Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience?

Today, there are several interventions that can be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they are widely implemented in home, school, university, and community settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudoscience, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to implement and recommend only those procedures that would be considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evidence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, especially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet the standard of evidence science.

Changing preference from tangible to social activities through an observation procedure.

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have qualitative impairments in social interaction and often prefer food or tangible reinforcement to social reinforcement. Thus, therapists who work with children with ASD often use food or tangible items as reinforcers to increase appropriate behaviors or decrease problem behaviors. The goal of the present study was to shift children's preferences from a highly preferred tangible item to an initially nonpreferred social reinforcer using an observational conditioning procedure. Participants observed a known peer engage in a simple task and select the social reinforcer that was not preferred by the participant. This procedure resulted in a shift of preference toward the social reinforcer by all participants. Maintenance data showed that although the preference change did not maintain for 1 of the participants, it was quickly reestablished with additional observational trials. Results provide further support for the use of observational procedures to alter preferences.

Erratum to: Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1007/s40617-016-0108-1.].

Comparing the teaching interaction procedure to social stories: a replication study.

This study compared the teaching interaction procedure to social stories implemented in a group setting to teach social skills to three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The researchers taught each participant one social skill with the teaching interaction procedure, one social skill with the social story procedure, and one social skill was assigned to a no intervention condition. The teaching interaction procedure consisted of didactic questions, teacher demonstration, and role-play; the social story procedure consisted of reading a book and answering comprehension questions. The researchers measured participants' performances during probes, responses to comprehension questions, and responding during role-plays. The results indicated that the teaching interaction procedure was more efficacious than the social story procedure across all three participants.