4-year colleges and universities indicated that 2 % of students registered with a disability reported having ASD, and
56 % of colleges/universities reported at least one enrolled
student with ASD (Raue and Lewis 2011). Data from a
large US technology and engineering-oriented university
showed an estimated prevalence rate of ASD from 0.7 to
1.9 % (White et al. 2011). Some students were newly
identified as a part of the study conducted by White and
colleagues, suggesting that official tallies from colleges and
universities might underestimate the true prevalence of
ASD. Taken together, findings from these two studies
indicate that ASD is present on college campuses and may
be as common on some campuses as it is in the general
population.
Often what is known about individuals with ASD in
postsecondary settings is derived from empirical
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
investigations of the broader community of college students with disabilities. As summarized by Belch (2004),
legislation like the Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) implemented over
the last four decades resulted in an increased prevalence of
individuals with disabilities in postsecondary classrooms.
Yet, the rate of postsecondary degrees awarded to individuals with disabilities is not commensurate with this
increasing prevalence, suggesting a problem with retention.
Research on general postsecondary retention suggests that
a feeling of belongingness achieved through involvement
in activities inside and outside of the classroom is integral
to learning, and ultimately, student success. One barrier to
success for individuals with disabilities may be a lack of
social inclusion and involvement (Belch 2004). Postsecondary students with ASD are likely at even higher risk for
social exclusion than students with other disabilities considering the hallmark impairments in social communication
that characterize the disorder. These students are uniquely
at risk to struggle during the transition to postsecondary
education (Shattuck et al. 2012).
The observed increase in ASD prevalence has been
accompanied by an increase in the identification of ASD
with only mild or no intellectual delay (Blumberg et al.
2013; Charman et al. 2011). Thus, many individuals with
ASD have the cognitive ability to succeed academically.
Qualitative research indicates that many adolescents with
ASD and their parents are invested in and have clearly
identified postsecondary goals. However, families report
struggling with whether the goal of college matriculation
could become a reality because of the social communication impairments observed in individuals with ASD.
Families of college-bound adolescents with ASD have
identified appropriate supports for social functioning as the
most pressing need for a successful transition to college,
more so than academic accommodations. Both parents and
adolescents with ASD indicated that college program elements such as neurotypical mentors, buddy systems, and
campus-wide awareness programs could ease the transition
for individuals with ASD (Camarena and Sarigiani 2009).
Despite the reported importance of peers to the successful transition of individuals with ASD into postsecondary education, concerns remain about social acceptance
if individuals with ASD were to disclose their diagnostic
label to their peers (Huws and Jones 2008; Shtayermman
2009). Two studies of elementary school students using
video scenarios suggest that a diagnostic label and
explanatory information about ASD either did not alter
children’s perceptions of a young boy demonstrating
behaviors characteristic of ASD (Swaim and Morgan 2001)
or resulted in significantly more positive ratings of personal
characteristics and significantly more positive behaviors
toward the boy (Campbell et al. 2004). More recently,
91
Butler and Gillis (2011) had college students read one of
six vignettes depicting behaviors across three categories
that were paired either with or without the label of Asperger’s Disorder: (1) typical of those with Asperger’s
Disorder (e.g., lack of eye contact), (2) mild impairment
(e.g., shyness), and (3) no impairment. They found no
significant effect of labeling; rather, stigmatization was
associated with the atypical social behavior demonstrated
by the vignette characters. However, a test of the reported
independent means for the Asperger’s Disorder condition
indicated that when the label was present, there was significantly lower stigmatization. These data suggest that
labeling may allow some peers to be more positive toward,
rather than stigmatize, individuals exhibiting hallmark
socio-communicative impairments. The mixed findings
regarding children’s perceptions of peers with ASD and the
limited research specific to young adult samples warrant
further investigation of college-aged students’ perceptions
of peers with ASD.
A more complete understanding of the attitudes of
potential neurotypical peers toward ASD may play an
important role in the postsecondary academic success
and retention of individuals with the disorder. This
knowledge may also help guide the development of
effective programing and services. The limited existing
literature on this topic suggests that peers may be welcoming of students with intellectual disabilities and
ASD, but reactions may differ by gender and familiarity
with ASD. A recent study reported that, overall, college
students held positive attitudes toward students with
intellectual disability and toward the idea of inclusive
college classrooms (Griffin et al. 2012). In particular,
female students and those who had experience volunteering with individuals with intellectual delays demonstrated more positive perceptions and a stronger
willingness to interact with students with intellectual
delays than other college students. In a similar vein,
Nevill and White (2011) examined college students’
responses to a vignette depicting an interaction with a
peer with ASD. In contrast to Griffin and colleagues’
findings about attitudes toward individuals with intellectual delay, Nevill and White reported that male students had greater openness toward vignette characters
with ASD than did female college students. The authors
interpreted this finding to indicate that male students
may be more likely to identify with the vignette character’s social and emotional introversion than female
students. In addition, college students who had a close
relative with ASD were more open to the vignette
character than students without a close relative with the
disorder, suggesting that previous experience with and
knowledge of ASD may be linked to increased openness.
These findings suggest that gender and knowledge of
123
92
ASD should be examined as factors that might affect
college students’ attitudes toward peers on the spectrum.
The current study aimed to contribute to a more complete understanding of the likely acceptance by peers of
college-bound cognitively-able individuals with ASD by
examining attitudes toward ASD among college students at
a 4-year university. Using experimental manipulation,
university students’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral
attitudes toward vignette characters displaying behaviors
characteristic of ASD were compared when the vignette
characters were either: (a) labeled as a college students
with ASD; (b) labeled as a typical college student, or
(c) not labeled. Based on the more recent, albeit limited,
findings on children and college students, it was hypothesized that students who were told that the vignette characters had ASD would report the most positive attitudes
and students who received the typical college student label
were predicted to report the least positive attitudes.
A secondary aim of the current study was to examine
students’ gender, autism knowledge, and level of broad
autism phenotype (BAP) characteristics in relation to their
affective, cognitive, and behavioral attitudes toward the
vignette characters. Based on the mixed findings about
gender from the limited relevant research, it was hypothesized that gender would be significantly associated with
attitudes toward the vignette characters, but the direction
was not specified. Based on the study results from Griffin
et al. (2012) as well as Nevill and White (2011), greater
knowledge of ASD was expected to be associated with
more positive attitudes toward the vignette characters.
Extrapolating from the results of the Nevill and White
(2011) study, which indicated that identification with the
vignette character was linked to greater openness toward a
peer with ASD, it was hypothesized that students in the
current study who reported more characteristics of the
broader autism phenotype would have more positive attitudes toward the vignette characters.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 224 undergraduate students (52 % male;
M age = 20 years, SD = 2.54) at a large, public 4-year
university in the southwestern United States. The sample
was ethnically diverse and reflected the racial demographics of the social sciences human subject pool of the
university from which they were recruited. Specifically,
62 % of the sample self-identified as Asian American,
19 % as European American, 18 % as Hispanic or Latino,
and 1 % as African American. Additional demographic
information is reported in Table 1.
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
Table 1 Descriptive statistics by study condition
Demographic
variable
HFA label
(n = 75)
M (SD)
Typical label
(n = 72)
M (SD)
No label
(n = 77)
M (SD)
Age (years)
19.81 (2.48)
19.79 (1.36)
20.38 (3.31)
46.67
54.17
54.55
Freshman
32.46
30.56
25.00
Sophomore
26.00
13.89
23.68
Junior
22.07
31.94
27.64
Gender (%)
Male
Year in school (%)
19.47
23.61
23.68
Autism knowledge
(% correct)
Senior and above
49
47
48
BAPQ
2.74 (0.43)
2.78 (0.50)
2.84 (0.40)
All means calculated prior to multiple imputation; thus, sample sizes
varied by variable due to missing data Study conditions did not differ
in age [F(2, 221) = 1.30, p = .28], gender (v2 = 1.19, p = .55),
years in school (v2 = 5.37, p = .50), autism knowledge [F(2,
187) = 0.15, p = .86], or scores on the BAPQ [F(2, 223) = 1.07,
p = .35]
HFA high functioning autism, BAPQ Broad Autism Phenotype
Questionnaire
Procedure
All study procedures were approved by the university’s
Institutional Review Board. Participants were scheduled
through the university human subject pool and received
one unit of extra credit upon completion of the 60-min
study procedures. Upon arriving at the laboratory, participants read a study information sheet that led them to
believe that the study was broadly examining how people
behave in social situations. Participants then completed an
online questionnaire that included questions about demographic and other background characteristics, described
below. The second component of the questionnaire consisted of three vignettes depicting an interaction with a
main character who demonstrated behaviors characteristic
of ASD, followed by a set of questions about the main
character. The last component of the questionnaire included questions about autism knowledge and the participant’s familiarity with autism.
Experimental Manipulation
Prior to beginning the questionnaire, participants were
randomly assigned to one of three study conditions: (1) the
high functioning autism (HFA) label condition (n = 77;
47 % male); (2) the typical college student label condition
(n = 72, 54 % male), or (3) the no label condition (n = 77,
55 % male). Conditions differed only by the statements
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
labeling the main character in the vignette. Specifically,
participants in conditions one, two, and three read the
following statements within each vignette, respectively:
1.
2.
3.
HFA label: (Main character name) is the same year in
school as you, has high functioning autism, and is of
above average intelligence. Individuals with high
functioning autism sometimes demonstrate difficulty
with social interaction and appropriate communication.
However, most are of average to above average
intelligence.
Typical college student label: (Main character name) is
the same year in school as you and is a typical college
student of above average intelligence.
No label: (Main character name) is the same year in
school as you and is of above average intelligence.
Vignettes
Participants read three vignettes depicting an interaction
with a main character who displayed one of three characteristics commonly observed in individuals with ASD:
restricted interests, impaired social-communication, and a
need for sameness. The vignettes depicted settings common in postsecondary education: working with a partner on
a group project, joining a campus club, or a shared living
situation. Full vignettes can be found in ‘‘Appendix’’.
After reading the vignettes and rating their attitudes
toward the vignette characters, participants read a
debriefing statement indicating that the study was actually
examining attitudes toward individuals displaying behaviors characteristic of HFA. Participants in the typical college student label and no label conditions also were
provided the statement about high functioning autism that
was identical in content to the labeling statements in the
vignettes read by participants in the HFA label condition.
This step was taken to ensure that the information about
ASD provided to participants was uniform across conditions prior to completing the autism knowledge
questionnaire.
Questionnaire Measures
In addition to demographic and personality questions,
participants completed the Broad Autism Phenotype
Questionnaire (BAPQ; Hurley et al. 2007) prior to reading
the vignettes. The BAPQ is a 36-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure personality characteristics
and pragmatic language deficits associated with the BAP,
or the expression of relatively mild autism traits in nonaffected relatives of individuals with ASD. Respondents
were instructed to indicate how often each statement
applies to them on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (Very
93
rarely) to 6 (Very often). After reverse scoring, responses
to each item were averaged to create a total summary score
ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating the
presence of more autism-like characteristics.
After reading each vignette, participants completed the
Multidimensional Attitudes Scale toward Persons with
Disabilities (MAS; Findler et al. 2007) about the main
character in the vignette. The MAS included three subscales. The affect subscale asked respondents to rate the
likelihood that they would experience each of 16 emotions
before, during, and/or after the interaction depicted in the
vignette on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(very much). Sample emotions included tension, helplessness, serenity, and shyness. The behavior subscale asked
the respondents to rate the likelihood that they would
engage in each of seven behaviors before, during, and/or
after the interaction depicted in the vignette on the same
5-point scale. Sample behaviors included, ‘‘Get up and
leave,’’ and ‘‘Start a conversation.’’ Last, the cognition
subscale asked respondents to rate the likelihood that they
would experience each of 10 thoughts before, during, and/
or after the interaction depicted in the vignette using the
same 5-point scale. Sample cognitions included, ‘‘We may
get along really well,’’ and ‘‘Why not get to know him
better?’’ Negative items were reverse coded and items for
each subscale were averaged, yielding three subscale
scores that ranged from 1 to 5. Internal consistency was
high for each of the three subscales across vignette characters (affective a = 0.77; behavioral a = 0.74; cognitive
a = 0.80). Thus, subscale scores were averaged across the
three vignette characters to create three primary outcome
variables: (1) affective attitudes, (2) behavioral attitudes,
and (3) cognitive attitudes.
After reading the debriefing statement, participants
completed the Autism Knowledge Questionnaire (AKQ;
Kuhn and Carter 2006). The AKQ included 41 items, to
which participants were asked to respond ‘‘True,’’ ‘‘False,’’
or ‘‘Don’t know.’’ Sample statements included, ‘‘There is
currently no medical test to diagnose autism,’’ and ‘‘Over
half of the number of children with autism have been found
to be the result of bad parenting.’’ Each correct response was
worth 1 point, whereas incorrect and ‘‘Don’t know’’
responses were worth 0 points. Points were summed, divided by 41, and multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage score.
Data Analysis
Preliminary 3 (condition) 9 3 (vignette) repeated measures
analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed significant differences in scores from each MAS subscale among the
three vignettes in the full sample and within each study
condition (reported in Table 2). However, the interaction
between condition and vignette was not significant for any
123
94
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
Table 2 Descriptive statistics: MAS subscale scores by vignette and study condition
MAS subscale
Full sample
(n = 224)
M (SD)
Affective attitudes
HFA label
(n = 75)
M (SD)
Typical label
(n = 72)
M (SD)
No label
(n = 77)
M (SD)
3.60 (0.50)
3.59 (0.46)
3.64 (0.40)
Group project (Kyle)
3.37 (0.52)
3.35 (0.55)
3.38 (0.47)
3.40 (0.52)
Club meeting (Tim)
Shared living space (Alex)
3.85 (0.57)a
3.61 (0.55)ab
3.84 (0.58)a
3.62 (0.57)ab
3.81 (0.63)a
3.58 (0.58)ab
3.90 (0.51)a
3.63 (0.51)ab
3.82 (0.71)
3.52 (0.71)c
3.46 (0.73)c
3.88 (0.70)
Behavioral attitudes
Group project (Kyle)
3.97 (0.69)
4.15 (0.62)
3.86 (0.72)
Club meeting (Tim)
3.34 (1.03)a
3.66 (0.95)a
3.20 (0.99)a
Shared living space (Alex)
3.51 (0.99)
ab
Cognitive attitudes
3.65 (1.02)
a
3.51 (0.97)
ab
3.12 (1.09)a
3.37 (0.97)ab
3.11 (0.68)
2.75 (0.68)c
2.57 (0.64)c
2.75 (0.80)
Group project (Kyle)
3.01 (0.81)
3.36 (0.72)
2.88 (0.79)
Club meeting (Tim)
2.78 (0.84)a
3.06 (0.82)a
2.72 (0.80)a
2.52 (0.82)a
a
2.45 (0.81)a
Shared living space (Alex)
2.68 (0.82)
a
2.91 (0.81)
ab
2.66 (0.80)
All means calculated prior to multiple imputation; thus, sample sizes varied slightly by variable
MAS multidimensional attitudes scale, HFA high functioning autism
Difference indicated by preceding superscript letter is marginal (p B .10)
a
Significantly different from group project vignette (p \ .05)
b
Significantly different from club meeting vignette (p \ .05)
c
Significantly different from the HFA label group (p \ .05)
of the three subscales, which justified averaging subscale
scores across the three vignette characters for the primary
analyses.
Missing data (\17 % per variable; M = 4.6 %) were
managed using multiple imputation following the procedure outlined by Rubin (1987). Missing values were
replaced by plausible values in each of five simulated
datasets using the multiple imputation command in SPSS
21. Along with the primary variables of interest, measures
of personality and social behavioral characteristics were
used as auxiliary variables (John et al. 1990; Radloff 1977;
Rosip and Hall 2004; Russell 1996). All continuous data
points were converted to z-scores prior to multiple imputation. Results for each simulated dataset were pooled for
each outcome variable.
Three separate OLS hierarchical regression models were
constructed in order to examine the effect of condition (i.e.,
HFA label, typical college student label, and no label) on
each outcome measure (i.e., affective attitudes, behavioral
attitudes, and cognitive attitudes). Study condition was
dummy coded (HFA label as reference) and entered in the
first step of each regression model. The gender, autism
knowledge, and BAPQ variables were entered in the final
step of each regression model. Three cases were identified
as outlying in each of the models using residual diagnostics. Models were re-run excluding these cases. This procedure altered significance levels, but not the direction of
123
the association, for 1–2 predictor variables in two of the
models (behavioral and cognitive attitudes). Results
excluding outliers are reported in the main text; results
including outliers are reported in a footnote (Cohen et al.
2003).
Results
Descriptive statistics for demographic and primary study
variables are reported by condition in Table 1. The first
hierarchical regression model examined the effect of condition on affective attitudes, controlling for gender, autism
knowledge, and the BAPQ (see Table 3). Significant differences were not observed between conditions on the
affective attitudes scale. Gender was significant, with male
students reporting significantly more positive affective
attitudes toward the vignette characters than female students (b = 0.46, p \ .001). A significant association
between autism knowledge and affective attitudes was not
observed, but associations with the measure of the BAP
indicated that students who self-reported more autistic
traits reported more negative affective attitudes toward the
vignette characters than students who self-reported fewer
autistic traits (b = -0.30, p \ .001). With condition on the
first step, entering the gender, autism knowledge, and
BAPQ variables in the second step of the model resulted in
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
95
Table 3 Attitudes by study group, gender, autism knowledge, and BAPQ
Variable
Affective attitudes
b
Behavioral attitudes
Cognitive attitudes
SE (b)
pB
b
SE (b)
pB
b
SE (b)
pB
-0.08
0.11
.45
-0.09
0.09
.35
-0.12
0.10
.22
.36
-0.21
0.09
.02
.001
Step 1
Condition (reference = HFA label)
Typical label
0.09
0.10
-0.32
0.09
Min. F(df, df), DR2
No label
0.32 (2, 221)
0.003
4.89 (2, 218)*
0.043
11.43 (2, 218)**
0.095
Max. F(df, df), DR2
1.41 (2, 221)
0.013
6.84 (2, 218)**
0.059
14.04 (2, 218)**
0.114
Step 2
Condition (reference = HFA label)
-0.11
0.10
.31
-0.11
0.09
.22
-0.13
0.09
.18
No label
Typical label
0.11
0.10
.23
-0.19
0.09
.03
-0.30
0.09
.001
Gender
0.46
0.13
.001
0.40
0.13
.002
0.27
0.13
.04
Autism knowledge
-0.06
0.08
.48
-0.01
0.08
.95
0.09
0.08
.26
BAPQ
-0.30
0.07
.001
-0.30
0.07
.001
-0.21
0.07
.002
2
6.50 (5, 218)**
0.125
8.19 (5, 215)**
0.102
7.67 (5, 215)**
0.056
Max. F(df, df), DR2
7.66 (5, 218)**
0.141
10.86 (5, 215)**
0.143
11.01 (5, 215)**
0.090
Min. F(df, df), DR
All continuous variables were standardized
BAPQ Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire, HFA high functioning autism
* p \ .01; ** p \ .001
a statistically significant increase in explained variance
(DR2 = 0.133, p \ .001).
The second hierarchical regression model examined the
effect of condition on behavioral attitudes (see Table 3).
Students in the HFA label condition reported significantly
more positive behavioral attitudes than students in the no
label condition when controlling for gender, autism
knowledge, and BAPQ scores (b = -0.19, p = .03); the
comparison between the HFA label and typical label conditions was not significant. Gender was significant such
that male students reported significantly more positive
attitudes than female students (b = 0.40, p = .002). A
significant association was not observed between autism
knowledge and behavioral attitudes. However, scores on
the measure of the BAP were significantly associated with
behavioral attitudes such that students who self-reported
more autistic traits reported more negative behavioral
attitudes toward the vignette characters than students who
self-reported fewer autistic traits (b = -0.30, p \ .001).
Entering the gender, autism knowledge, and BAPQ variables in the second step of the model resulted in a statistically significant increase over condition in explained
variance (DR2 = 0.128, p \ .001).1
1
Students in the no label condition reported significantly more
negative behavioral attitudes toward the vignette characters than
students in the HFA label condition when covariates were not
included in the model (b = -0.19, p = .05). A marginal difference in
the same direction was observed between the no label and HFA label
The third and final hierarchical regression model
examined the effect of condition on cognitive attitudes (see
Table 3). Students in the HFA label condition reported
significantly more positive cognitive attitudes than students
in the no label condition when controlling for gender,
autism knowledge, and BAP scores (b = -0.30, p \ .001);
the HFA label and typical label conditions did not differ
significantly. Male students reported significantly more
positive attitudes than female students (b = 0.27, p = .04).
A significant association was not observed between autism
knowledge and behavioral attitudes. However, a significant
negative association was observed between scores on the
measure of the BAP and cognitive attitudes such that students who self-reported more autistic traits reported more
negative behavioral attitudes toward the vignette characters
than students who self-reported fewer autistic traits (b =
-0.21, p = .002). Entering the gender, autism knowledge,
and BAPQ variables in the second step of the model
resulted in a statistically significant increase over condition
in explained variance (DR2 = 0.069, p = .001).2
Footnote 1 continued
conditions when controlling for gender, autism knowledge and scores
on the BAPQ (b = -0.16, p = .08).
2
Male students reported marginally higher cognitive attitudes than
female students when controlling for condition, autism knowledge
and scores on the BAPQ (b = 0.24, p = .06).
123
96
Discussion
A recent research estimate from a large, nationally representative study indicates that approximately 35 % of individuals with ASD attend a 2- or 4-year college (Shattuck
et al. 2012). Indeed, attending college has become a realistic goal for cognitively-able individuals with ASD
(VanBergeijk et al. 2008), which is likely due in part to
successful early-intervention leading to positive adult outcomes (Anderson et al. 2013). Justification for the
increased involvement of individuals with ASD in postsecondary settings includes links between postsecondary
achievement and positive employment outcomes, as well as
the natural transition from inclusive secondary settings to
inclusive postsecondary settings (Hart et al. 2010). Yet,
little is known about how well cognitively-able students
with ASD adjust to college life. Students with ASD might
be concerned about peer acceptance of their atypical
behaviors and about peer reactions if they disclosed their
ASD diagnosis (Huws and Jones 2008; Shtayermman
2009). The current study was designed to address this issue.
Utilizing an experimental design with random assignment, peer responses to hypothetical individuals who
showed behaviors associated with high-functioning autism
(HFA) were examined. Experimental manipulation was
used to assign individuals to one of three study conditions:
HFA label, typical college student label, or no label. College students in the HFA label condition reported a more
positive disposition toward hypothetical peers who displayed symptoms of ASD compared to the no label condition. Additionally, male college students and students
who self-reported fewer characteristics related to the BAP
reported more positive affective, behavioral and cognitive
attitudes across study conditions. Together, the current
findings extend the limited existing literature that has
examined peer perceptions of college students’ with ASD.
College students in the HFA label condition reported
more positive behavioral and cognitive, but not affective,
attitudes toward the vignette characters than students in the
no label condition. This specificity suggests that, although
they may not feel differently, college students could be
expected to act and think more positively toward students
with ASD if they are made aware of the diagnosis rather
than left to wonder why their peer is behaving in unexpected ways. The same positive reaction might not be
expected if the vignette characters had a different mental
health condition, as suggested by a study that found that
college students ranked autism lower in stigma than mental
illnesses such as antisocial personality disorder (Feldman
and Crandall 2007). Findings from the current study support the limited past work with elementary school children
(Campbell et al. 2004) and college students (Butler and
Gillis 2011) that suggests that a label may lead to
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
significantly lower stigmatization in scenarios depicting an
individual with autism or Asperger’s Disorder. The positive attitudes toward peers labeled with HFA in the current
study could also reflect increased awareness of ASD by the
general public and the likelihood of students knowing
someone with ASD (Tipton and Blacher 2014).
Responses to the affective attitudes scale in the current
study were almost identical across conditions, suggesting
that emotional responses are not altered by diagnostic
information about one’s interaction partner. Emotions on
the affective subscale more heavily reflected dimensions of
anxiety and calmness rather than basic emotions such as
happiness and sadness. It is possible that the scale did not
assess basic emotional attitudes activated by the social
interactions depicted by the vignettes. Future research that
includes a wider array of emotions would be useful.
Contrary to expectations, no significant difference was
observed between the HFA label and typical college student label conditions. The typical college student label
condition was included in the study design in order to
approximate situations in which college students with ASD
might withhold their diagnosis. It was hypothesized that
students in the typical college student label condition
would report the least positive attitudes toward the vignette
characters due to a lack of explanation for the vignette
characters’ atypical behaviors. Although non-significant,
the direction of group means indicated that the behavioral
and cognitive attitudes of the typical college student label
group fell in between the group means of the HFA label
and no label groups. Possibly, students in the current study,
which controlled for BAP characteristics, identified with
the label ‘‘typical college student’’ and thus indicated more
positive attitudes toward the vignette characters with this
label compared to the no label condition.
Male college students in the current study reported more
positive attitudes than females across the different attitude
subscales, a finding that supports previous work that
demonstrated higher openness toward vignette characters
with ASD in male compared to female college students
(Nevill and White 2011). These findings are interesting
when interpreted within the context of previous findings
that female college students reported more positive perceptions of college students with intellectual delays than
male college students (Griffin et al. 2012). It is possible
that the distinct social impairments associated with ASD
are better tolerated by male college students than female
college students. As explained by Nevill and White (2011),
male students generally tend to be more introverted than
female students and could therefore be less affected by the
atypical social behaviors associated with ASD.
Exploratory analyses revealed that higher scores on the
BAPQ predicted more negative affective, behavioral, and
cognitive attitudes toward the vignette characters across
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
study conditions. This result parallels that of Nevill and
White (2011), who found the highest levels of fear toward
peers with ASD among engineering students, who are
reported to have social behaviors that are qualitatively
similar to students with ASD (Kokosh 1976; Baron-Cohen
et al. 1998). Students with more BAP characteristics may
be reluctant to initiate social interactions; consequently,
these students might be unlikely to report that they would
start a conversation or actively engage in other positive
behaviors toward a peer with ASD.
97
Committee 2010) and supported by the findings of the
current study. Improved awareness of ASD among typical
college students and faculty could ease the transition to
postsecondary schooling for students with ASD, reduce
social isolation, and improve retention.
Acknowledgments We thank the University of California, Irvine
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program for financial support
of this project. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by
Kent Chiu, Rob Haghighi, and Lesley Lai to data collection and
coding. We also thank the college students who participated in this
study.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study is the first to our knowledge to compare
attitudes of college students toward vignette characters
displaying behaviors characteristic of ASD in college settings. Limitations include the reliance on vignettes, which
may have reduced the ecological validity of the current
findings. Future research might substitute videotaped
interactions for the vignettes or conduct interviews with
peers of actual college students with ASD, although the
latter approach could eliminate the potential for a rigorous
experimental design. The main characters in each vignette
were male, which limits generalizability of the findings to
females with ASD. Future research should examine the
potential effect of gender of vignette character on college
students’ perceptions of interaction partners. Last, the
current sample was one of convenience and consisted
mostly of students in the social sciences. As has been
demonstrated in previous research (Nevill and White
2011), perceptions of college students with ASD may differ
by college major.
Conclusions
The importance of, and potential for, postsecondary education for individuals with ASD has recently become a
topic of interest in the empirical literature and mainstream
media alike (Hart et al. 2010). The attention paid to this
issue may further fuel the increasing prevalence of individuals with ASD in postsecondary settings. Increased
openness toward ASD on college campuses is likely necessary and possible, as is a more focused effort from
campus administrations to facilitate the transition of students with ASD into inclusive college campuses (Nevill
and White 2011). More generally, increased public
awareness of ASD might result in increased understanding
and decreased social isolation for individuals with the
disorder (Griffith et al. 2012), an idea echoed by the
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee’s strategic
plan for ASD research (US Department of Health and
Human Services, Interagency Autism Coordinating
Appendix
Vignette #1
It is the first day of the quarter and you are sitting in your
Humanities course. The professor explains that each student will be randomly assigned to a partner with whom he
or she will work on a number of group projects throughout
the quarter. Together these group projects will be worth
50 % of your final grade. The professor tells you that you
will be working with a student named Kyle. Kyle is in the
same year of school as you, (has high functioning autism
OR is a typical college student OR no statement) and is of
above average intelligence. (Following sentence only
included in HFA condition.) Individuals with high functioning autism sometimes demonstrate difficulty with
social interactions and appropriate communication. However, most are of average to above average intelligence. As
a part of the first group project, you are instructed to choose
a contemporary fiction book to compare and contrast to a
literary classic. You ask Kyle if he has any ideas, and he
immediately states that he would like to use The Lord of
the Rings. You tell him that you think that is a good idea,
but you mention that you are worried because it is more
than 1,200 pages, which may be too long for the current
assignment. You try to name three other books that you
think would be more appropriate. You ask Kyle if he has
any additional ideas. In response, Kyle begins a five minute
explanation of why he thinks The Lord of the Rings is the
best choice. Every time you attempt to ask Kyle about
another book, he immediately returns to his discussion of
The Lord of the Rings.
Vignette #2
You decide to join a campus club focused on community
service and volunteer work. You hope to make friends with
someone at the first meeting because you do not know
anyone else in the club. When you enter the meeting room,
the club president introduces you to another club member
123
98
named Tim. Tim is the same year in school as you, (has
high functioning autism OR is a typical college student OR
no statement) and is of above average intelligence. (Following sentence only included in HFA condition.) Individuals with high functioning autism sometimes
demonstrate difficulty with social interactions and appropriate communication. However, most are of average to
above average intelligence. You introduce yourself to Tim
and reach out your hand to shake hands. He quickly
responds, ‘‘Hi, I’m Tim,’’ without looking up from the club
brochure that he is reading, and he does not shake your
hand. You try to get to know Tim by asking him what he
likes to do in his free time. He responds by pulling out a
video game magazine and explaining his favorite video
game to you. You attempt to tell him about yourself, but he
repeatedly returns to discussing video games and seems
more interested in his video game magazine than his conversation with you.
Vignette #3
It is move-in day in the dorms and you are carrying some of
your belongings into your new room in one of the co-ed
suites. Alex, one of your suitemates who lives in the
opposite room to yours, walks into the room. Alex is the
same year in school as you, (has high functioning autism
OR is a typical college student OR no statement) and is of
above average intelligence. (Following sentence only
included in HFA condition.) Individuals with high functioning autism sometimes demonstrate difficulty with
social interactions and appropriate communication. However, most are of average to above average intelligence.
You notice that the furniture in the shared living space is
arranged in a way that seems to make the space more
cramped. A week later, you decide to ask if Alex could
help you rearrange the furniture. You start to move around
the sofa but Alex gets upset and moves it back to its original position with no explanation. You brush it off and just
decide to move around the furniture on your own. Alex
sees that the furniture was moved and frantically requests
that everything be moved back to the way it was.
References
Anderson, D. K., Liang, J. W., & Lord, C. (2013). Predicting young
adult outcome among more and less cognitively able individuals
with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jcpp.
12178.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wright, S., Stott, C., Bolton, P., & Goodyer, I.
(1998). Engineering and autism: Exploring the link further:
Reply to Wolff, Braunsberg and Islam. Autism, 2, 98–104.
doi:10.1177/1362361398021016.
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
Belch, H. A. (2004). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 6,
3–22. doi:10.2190/MC5A-DHRV-1GHM-N0CD.
Blumberg, S. J., Bramlett, M. D., Kogan, M. D., Schieve, L. A.,
Jones, J. R., & Lu, M. C. (2013). Changes in prevalence of
parent-reported autism spectrum disorder in school-aged US
children: 2007 to 2011–2012. National Health Statistic Reports;
no. 65. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov.
Butler, R. C., & Gillis, J. M. (2011). The impact of labels and
behaviors on the stigmatization of adults with Asperger’s
disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41,
741–749. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1093-9.
Camarena, P. M., & Sarigiani, P. A. (2009). Postsecondary educational aspirations of high- functioning adolescents with autism
spectrum disorders and their parents. Focus on Autism and other
Developmental Disorders, 24, 115–128. doi:10.1177/1088357
609332675.
Campbell, J. M., Ferguson, J. E., Herzinger, C. V., Jackson, J. N., &
Marino, C. A. (2004). Combined descriptive and explanatory
information improves peers’ perceptions of autism. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 25, 321–339. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.
2004.01.005.
Charman, T., Pickles, A., Simonoff, E., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., &
Baird, G. (2011). IQ in children with autism spectrum disorders:
Data from the special needs and autism project (SNAP).
Psychological Medicine, 41, 619–627. doi:10.1017/S0033291
710000991.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Feldman, D. B., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Dimensions of mental
illness stigma: What about mental illness causes social rejection?
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 137–154. doi:10.
1521/jscp.2007.26.2.137.
Findler, L., Vilchinsky, N., & Werner, S. (2007). The multidimensional attitudes scale toward persons with disabilities (MAS):
Construction and validation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,
50(3), 166–176. doi:10.1177/00343552070500030401.
Friedman, N. D. B., Warfield, M. E., & Parish, S. L. (2013).
Transition to adulthood for individuals with autism spectrum
disorder: Current issues and future perspectives. Neuropsychiatry, 3, 181–192. doi:10.2217/npy.13.13.
Griffin, M. M., Summer, A. H., McMillan, E. D., Day, T. L., &
Hodapp, R. M. (2012). Attitudes toward including students with
intellectual disabilities at college. Journal of Policy and Practice
in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 234–239. doi:10.1111/jppi.12008.
Griffith, G. M., Totsiksa, V., Nash, S., & Hastings, R. P. (2012). ‘I
just don’t fit anywhere:’ Support experiences and future support
needs of individuals with Asperger syndrome in middle adulthood. Autism, 16, 532–546. doi:10.1177/1362361311405223.
Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. (2010). Expanding the paradigm:
Postsecondary education options for individuals with autism
spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 134–150. doi:10.
1177/1088357610373759.
Hurley, S. E., Losh, M., Parlier, M., Reznick, J. S., & Piven, J. (2007). The
broad autism phenotype. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37, 1679–1690. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0299-3.
Huws, J., & Jones, R. (2008). Diagnosis, disclosure, and having
autism: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the
perceptions of young people with autism. Journal of Intellectual
and Developmental Disability, 33, 99–107. doi:10.1080/
13668250802010394.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1990). The Big-5
Inventory: Versions 4a and 5. Technical Report. Berkeley, CA:
J Autism Dev Disord (2015) 45:90–99
Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of
California.
Kokosh, J. (1976). Psychology of the scientist: XXXIV. MMPI
characteristics of physical and social science students: Replication and reanalysis. Psychological Reports, 39(3), 1067–1071.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.39.3f.1067.
Kuhn, J. C., & Carter, A. S. (2006). Maternal self-efficacy and
associated parenting cognitions among mothers of children with
autism. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 564–575.
doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.4.564.
Nevill, R. E. A., & White, S. W. (2011). College students’ openness
toward autism spectrum disorders: Improving peer acceptance.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41,
1619–1628. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1189-x.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100
306.
Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degreegranting postsecondary institutions (NCES 2011–018). US
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.
Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues,
gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 28, 267–286. doi:10.1007/s10919-004-4159-6.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys.
New York: Wiley.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3):
Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 66, 20-40. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.
com/.
99
Shattuck, P. T., Narendorf, S. C., Cooper, B., Sterzing, P. R., Wagner,
M., & Taylor, J. L. (2012). Postsecondary education and
employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder.
Pediatrics, 129(6), 1042–1049. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2864.
Shtayermman, O. (2009). An exploratory study of the stigma
associated with a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome: The mental
health impact on the adolescents and young adults diagnosed
with a disability with a social nature. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 298–313. doi:10.1080/
10911350902790720.
Swaim, K. F., & Morgan, S. B. (2001). Children’s attitudes and
behavioral intentions toward a peer with autistic behaviors: Does
a brief educational intervention have an effect? Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 195–205. doi:10.1023/
A:1010703316365.
Tipton, L. A., & Blacher, J. (2014). Brief report: Autism awareness:
Views from a campus community. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 44, 477–483. doi:10.1007/s10803013-1893-9.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Interagency Autism
Coordinating Committee. (2010). Strategic plan for autism
spectrum disorder research (NIH Publication No. 10-7573).
Retrieved from http://www.iacc.hhs.gov/strategic-plan/2010/
IACC_2010 _Strategic_Plan.pdf.
VanBergeijk, E., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. (2008). Supporting more
able students on the autism spectrum: college and beyond.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38,
1359–1370. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0524-8.
White, S. W., Ollendick, T. H., & Bray, B. C. (2011). College
students on the autism spectrum: Prevalence and associated
problems. Autism, 15, 683–701. doi:10.1177/13623613103933
63.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Child Development, March/April 2011, Volume 82, Number 2, Pages 717–731
Emotion Discourse, Social Cognition, and Social Skills in Children With and
Without Developmental Delays
Rachel M. Fenning, Bruce L. Baker, and Jaana Juvonen
University of California, Los Angeles
This study examined parent–child emotion discourse, children’s independent social information processing,
and social skills outcomes in 146 families of 8-year-olds with and without developmental delays. Children’s
emergent social-cognitive understanding (internal state understanding, perspective taking, and causal reasoning and problem solving) was coded in the context of parent–child conversations about emotion, and children
were interviewed separately to assess social problem solving. Mothers, fathers, and teachers reported on children’s social skills. The proposed strengths-based model partially accounted for social skills differences
between typically developing children and children with delays. A multigroup analysis of the model linking
emotion discourse to social skills through children’s prosocial problem solving suggested that processes
operated similarly for the two groups. Implications for ecologically focused prevention and intervention are
discussed.
The emergence of social competence and the establishment of successful interpersonal relationships
are among the most important aspects of child
development. Evidence that early experiences provide a foundation for subsequent functioning has
prompted efforts to understand mechanisms underlying social adjustment and resilience under conditions of risk (Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995). An
emphasis has been placed upon social-cognitive
processes, including skills related to emotion
understanding, perspective taking, and social problem solving. The current study examined similarities and differences in dynamics related to the
emergence of social cognition and competence in
typically developing children and children with
developmental delays, a group at substantially
increased risk for persistent social difficulties.
Studies have linked children’s emotion knowledge, affective perspective taking, and understanding of mental states to specific aspects of prosocial
Rachel M. Fenning is now at the Waisman Center, University
of Wisconsin–Madison.
This article is based on the dissertation of the first author. Data
were drawn from the larger Collaborative Family Study, funded
by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development Grant 34879-1459 (K. A. Crnic, B. L.
Baker, J. Blacher, & C. Edelbrock, co-investigators). We gratefully
acknowledge the families and teachers who made this work possible, and the contributions of our invaluable colleagues, staff,
and students.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Rachel M. Fenning, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin–
Madison, 1500 Highland Avenue, Room 157, Madison, WI 53705.
Electronic mail may be sent to rfenning@waisman.wisc.edu.
behavior (e.g., sharing, cooperation, and prosocial
responses to others’ emotions; Denham, 1986; Dunn
& Cutting, 1999; Iannotti, 1985) as well as global
dimensions of social competence and peer acceptance (e.g., Denham et al., 2003; Garner, 1996). Longitudinal studies provide support for a directional
relationship,
with
more
advanced
socialcognitive skills predicting later adaptive outcomes
(e.g., Denham et al., 2003). The significance of individual differences in social cognition is underscored by the relative stability of skill disparities
(Brown & Dunn, 1996) and by striking associations
between social-cognitive deficits and children’s
externalizing behaviors and problems with peers
(Deković & Gerris, 1994; Denham et al., 2002).
Investigations of children’s social cognition predominately rely on social information processing
models as frameworks for understanding on-line
processing presumed to underlie behavioral
responses during social interaction. Utilizing Crick
and Dodge’s (1994) reformulated model, particular
attention has been devoted to the study of early
steps involving cue encoding and interpretation,
and to the later step of response generation. This
line of research has primarily adopted a deficit perspective, highlighting the role of hostile attributions
of intent and limited or aggressive social problem
2011 The Authors
Child Development 2011 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2011/8202-0019
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01569.x
718
Fenning, Baker, and Juvonen
solving in the emergence of children’s aggressive
behavior and poor peer status from preschool age
through adolescence (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lochman & Dodge, 1994). Intervention programs demonstrate the rewards of improving children’s social
information processing (e.g., Conduct Problems
Prevention Research Group [CPPRG], 2002), but
comparatively few studies document the benefits of
adaptive processing directly (see Dodge, Pettit,
McClaskey, & Brown, 1986, for an exception).
Although major strides have been made in conceptualizing the role of social cognition in predicting
children’s psychosocial outcomes, less is known
about the development of these skills, especially in
middle childhood. Theories of social information
processing posit that children enter situations with a
preexisting database of social knowledge that influences the way in which specific social-cognitive processes are enacted (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lemerise
& Arsenio, 2000). While children can acquire this
social knowledge through a variety of accumulated
experiences, Dodge (2006) proposed that parent–
child socialization practices are fundamental to children’s acquisition of adaptive social cognition.
The idea that social cognition is constructed
through social interaction embraces a transactional
view of development and builds upon Vygotsky’s
early theories (Carpendale & Lewis, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978). Central to this approach is intersubjectivity—the notion that caregiver and child can
share understanding of intentionality and mental
states—and that parents can facilitate development
by scaffolding children’s emergent skills through
sensitive guidance and collaboration. The dynamic,
reciprocal quality of parent–child interaction in
turn provides a mechanism for internalization.
Because the influence of the socializing environment remains even after children develop independent skills (Fernyhough, 1997), individual
differences in social cognition may stem, in part,
from variations in children’s interpersonal contexts
and environmental experiences.
Emotion discourse is a powerful means of communicating information about attitudes, display
rules, and socioemotional expectations (e.g., Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998), and research
has demonstrated important associations between
parent–child conversations about emotion and children’s independent social cognition. The frequency
and complexity of parent–child discussions of emotion during the preschool period have been linked
to young children’s own emotion talk, understanding of mental states, and perspective-taking skills
(Dunn, Bretherton, & Munn, 1987; Dunn, Brown,
Slomkowski, Tesla, & Youngblade, 1991). Causal
explanations of emotion have emerged as especially
important features of discourse, influencing children’s ability to label emotional expressions, understand mixed emotions, and engage in affective
perspective taking (e.g., Brown & Dunn, 1996; Denham, Zoller, & Couchoud, 1994; Dunn, Brown, &
Beardsall, 1991). Eisenberg et al. (1992) have
provided some evidence that associations between
parent–child discourse and children’s social-cognitive skills persist in middle childhood. However,
understanding the nature and implications of
parent–child conversations about emotion during
this period remains an important research task, as
middle childhood involves critical advances in
understanding of the mind, emotion, and the self
(e.g., improved interpretive theory of mind, understanding of mixed and self-conscious emotions and
display rules; Denham & Kochanoff, 2002; Harter,
1999; Lalonde & Chandler, 2002).
While much remains to be learned about environmental influences on the development of social
cognition in typically developing children, particularly during middle childhood, even less is known
about such processes in children vulnerable to maladaptive functioning due to developmental risk. As
a group, children with developmental (cognitive)
delays experience heightened vulnerability across
multiple domains, including significant social problems characterized by maladaptive patterns of peer
interaction and persistent difficulties establishing
reciprocal friendships (Guralnick, 1999). Such findings are highly concerning given the importance of
early peer experiences and close friendships to children’s later adjustment and prosocial development
(Rubin, Bukowski, & Laursen, 2009). Yet, despite
elevated overall risk, children with delays also
exhibit meaningful variation in social functioning
and outcomes (see Guralnick, 1999 and Leffert &
Siperstein, 2002, for reviews), which underscores
the importance of identifying factors that contribute
to individual differences in this population.
Cognitive limitations were once believed to
account for observed impairments in social and
emotional functioning in children with developmental delays (for a discussion, see Reiss, Levitan,
& Szyszko, 1982). However, evidence that these difficulties persist even after controlling for relative
developmental level has prompted further attention
to possible explanatory mechanisms, including
social cognition and related social behaviors (Guralnick, 1999; Leffert & Siperstein, 2002). Children
with developmental delays display the types of
social-cognitive deficits demonstrated by typically
Emotion Discourse and Social Cognition
developing children with poor psychosocial adjustment, including difficulties in perspective taking
and emotion understanding, as well as cue recognition and interpretation (e.g., Kasari & Bauminger,
1998; Leffert & Siperstein, 1996; Yirmiya, Erel,
Shaked, & Solomonica-Levi, 1998). Relative to typically developing children, children with delays also
exhibit greater difficulty generating novel social
problem-solving strategies in response to hypothetical scenarios and adapting those strategies to
changing contextual demands (Herman & Shantz,
1983; Leffert, Siperstein, & Millikan, 2000). Additionally, children with delays often produce fewer
competent solutions and more aggressive and
appeal-to-authority strategies (Gomez & Hazeldine,
1996; Leffert et al., 2000). Whereas generation of
multiple adaptive strategies has been linked to
positive classroom adjustment for children with
delays, production of aggressive strategies has been
associated with elevated externalizing behavior
problems (Healey & Masterpasqua, 1992; Leffert &
Siperstein, 1996). Observational studies provide corroborating evidence of disruptive and ineffective
group entry strategies and poor conflict resolution
skills in this population (Guralnick et al., 1998;
Kopp, Baker, & Brown, 1992; Wilson, 1999).
Despite evidence of key links between social cognition and socioemotional functioning in children
with delays, little attention has been devoted to
possible determinants of social cognition for these
children. While internal factors such as executive
functioning likely play a role (Carlson, Moses, &
Claxton, 2004), the importance of the family environment can be amplified in the context of developmental risk (Crnic & Greenberg, 1987), and parental
scaffolding may take on particular significance
(Baker, Fenning, Crnic, Baker, & Blacher, 2007).
Furthermore, because children with delays experience a lengthened period of caregiving dependency
(Baker, Blacher, Kopp, & Kraemer, 1997) and
restricted peer socialization experiences (Guralnick,
1999), parent–child interactions are likely to remain
a primary vehicle for promoting social-cognitive
development well into middle childhood. Although
few studies have focused on emotion talk in this
population, preliminary evidence suggests that the
emotional content of mothers’ child-directed language may indeed be limited (Tingley, Gleason, &
Hooshyar, 1994).
Given the potentially heightened importance of
emotion discourse to social cognition in families of
children with delays, factors that compromise discussion opportunities might contribute to key vulnerabilities. A number of studies have documented
719
increased asynchrony, less positive reciprocity, and
more intrusiveness in the overall quality of parent–
child interaction in these families (Crnic, Friedrich,
& Greenberg, 1983; Fenning, Baker, Baker, & Crnic,
2007; Floyd & Phillippe, 1993). Although it has been
suggested that elevated parental control may represent a reasonable and appropriate adaptation to
children’s developmental needs (Marfo, 1990),
highly directive parent–child interactions may not
be conducive to optimal social-emotional adjustment over time (Ganiban, Barnett, & Cicchetti,
2000). Compounding this issue is evidence that parents of children with delays place greater emphasis
on teaching skills in nonsocial domains and perceive less responsibility for socializing social skills
than do parents of typically developing children
(Kopp et al., 1992). Altogether these findings suggest that children with developmental delays, as a
group, may be exposed to fewer parent–child interactions of the type likely to promote social-cognitive development, which highlights the need to
understand the family’s role in fostering social
competence in this high-risk population.
Current Study
Evidence of family influences on the emergence
of children’s social cognition is almost exclusively
derived from studies of typically developing populations conducted during the preschool years. As
such, relatively little is known about these processes during middle childhood, and even less is
understood about the development of socialcognitive skills in children with developmental
delays. The present study sought to address these
issues by utilizing a multimethod, multi-informant
approach to evaluate dynamics linking parent–
child emotion discourse to children’s independent
social information processing and social skills outcomes in families of children with and without
developmental risk.
Previous research on associations between emotion discourse and social cognition has predominantly employed frequency counts of specific
aspects of parent–child discussion (e.g., internal
state language, causal explanations; Dunn, Brown,
& Beardsall, 1991; Dunn, Brown, Slomkowski, et al.,
1991). The present study expanded on this work to
adopt a holistic approach addressing opportunities
for discourse relevant to social cognition as well as
children’s demonstrated capacity in the context of
parental scaffolding. It is proposed that this method
of observational coding enhances the ability to
capture parent–child co-construction of shared mean-
720
Fenning, Baker, and Juvonen
ing, and thus the collaborative transactions thought
to drive the development of children’s social-cognitive understanding (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978).
Parent–child discussion of emotion was conceptualized as facilitating children’s internalization of
social cognition both indirectly, by fostering complexity in the general database of social-emotional
knowledge, and directly by augmenting children’s
independent abilities in the core domains of internal state understanding, perspective taking, and
causal reasoning and problem solving. The present
study examined associations between social cognition evidenced in the context of collaborative parent–child discourse and children’s autonomous
social information processing. An emphasis was
placed on children’s ability to generate adaptive
social problem-solving strategies, a component of
on-line social cognition associated with social
adjustment in typically developing populations. A
key goal of the present study was to understand
individual child and family factors that contribute
to children’s successful interpersonal functioning.
Toward that end, assessment of social skills outcomes centered upon ratings of children’s behaviors by parents and teachers.
Consistent with research devoted to understanding social-cognitive challenges that underlie poor
psychosocial adjustment, the current study examined developmental status group differences in prosocial and maladaptive social cognitions. It was
expected that typically developing children would
display more sophisticated parent–child emotion
discourse, better quality social problem solving,
and more adaptive social skills outcomes than children with developmental delays. Furthermore,
social-cognitive factors (emotion discourse and prosocial problem solving) were anticipated to account
in part for group differences in social skills.
Despite the emphasis on deficit models in developmental psychopathology research, identifying
similarities in pathways to competence is fundamental to understanding risk and resilience.
Enhanced knowledge of dynamics that promote
prosocial outcomes also provides insight into possible mechanisms for change that capitalize upon
existing individual and family-level strengths, a
perspective of great importance for risk populations
(e.g., Luthar, 2006; Masten & Gerwirtz, 2006).
Drawing upon evidence of associations between
parent–child emotion discourse and children’s early
social-cognitive skills (e.g., Denham et al., 1994;
Dunn, Brown, & Beardsall, 1991; Dunn, Brown,
Slomkowski et al., 1991), as well as findings suggestive of important relations between adaptive social
information processing and positive adjustment
(e.g., Dodge et al., 1986), a central aim of the present investigation was to evaluate a strengths-based
model linking parent–child emotion discourse to
children’s social skills outcomes via children’s independent ability to generate prosocial problem-solving strategies. This model was expected to fit for
the sample as a whole, as well as for each developmental status group. It was anticipated that processes underlying the pathway to social skills
would be similar across groups (i.e., process-level
differences were not expected).
Method
Participants
The current sample was drawn from a multisite
longitudinal investigation of the development of
psychopathology and the emergence social competence in children with and without developmental
delays from ages 3 to 9 years (Baker, Blacher, Crnic,
& Edelbrock, 2002; Baker et al., 2007). Exclusionary
criteria included autism and the presence of severe
motor difficulties; typically developing children
were also excluded due to premature birth or a history of delays. Families were recruited from community agencies serving children with delays and
from normative preschools. Three fourths of the
families resided in southern California and one
quarter lived in central Pennsylvania.
Participants in the present study included 146
families involved in data collection at child age 8
(85 boys, 61 girls). The participating families represented relatively diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, with 62% of mothers identifying their
children as Caucasian, 14% as Hispanic, 8% as African American, 1% as Asian, and 15% as Mixed ⁄
Other. Based upon the total IQ score from the age 5
Stanford-Binet IV assessment (SB–IV; Thorndike,
Hagen, & Sattler, 1986), 107 children were classified
as typically developing (SB–IV > 84, M = 103.7,
SD = 12) and 39 children were identified as demonstrating predominantly mild developmental delays
(SB–IV £ 75, M = 62.7, SD = 11.4).
Families of typically developing children had a
higher annual family income (M = $50,001–$70,000)
and greater maternal education (grade level
completed: M = 15.9, SD = 2.5) than did families
of children with developmental delays: income
(M = $25,001–$35,000), t(143) = 4.30, p < .001, and
education (M = 14.6, SD = 2.3), t(143) = 2.76, p < .01.
Once family income was controlled, status groups
no longer differed in maternal education. Family
Emotion Discourse and Social Cognition
income was entered as a covariate in all analyses
when it was also associated with the dependent
variable of interest.
Procedures
All study procedures were approved by the
Institutional Review Boards of the three participating universities. Trained assessors administered the
SB–IV to children at age 5 to evaluate intellectual
functioning and provide a basis for status groupings. Following the child’s eighth birthday, a home
visit was scheduled and questionnaire packets were
mailed to parents in advance. The structure of the
emotion discourse task was adapted from similar
methods used to evaluate parent–child discussion
of emotion (e.g., Fivush, Brotman, Buckner, &
Goodman, 2000). Building upon evidence that conversations about past events, particularly negative
emotions, may be especially conducive to children’s
emotional development (e.g., Lagattuta & Wellman,
2002), parents were instructed to think about a
recent time their child was ‘‘upset.’’ Parents were
asked to generate discussion topics independently,
and the emotion discourse task was conducted separately for each dyad. Father–child dyads participated first, followed by mother–child dyads. Dyads
were allotted 3 min for the discussion, although
parents could end the task early to approximate
naturalistic interaction. After the conclusion of the
emotion discourse task, the child was relocated separately to another area for administration of the
Social Problem Solving Measure (SPSM).
Measures
Stanford-Binet IV. The SB–IV composite score
yields a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16
(Thorndike et al., 1986). The SB–IV has sound psychometric properties, including high internal consistency for the composite score (rs = .95–.99 across
ages) and strong test–retest stability (r = .91 for
5-year-olds; Thorndike et al., 1986; Sattler, 2001).
Emergent Social Cognition Observation System
(ESCOS). The parent–child emotion discourse
interactions were coded using the ESCOS, developed by the first author for this study. Coding evaluated the extent to which the parent–child
interaction provided opportunities for discussion
relevant to social-cognitive development and,
within those contexts, the degree to which the
discourse fostered complexity in children’s social
cognition in three core domains: internal state
understanding, perspective taking, and causal rea-
721
soning and problem solving. Internal state understanding refers to awareness of and ability to
interpret one’s own mental and feeling states. Internal state understanding may be observed in references to discrete emotions, thoughts or desires, or
to the act of thinking, feeling, knowing, wishing, or
imagining. References to physiological states (e.g.,
cold, hunger) and states of consciousness (e.g.,
sleepy, awake) are excluded from consideration.
Perspective taking refers to attempts to identify,
understand, and make inferences about another’s
emotions, point of view, or situation. Perspective
taking is defined as a general construct that encompasses three main subtypes: (a) affective perspective taking (i.e., understanding others’ experience
or expression of emotion), (b) cognitive perspective
taking (i.e., understanding others’ thought processes or beliefs), and (c) spatial perspective taking
(i.e., understanding others’ physical vantage point
or frame of reference). Causal reasoning and problem
solving is defined by references to and explanations
of causality as well as attempts to problem solve.
Problem-solving skills are viewed as existing on a
continuum, with causal reasoning functioning as
the first, most elementary component. More
advanced problem solving may be characterized by
one or more of the following: (a) problem identification, (b) generation of response strategies, (c)
evaluation of strategies, (d) selection and discussion
of a solution, and (e) planning for future behavior.
Each of the three domains was rated on a 5-point
scale. A score of 1 was assigned when no relevant
reciprocal discussion was demonstrated and a score
of 2 was coded when the discussion included relevant social-cognitive material, but the child
remained only passively engaged. Discourse characterized by frequent, but low-level skills initiated
by parent and child (e.g., basic emotion labeling)
received a score of 3, whereas discussions involving
highly complex social-cognitive reasoning defined
by significant independent child contributions
received the higher scores of 4 or 5 (e.g., spontaneous exploration of mixed emotions and guided discussion of implications for future internal states).
Four undergraduates, blind to the hypotheses of
the current study, coded the discourse interactions
in teams of two. After watching the videotape, each
coder independently rated the interaction. Partners
then discussed coding discrepancies and reviewed
the videotape as needed to reach a consensus. Each
team rated more than half of the videotapes to
allow for relatively equivalent distribution of coding and 30% overlap with the master coder. Reliability with the master coder, the first author of this
722
Fenning, Baker, and Juvonen
study, was calculated using intraclass correlation
coefficients. Acceptable levels of reliability were
obtained for all scales. Reliability for father–child
and mother–child discourse was as follows: .88 ⁄ .76
for internal state understanding, .88 ⁄ .86 for perspective taking, and .75 ⁄ .85 for causal reasoning
and problem solving.
Social Problem Solving Measure (SPSM). The
SPSM is an interview measure designed to assess
children’s ability to access and generate problemsolving strategies in response to challenging social
situations (CPPRG, 1991). The SPSM contains eight
vignettes of scenarios involving either peer entry or
resolution of a social conflict. The experimenter
reads each vignette to the child while displaying a
pictorial representation. Following each story, the
child is asked to tell the experimenter what he or
she would ‘‘say or do’’ to resolve the situation. The
child is prompted for three responses to each
scenario.
The present coding system, adapted from earlier
versions (e.g. Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995),
included 15 categories: (0) Physically Aggressive,
(1) Verbally Aggressive, (2) Disruptive (3) Threatening Authority Intervention (4) Seeking Authority
Intervention ⁄ Punishment, (5) Commanding ⁄ Directing ⁄ Telling, (6) Simple Asking, (7) Positive Negotiating, (8) Expressing Feelings, (9) Generally
Assertive, (10) Nonspecific ‘‘Niceness,’’ (11) Passive ⁄ Inept, (12) Irrelevant ⁄ Other, (13) Repetitive
Response, and (14) Unable to Provide a Response.
If a response fit more than one category, it was
assigned to the category with the lowest code number. Examples of children’s responses for each category are presented in the Appendix. Scoring
considered the total number of strategies generated
in each category for the eight vignettes as well as
the total number of novel strategies generated during the task. Reliability was calculated based upon
coders’ consensus ratings for 20% of the interviews,
1,584 cases, using MacKappa software (Watkins,
2002). Overall reliability was very good (j = .92)
and the reliability for each scale was above .70
(range = .70–.98), with the exception of ‘‘Irrelevant ⁄ Other’’ (j = .57).
Research indicates that social-cognitive measures
can be used successfully in populations with
delays, and that children’s responses to hypothetical situations relate to observed behavior (Van Nieuwenhuijzen et al., 2005). Nevertheless, care was
taken to ensure the validity of the SPSM data. To
be included in the present sample, children could
provide no more than 4 (of 24) uncodable responses
in the context of an otherwise interpretable and
valid interview. Four children with complete SPSM
interviews were excluded based upon this criterion.
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). The present
study examined mother, father, and teacher report
of social skills on the elementary-level version of
the SSRS. Only the Social Skills Scale score was utilized, which is composed of subscales evaluating
children’s responsibility (parent version only),
cooperation, self-control, and assertiveness (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The Social Skills scale has
high test–retest reliability (parent r = .87, teacher
r = .85) and good internal consistency (parent
a = .87, teacher a = .94; Gresham & Elliott, 1990).
Results
Data Management
Data-reduction techniques were employed to
reduce the possibility of Type I error. Composite
variables were created separately for father–child
and mother–child emotion discourse interactions.
Scores for internal state understanding, perspective
taking, and causal reasoning and problem solving
were combined for each dyad. The variables were
composited on a theoretical basis, with each variable believed to represent an important component
of global social cognition. However, all three discourse variables were also significantly related in
the expected direction (rs = .24 to .54 for the
father–child discourse, and .23 to .37 for the
mother–child discourse), and loaded onto a single
factor for each dyad in principal components
analyses, with all factor loadings over .60. The
association between the final father–child and
mother–child discourse composites was substantial, r = .52, p < .001.
The fine-grained coding completed for the SPSM
in the present study permitted analysis of specific
strategies traditionally encompassed by broad competent or aggressive dimensions. Within the competent domain, simple asking and positive
negotiating, r = .21, p < .05, were considered to be
the most adaptive types of strategies and were
therefore selected to form the prosocial strategies
composite. Other strategies generally coded as competent (e.g., commanding ⁄ directing ⁄ telling, general
assertiveness, and nonspecific niceness) were not
significantly related to simple asking or positive
negotiating in the current sample. Strategies shown
to be problematic for child functioning in prior
research were also excluded from the prosocial
composite (e.g., passive strategies, seeking authority
Emotion Discourse and Social Cognition
intervention—Leffert & Siperstein, 1996; expressing
feelings—Putallaz & Gottman, 1981). With respect
to maladaptive strategies, data revealed a meaningful differentiation between strategies involving
physical aggression and disruptiveness, which were
combined to create an impulsive-aggressive strategy
composite, r = .18, p < .05, and strategies involving
verbal aggression and threats of authority intervention, r = .28, p < .01, combined to form a verbally
aggressive composite. Only the prosocial and impulsive-aggressive composites were related, r = ).28,
p < .01.
Utilizing complete data were prioritized for the
SPSM, given the importance of ensuring task validity; complete data were also available for the
mother–child emotion discourse. A majority of data
were complete for the remaining measured variables (ranging from 70% for father-reported social
skills to 93% for mother-reported social skills).
Given the clear benefits of estimating data over
excluding missing cases in structural equation
modeling, missing data were estimated using full
information maximum likelihood (Enders & Bandalos, 2001).
Developmental Status Group Differences
Table 1 presents developmental status group differences, controlling for family income when appropriate. As expected, univariate analyses of
covariance revealed that typically developing children engaged in more sophisticated parent–child
emotion discourse and generated a greater number
of prosocial problem-solving strategies than did
children with delays. Typically developing children
723
also received higher social skills ratings from all
respondents. Conversely, children with delays produced more maladaptive strategies, with group
differences in impulsive-aggressive strategies significant at p = .05.
Children with delays did not propose seeking
authority figures or other passive strategies more
often than did typically developing children.
Groups also did not differ in the number of novel
or repetitive strategies generated during the task,
nor did groups differ in the frequency of nonresponses. Children with developmental delays did,
however, provide more irrelevant strategies, F(1,
142) = 27.51, p < .001. Group differences did not
emerge in strategies involving directing ⁄ telling,
expressing emotions, general assertiveness, or nonspecific niceness.
Testing a Strengths-Based Model
Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the fit of the proposed strengths-based model
for the entire sample as well as the hypothesis that
children’s prosocial strategies would mediate the
association between parent–child emotion discourse
and children’s social skills outcomes. The model
presented in Figure 1 was tested with Amos version 6 (Arbuckle, 2005). Table 2 shows the intercorrelations among variables entered into the model.
Three criteria were employed to evaluate model
fit: the chi-square test, the comparative fit index
(CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A nonsignificant chi-square value
indicates adequate model fit, as do CFI values above
.90 (range = 0–1.00) and RMSEA values below .08.
Table 1
Developmental Status Group Differences
Variable
Emotion discourse
Father–child
Mother–child
Social problem solving
Prosocial
Impulsive-aggressive
Verbally aggressive
Social skills outcomes
Mother SSRS
Father SSRS
Teacher SSRS
Typically developing (n = 107)
Developmental delays (n = 39)
Statistics
0.11 (0.76)
0.13 (0.72)
)0.42 (0.60)
)0.33 (0.66)
F(1, 110) = 6.58*
F(1, 142) = 8.30**
0.13 (0.75)
)0.07 (0.66)
)0.06 (0.66)
)0.37 (0.74)
0.21 (0.99)
0.17 (1.1)
F(1, 142) = 9.44**
t(144) = )1.98
t(144) = )1.53
101.8 (16.3)
99.8 (14.1)
101.7 (11.9)
84.2 (15.7)
84.7 (15.8)
91.7 (12.2)
F(1, 131) = 24.37***
t(102) = 4.46***
F(1, 107) = 7.64**
Note. The emotion discourse and social problem-solving composites were standardized (z scores) for the entire sample. Family income
was controlled in analyses of group differences when income was significantly related to the dependent measure. SSRS = Social Skills
Rating System.
p = .05. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
724
Fenning, Baker, and Juvonen
Father Child
Mother Child
Father
SSRS
.68***
.80
Emotion
Discourse
.75
.49***
Prosocial
Problem Solving
Strategies
Teacher
SSRS
Mother
SSRS
.61***
.58***
.33**
Social Skills
Figure 1. Strengths-based model for the entire sample.
Note. Family income was entered as a covariate. SSRS = Social Skills Rating System.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 2
Intercorrelation Among Variables Entered in Model Presented in Figure 1
Father–Child Discourse
Mother–Child Discourse
Prosocial St...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment