autism © 2011

An investigation into social SAGE Publications

and The National
Autistic Society
information processing in Vol 15(5) 601–624; 387803
1362-3613(2011)

young people with Asperger

syndrome

A N D R E A M A RY F L O O D Manchester Learning Disability

Partnership, UK

DOUGAL JULIAN HARE University of Manchester, UK

PA U L WA L L I S Central Manchester and Children’s University Hospitals

NHS Trust, UK

A B S T R AC T Deficits in social functioning are a core feature of autistic K E Y WO R D S

spectrum disorders (ASD), being linked to various cognitive and devel- Asperger
opmental factors, but there has been little attempt to draw on norma- syndrome;
tive models of social cognition to understand social behaviour in ASD. social
The current study explored the utility of Crick and Dodge’s (1994) cognition;
information processing model to studying social cognition in ASD, and
social skills;
examined associations between social information processing patterns,
theory of mind skills and social functioning. A matched-group design social
compared young people with Asperger syndrome with typically devel- functioning
oping peers, using a social information processing interview previ-
ously designed for this purpose. The Asperger syndrome group showed
significantly different patterns of information processing at the intent
attribution, response generation and response evaluation stages of the
information processing model. Theory of mind skills were found to be
significantly associated with parental ratings of peer problems in the
Asperger syndrome group but not with parental ratings of pro-social
behaviour, with only limited evidence of an association between social
information processing and measures of theory of mind and social func-
tioning. Overall, the study supports the use of normative social informa-
tion processing approaches to understanding social functioning in ASD.
ADDRESS Correspondence should be addressed to: D O U G A L J U L I A N H A R E ,
School of Psychological Sciences, Zochonis Building, University of Manchester, Brunswick
Street, Manchester M13 9PL UK. e-mail: dougal.hare@manchester.ac.uk

The relationship of the social deficits associated with autism spectrum dis-
orders (ASD) to understanding and participating in actual social interaction
and interpersonal relationships (Travis and Sigman, 1998; Loveland et al.,
Copyright © The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions: 601
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362361310387803

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
2001) is still unclear. Children with ASD experience loneliness, have a
desire for social relationships with others and perceive themselves as having
friends (Bauminger and Kasari, 2000), but naturalistic observation studies
(Bauminger et al., 2003; Lord and Magill-Evans, 1995; Sigman and Ruskin,
1999) indicate that they are more socially isolated than their peers, using
less complex social behaviours and are often rebuked in interactions with
typically developing peers. In experimental studies, children with ASD are
less likely to respond to feigned distress than typically developing children
and children with Down syndrome (Sigman et al., 1992), are less attentive
to faces of others regardless of displayed emotion (Sigman and Ruskin,
1999) and are poorer in identifying socially inappropriate behaviour
(Loveland et al., 2001). Various single-factor explanations have been
advanced to account for these difficulties, including impairments in joint
attention (Adams et al., 2002), theory of mind (ToM; Frith et al., 1994)
and aspects of executive function (Hill and Russell, 2002). These processes
are integrated in Crick and Dodge’s (1994) model of social information
processing, which involves a linear response to an initial ‘social cue’, with
feedback loops at all stages, indicating the operation of contiguous multiple
and parallel processes (Figure 1). Experience of previous interpersonal inter-
actions is conceptualised as the ‘database’, an integrated store of mental
representations of previous events, schemata and social rules.

Stage 1 and stage 2: encoding and interpretation of cues These are

distinct but interconnected processes, with attention to and encoding of
both contextual and internal cues, including their own emotional state and
memories of previous experiences to form a mental representation of a
given social situation. Interpretation may include causal analysis, inferences
about self and others perspectives using ToM, assessment of goals and eval-
uation of past performances and is guided by both situational cues and
cognitive schemata in the ‘database’.

Stage 3: clarification of goals Social goals are subject to change depen-

dant on stages 1 and 2 and can be internal (e.g. avoiding embarrassment)
or external (e.g. getting to the front of a queue), with social interactions
requiring co-ordination of multiple goals.

Stage 4: response access or construction Following the clarification

of a social goal, strategies are accessed or constructed to attain the goal,
and these may be influenced by the familiarity of the situation and reliant
on memories and social rules.

602

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G

5. RESPONSE DECISION

4. RESPONSE •
response evaluation

ACCESS OR •
outcome expectations

CONSTRUCTION •
self-efficacy evaluation
•
response selection

DATABASE

3. CLARIFICATION • memory store 6. BEHAVIOURAL

OF GOALS • acquired rules ENACTMENT
• arousal regulation • social schemas
• social knowledge

PEER
EVALUATION
AND
2. INTERPRETATION RESPONSE
OF CUES 1. ENCODING
OF CLUES
• causal attributions
(both internal
• intent attributions
and external)
• other interpretative processes
- evaluation of goal
- attainment
- evaluation of past
performance
- self-evaluations
- other-evaluations

Figure 1 Crick and Dodge’s (1994) model of social information processing

Note. Reproduced with kind permission from the authors (Crick and Dodge, 1994).

Stages 5–6: response decision and behavioural enactment This involves

evaluating the generated response against social and moral rules and inter-
nalised values, determining whether response will have a positive or negative
outcome and evaluation of self-efficacy to successfully enact the responses.
The end point is marked by response selection and associated behaviour.
Crick and Dodge’s model has been operationalised in the form of the
Social Information Processing Interview (SIPI; Quiggle et al., 1992) and
to date, several studies have investigated social information processing in
children with various educational difficulties (e.g. Tur-Kaspa and Bryan,
1994; Tur-Kaspa, 2004; Bauminger et al., 2005; Bauminger and Kimhi-
Kind, 2008). Meyer et al. (2006) investigated the association between
psychiatric symptoms in children with Asperger syndrome and their ability
to make social attributions, the latter being assessed by two measures
603

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
derived from the Crick and Dodge model, Why Kids Do Things (Crick and
Dodge, 1996) and a series of 24 social provocations (Dodge et al., 1995).
This study found that compared to age- and ability-matched controls, the
children with Asperger syndrome were less skilled in both understanding
social situations and also in generating adaptive responses to such situations.
The current study therefore aims to further investigate the utility of
using non-ASD models of social cognition to investigate the specific diffi-
culties of young people with Asperger syndrome (AS) and to examine the
following hypotheses:
1) Young people with AS will more readily attribute malevolent intent in
ambiguous social scenarios compared to typically developing young
people.
2) Attributional style of young people with AS will be characterised by a
different pattern of attributions than typically developing young people.
3) Young people with AS will generate fewer social problem-solving
responses than typically developing young people.
4) Young people with AS will (a) be less positive in their evaluation of
the overall quality of assertive responses and (b) will rate responses
characterised by assertiveness as being less positive in their outcome in
comparison to typically developing young people.
5) Young people with AS will (a) be more positive in their evaluation of
the overall quality of withdrawal responses and (b) will rate responses
characterised by withdrawal as being more positive in their outcome
in comparison to typically developing young people.
6) Young people with AS will perform less well than the comparison group
of typically developing young people on a measure of ToM abilities.
The following hypotheses were only examined with regard to the AS
group:
7) Theory of mind abilities will be positively correlated with parental
ratings of pro-social functioning in the group of young people with
a diagnosis of AS.
8) Theory of mind abilities will be negatively correlated with parental
ratings of peer problems in the group of young people with a diag-
nosis of AS.
9) There will be an association between theory of mind abilities and
social information processing patterns in the group of young people
with a diagnosis of AS.
10) There will be an association between parental ratings of social func-
tioning and social information processing patterns in the group of
young people with a diagnosis of AS.
604

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
Method
A group aged 11–15 years with verifiable diagnoses of Asperger syndrome
were compared to a comparison group of typically developing young
people aged 11–15 years. In the case of the Asperger syndrome group, all
participants had to have been previously diagnosed by appropriate profes-
sionals using the DSM-IV-R criteria and appropriate documentation had to
be available to support these diagnoses. The diagnosis of Asperger syndrome
was the basis of the Statement of Special Educational Needs for these young
people and was therefore readily verifiable by the researcher. Both groups
had English as their primary language and were matched for chronologi-
cal age, gender and receptive language ability (≥8 years on British Picture
Vocabulary Scale; Dunn et al., 1997). Potential participants were excluded
if they had additional diagnoses of ADD/ADHD, Tourette’s syndrome,
learning disability or ‘epilepsy plus’ and, in the case of the comparison
group, if they had a Statement of Special Educational Needs or recognition
of additional needs relating to behaviour, a recognised mental health
problem or a specific learning difficulty. Subsidiary within-group analysis
was undertaken to explore the relationships between information process-
ing patterns, theory of mind skills and measures of social functioning in
the ASD group. Power calculation indicated that n = 26 in both groups
would permit detection of a standard difference of 0.8 SD with a power of
80 per cent. Recruitment of young people with AS was on an opportunity
basis from local schools by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria
and then recruiting members of the comparison group from one of the
mainstream schools attended by some of the participants with Asperger
syndrome until 26 suitable participants had been recruited for each group.

Measures and procedures

Social Information Processing Interview (SIPI; Quiggle et al., 1992)
This comprised four stories1 depicting negative peer social interactions.
Two types of scenario were described, with two stories describing rejec-
tion by a peer group upon attempted entry into a social situation (entry)
(e.g. Imagine that some kids you know are sitting at a table eating lunch.
You can see that they are having a good time and you’d like to sit with
them. You walk up to the table and ask them if they’d make room for you
so you could sit down too. They tell you ‘no’.) and two describing provo-
cation by a peer in a social encounter (provocation) (e.g. Imagine that you
are waiting in the lunch line. Another kid bumps into you; you fall and
hurt your knee.You look up and the other kid has taken your place in line.).
Questions after each story elicited information about cue interpretation,
response generation and response evaluation.
605

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M15(5)
Interpretation of cues The interpretation of cues stage yields two
measures:(1) Attribution of Intent – participants were asked how much
they believed that what happened in the story was due to the deliberate
malevolent intent of another and to rate their answer on a 4-point scale:
How much do you think the kid was trying to be mean?
0 = not at all
1 = somewhat
2 = much
3 = very much

Scores are summed for each story type, with a maximum score of 6 for
each story type sub-totals and a maximum overall score of 12.
(2) Attributional Style – based on the Children’s Attributional Style
Questionnaire (Seligman et al., 1984), for each scenario, participants were
presented with six sets of paired attributions and asked to choose one they
regarded as the most likely reason for events in the scenario. For each pair
of statements, one of the factors along the Internal/External, Global/Specific
and Stable/Unstable dimensions was manipulated whilst the other two were
kept stable. For example:
Now I’m going to read some possible reasons why you got bumped. Choose
the reason that is more likely why you got bumped.
Example of external versus internal attribution:
a) That kid is pushy
b) You get in the way
Example of unstable versus stable attribution:
a) That kid sometimes pushes you
b) That kid usually pushes you
Example of specific versus global attribution:
a) You get in that kid’s way
b) You get in most kids’ way

A composite attribution score was derived from the sum of the number of
occasions in which an internal, global or stable attribution was chosen,
with a maximum scores of 6 per story, 12 per scenario type sub-total and
24 for the whole measure.

Response generation Patterns of response generation were assessed using

the answers given to one question. Participants were asked what they would
do next in the scenario described, with prompts provided for up to 6
606

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
responses for each story. Responses were recorded verbatim and later coded
according to mutually exclusive categories adapted from Quiggle et al.
(1992). In its original form, the SIPI did not differentiate between social/
non-social withdrawal nor was there a specific category of involving adult
help, which was a common solution to the scenarios. Therefore, the new
category of seeking adult intervention was used in the present study. An
example of the response generation question, followed by the categories
into which the answers are coded, is given below:
Now remember again the story about the other kid bumping into you in
the line. What would you do if this happened to you? What else might
you do? (Maximum of five further prompts given)
The responses were assigned to one of seven categories:
1) aggressive: involving an act of physical or verbal aggression or retaliation
2) assertive: involving acts in which the child requested information,
bargained, tried again or worked harder
3) non-social withdrawal: involving doing nothing, taking the blame,
begging, giving in, quitting, withdrawing from the situation or waiting
to see what would happen; responses related to non-social activities or
strategies
4) pro-social withdrawal: involving withdrawal from the situation, associated
with engaging in seeking out people or a social activity with other
people
5) affect: response characterised by how participants would feel rather than
what how they could act
6) adult intervention: response in which participant suggested they would
report the incident to an adult or ask for adult help
7) other: responses that did not fit into any of the others

Total response generation scores were derived by adding the number of

responses given in individual scenarios, with sub-totals for scenario type
and a total across all four scenarios calculated. Maximum score for scenario
sub-totals was 12, with a possible 24 for the total across the measure. The
number of responses in each category was also calculated.
Sub-totals for entry and provocation scenario types were derived,
together with an overall score for answers across the four stories relating
to a particular question. The analysis of the SIPI data was completed using
the scenario subtotals and the summed total derived for each question,
with the exception of one variable computed by adding the answers from
two separate questions across the story types. Another researcher blind to
the study re-coded all SIPI data and inter-rater reliability for coding each
scenario was found to 93.2–95.3 per cent.

607

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
Response evaluation Response evaluation was assessed by questions
relating to the possible outcome of three different responses – charac-
terised by aggressive behaviour, assertive behaviour or withdrawal – but
only evaluations of assertive responses and withdrawal responses were
analysed in the present study. Two measures of response evaluation were
used to compare evaluation patterns for the two types of responses, namely
‘quality’ of the response, representing a generic evaluation of how good
the participant thought the response was, and ‘positive outcome’, designed
to elicit whether the participant thought that the tactic would have a good
outcome. The response evaluation section begins with the following:
Now I am going to tell you some of the things that other kids did when
this happened to them.
One kid yelled ‘you idiot’ and pushed the kid who bumped into him
(aggressive response)

The participant was then asked a series of multiple response questions

designed to elicit their evaluations of the responses described.

Quality
Participants were asked to give an overall rating of the response on a 4-
point scale:
What kind of an idea do you think this is?
very bad (1 point)
pretty bad (2 point)
pretty good (3 points)
very good (4 points)

Scores were summed for story type, with a maximum score of 8 for each
story type sub-totals and an overall score of 16 possible.

Positive outcome
Participants rated the possible outcome of responding in the manner
described by answering two multiple response questions:
Would kids like you if you pushed the kid who bumped you?
Would you get your place in the line back if you pushed the kid who
bumped you?
definitely would not (1 point)
probably would not (2 points)
probably would (3 points)
definitely would (4 points)
608

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
The positive outcome variable was derived by adding the responses to the
two questions together, with a total possible score of 16 for each scenario
sub-total and a possible total score across the measure of 32.
Two further measures were used in the study. The shortened version of
the Strange Stories test (Happé et al., 1998) was used to measure ToM ability
in an ecologically valid manner that limits the use of non-mentalistic pro-
cesses to ‘hack out’ potential solutions. The original version (Happé, 1994)
consisted of 24 ‘theory of mind’ vignettes, each accompanied by a picture
and followed by two questions designed to tap comprehension and ToM
ability, respectively. Twelve types of stories are represented in the vignettes,
designed to reflect a range of situations in which ToM has to be used to
understand interpersonal interactions (lies, double bluff, sarcasm and mis-
understanding) and for which there is only one correct response. The
battery also included six additional ‘physical stories’, which did not involve
mental states as a control. A revised, shorter version of the battery (Happé
et al., 1998; Abell and Hare, 2005) was used in the present study, compris-
ing eight ToM and eight control stories. Participants were presented with the
stories in written form with their verbal answers being recorded verbatim
and then rated on a scale of 0–2. The ToM story responses were rated
according to the extent to which the answer reflected an appropriate infer-
ence about a character’s mental state. Physical stories were rated according
to the justification given for the action described occurring. A fully correct
answer scored two, a partial answer scored one and an incorrect or irrele-
vant answer scored zero. Scores for theory of mind and control stories were
summed separately, with a maximum score of 16 being possible for each
set. An example of the ToM stories is Sausages [persuasion]:
Brian is always hungry. Today at school it is his favourite meal – sausages and
beans. He is a very greedy boy, and he would like to have more sausages than
anybody else, even though his mother will have made him a lovely meal when
he gets home! But everyone is allowed two sausages and no more. When it is
Brian’s turn to be served, he says,‘Oh, please can I have four sausages, because
I won’t be having any dinner when I get home!’
Question: Why does Brian say this?
Scoring
2 = reference to intention to mislead, persuasion, making them feel sorry for
him
1 = reference to outcome (to get more), simple trait (greedy), or simple
desire (wants more sausages)
0 = reference to irrelevant facts (e.g. because his Mum will have made him a
lovely meal)
609

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
All responses were initially rated by the principal researcher and then by a
second rater blind to group membership. Cohen’s kappa was calculated
across the two sets of ratings and indicated good to very good agreement,
ranging from 0.680 to 0.968 for the physical stories and 0.646 to 1.00 for
the ToM stories. Inconsistent responses were discussed by the raters until
agreement was reached. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire –
Informant version (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) was completed by parents, being
a wide measure of the presence or absence of peer problems and pro-social
behaviour. The SDQ has 25 items representing five subscales (emotional,
conduct, hyperactivity-inattention, peer, pro-social) and has good internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73) and good inter-rater and test-retest
reliability (Goodman, 2001). Data was analysed using SPSS, version 11.5
for Windows. The SIPI response sets for questions relating to intent attri-
bution and response evaluation did not meet the requirements for interval
data and were treated as ordinal, with non-parametric analyses utilised for
this data and for data relating to the measure of attributional style. All other
data were normally distributed, permitting parametric analysis.

Results
The AS group comprised n = 26, with 25 complete sets of data. Four others
did not complete the study due to language or attentional difficulties. The
comparison group comprised n = 24, who completed all the measures.
Demographic characteristics of the two groups are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic information of participants

Asperger syndrome (n = 26) Comparison group (n = 24)

Mean SD Range Mean SD Range

Chronological age (months) 162 16.2 133–191 160 13.3 136–187

BPVS age equivalent (months) 170.2 31.4 98–204 172.5 28.8 119–204
Gender Male: 22 (84.6%) Male: 19 (79.2%)
Female: 4 (15.4%) Female: 5 (20.8%)

There were no significant differences for chronological age (t = 0.518,

p = .607) or British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS) age equivalent score (t =
2.66, p = .792). Twenty four (92.3%) of the AS group lived at home with
one or both parents, one lived their maternal grandparents and one with a
step-parent. Only two participants (7.7%) were taking prescription medica-
tion daily, one taking Ritalin, the other a mood stabilizer. Two (7%) of the
610

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
AS group had previously attended social skills groups. Fifty per cent of
the AS group attended mainstream schools, with 50 per cent attending
specialist ASD schools. Data relating to the intent attribution, attributional
style, response generation and response evaluation questions on the SIPI
are shown in Table 2, with SIPI response generation and Strange Stories
results in Table 3.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the scores derived from the SIPI for the AS
and comparison groups

AS group Comparison group

(n = 25) (N = 24)

Median/*Mean IQR/**SD Median/*Mean IQR/**SD

Intent attribution
Entry 4 2 to 5 3 2 to 4
Provocation 4 3 to 5 4 3 to 5
Total 8 5.5 to 9 7 4.25 to 9
Attributional style
Entry 4 2 to 5 2 1 to 3
Provocation 4 2 to 5 2 1 to 3
Total 7 5 to 9 3 3 to 5.75
Response generation
Entry 3.72* 2.37** 5* 2.06**
Provocation 3.80* 2.10** 5.33* 1.79**
Total 7.52* 4.26** 10.33* 3.73**
Response evaluation
assertive/quality
Entry 4 2 to 5 3 2 to 4
Provocation 6 4.5 to 6 6 5 to 7
Total 10 8 to 11 9.5 7.25 to 11
Assertive/positive outcome
Entry 9 7 to 10 9.5 8 to 11
Provocation 9 6.5 to 10 9 8 to 11
Total 18 13 to 21 19 17 to 21
Withdrawal/quality
Entry 6 5 to 6 5 4 to 6
Provocation 4 4 to 5 4 2.25 to 5.75
Total 10 9 to 11 9 7 to 11
Withdrawal/positive outcome
Entry 9 7 to 10 9 8.25 to 10
Provocation 7 5 to 8.5 8 6 to 9
Total 10 9 to 11 17 14.25 to 18

Note. SIDI = Social Information Processing Interview (Quiggle et al., 1992); AS = Asperger syndrome;
IQR = interquartile range; SD = standard deviation.

611

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
Table 3 Mean, standard deviation and per cent of total responses for the
response generation stage of the SIPI

AS group Comparison group

Mean SD % Mean SD %
responses responses

Aggressive 1.48 0.39 19.7 2.83 1.63 27.4

Assertive 0.76 0.18 10.1 1.62 0.44 15.7
Non-social withdrawal 2.80 0.32 37.2 3.25 0.35 31.5
Pro-social withdrawal 0.68 0.18 9 1.50 0.19 14.5
Affect 0.16 0.09 2.2 0.08 0.06 0.2
Adult intervention 1.24 0.31 16.5 0.88 0.15 8.5
Other 0.40 0.22 5.3 0.17 0.08 1.6
No response 16.48 0.85 – 13.67 0.76 –
Strange Stories – mentalistic subscale 11.00 3.78 13.25 2.25
Strange Stories – physical subscale 8.46 3.56 10.16 2.33

Note. SIDI = Social Information Processing Interview (Quiggle et al., 1992); AS = Asperger syndrome.

There was a significant difference between the two groups on the

Strange Stories physical subscale, with the young people with AS scoring
significantly lower than the comparison group (independent samples t test:
t = 2.027, df = 48, p = .049, 2-tailed) [standardised effect size r = 0.280].
Only the ‘theory of mind’ subscale scores were used for further analysis,
with comparison of the scores reported under hypothesis 6.

Pro-social and peer problems subscales of the SDQ

Table 4 shows results from the peer problem and pro-social SDQ sub-
scales, both being positively scored, with a higher score indicative of more
peer problems/pro-social behaviour. Normative data for 11–15 year olds
without developmental disorders (Meltzer et al., 2000) is provided for
comparison.

Table 4 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores for AS group

Mean score (SD) Normative mean (SD)

Peer problems 6.7 (2.23) 1.5 (1.7)

(n = 26) (n = 4228)

Pro-social behaviour 5.0 (1.98) 8.6 (1.6)

(n = 26) (n = 4443)

Note. AS = Asperger syndrome; SD = standard deviation.

612

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
With regard to hypothesis 1, no significant between-group differences
(Mann-Whitney U test) were found for the total intent attribution (z =
1.312, p = .095), entry scenarios (z = 1.430, p = .0765) or provocation
scenarios (z = 0.877, p = .190). To investigate the pattern of responses
across the two types of scenario, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to
compare within-group patterns of intent attribution, comparing patterns of
responses between entry and provocation scenarios. No significant differ-
ences between the attribution of intent in entry and provocation scenarios
were found for either the ASD (z = 1.124, p = .261) or comparison (z =
1.859, p = .063) group.
With regard to hypothesis 2, there was a significant between-group
difference in the composite attribution score [SIPI total] between the two
groups (z = 3.151, p = .002, 2-tailed); further Mann-Whitney U tests com-
pared composite attribution scores for entry and provocation scenarios,
with significant between-group differences found for both entry (z =
3.059, p = .002, 2-tailed) and provocation (z = 2.324, p = .020, 2-tailed).
Within-group comparisons (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test) of entry and pro-
vocation composite scores indicated no significant difference in composite
attribution score between entry and provocation scenarios in either the ASD
(z = 1.099, p = .272) or comparison group (z = 0.650, p = .516).

Patterns of attributional style

The composite attribution score was composed of the total number of
occasions in which internal versus external, global versus specific and
stable versus unstable attributions were endorsed. Between-group differ-
ences in the frequency that internal, global and stable responses were
selected by the two groups were examined using the Mann-Whitney U test,
which indicated a significant between-group difference relating to the
global versus specific dimension (z = 3.074, p = .002), with the AS group
more frequently endorsing global attributions. To examine hypothesis 3, a
mixed between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) (group × scenario)
on response generation indicated a main effect for group (F = 6.029, df =
47, p = .018), with the AS group generating significantly fewer responses.
There were no significant effects for scenario (F = 1.421, df = 47, p =
.1195) and no interaction effect (F = 0.534, df = 47, p = .2345). Post-hoc
tests indicated significant between-group differences for provocation (t =
2.012, df = 47, p = .004, 1-tailed) [standardised effect size r = 0.281] and
entry (t = 2.747, df = 47, p = .025, 1- tailed) [r = 0.371] scenarios.
The pattern of response generation within and across the two groups
is illustrated in Table 5.
Comparing the percentages of non-social and social withdrawal, the AS
group generated proportionately less social withdrawal (t = 2.587, df = 47,
613

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
Table 5 Response generation

Response Asperger syndrome group Comparison group

Affect 2.1% 0.8%

Assertive 10.1% 15.7%
Aggressive 19.7% 27.4%
Involve adult 16.5% 8.5%
Social withdrawal 9.0% 14.5%
Non-social withdrawal 37.2% 31.5%
Other 5.3% 1.6%

p = .007, 1-tailed) [r = 0.353] and more non-social withdrawal (t =

2.011, df = 47, p = .025, 1-tailed) [r = 0.281] responses compared to the
comparison group. Two SIPI variables were used to compare positive eval-
uation of assertive and withdrawal responses between the groups, ‘quality’
(overall rating of the responses evaluated) and ‘positive outcome’ (specific
evaluation of the impact of the response).
Mann-Whitney U tests indicated no significant between-group differ-
ences on the total score for quality (z = 0.162, p = .436) or in the entry
scenarios (z = 1.430, p = .0765). However, the AS group did rate assertive
responses less positively than the comparison group in provocation scen-
arios (z = 0.162, p = .045, 1-tailed). Within-group differences for each of
the scenario types were investigated using Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.
There was a significant difference in quality ratings between the entry and
provocation scenarios within both the AS group (z = 0.232, p = .001,
1-tailed) and within the comparison group (z = 4.307, p = .0005, 1-
tailed), with both groups rating assertive responses as more positive in
provocation scenarios.
For hypothesis 4, there were no significant differences between the
groups in their evaluations of whether the assertive response would have
a positive outcome (Mann-Whitney U tests; total: z = 1.178, p = .1195,
entry: z = 1.152, p = .125, provocation: z = 1.533, p = .0675). Compar-
ison of within-group responses for entry and provocation scenarios using
Wilcoxon Sign Ranked Tests indicated that there were no significant differ-
ences either within the AS group (z = 0.172, p = .864) or within the
comparison group (z = 0.076 p = .940) when evaluating how positive the
outcome would be in different scenarios. Similarly, with regard to hypoth-
esis 5a, there was no significant between-group difference in their overall
quality rating for withdrawal responses (Mann-Whitney U z = 1.233, p =
.109). When the scores for entry and provocation scenarios were analysed
separately, there was a significant between-group difference for the entry
scenario (z = 2.310, p = .0105, 1-tailed), with the AS group rating with-
614

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
drawal as a better quality response than the comparison group. There was
no significant difference between the groups with regard to the provoca-
tion scenarios (z = 0.486, p = .2135).
There was a significant difference within the AS group when within-
group ratings of quality were compared (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: z =
3.179, p = .001, 1-tailed), with withdrawal responses being rated as signi-
ficantly better quality for entry scenarios than for provocation scenarios.
The comparison group did not differ significantly in their evaluation of
the quality of withdrawal responses across the two scenarios, although the
result showed a similar trend to the pattern of responses in the AS group
(Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: z = 1.814, p = .070).
With regard to hypothesis 5b, there were no significant between-group
differences in the evaluation of whether a withdrawal response would have
a more positive outcome (Mann-Whitney U test; z = 1.380, p = .0835),
or in analysis of ratings for entry scenarios only (Mann-Whitney U test;
z = 1.384, p = .083) or for provocation scenarios only (Mann-Whitney U
Test; z = 0.932, p = .1755). Wilcoxon Matched Pairs tests were used to
compare the within-group responses for the two types of scenarios. Both
groups rated withdrawal responses as more likely to have a positive
outcome in entry scenarios compared to provocation scenarios (AS group:
z = 2.811, p = .005, 2-tailed; Comparison group: z = 3.631, p = .0005,
2-tailed).
The AS group scored significantly lower on the theory of mind scale
than the comparison group (independent samples t test: t = 2.578, df =
48, p = .007, 1-tailed) [standardised effect size r = 0.348], thus support-
ing hypothesis 6, but there was no significant correlation between parental
ratings of pro-social behaviour and theory of mind (r = 0.219, n = 26,
p = .141, 1-tailed), which did not support hypothesis 7. Theory of mind
abilities and peer problems were significantly correlated, but in the
opposite direction to that predicted by hypothesis 8 (r = 0.341, n = 26,
p = .044, 1-tailed). With respect to hypothesis 9, there were no statistically
significant correlations between theory of mind skills and any of the three
stages of social information processing in the AS group, but there was a
statistically significant negative correlation between the percentage of
responses generated as non-social response and Strange Stories test scores
(r = –0.356; p = .012).
With regard to parental ratings of social functioning and social informa-
tion processing patterns in the AS group, there were no statistically signi-
ficant correlations between the measure of peer problems and SIPI total
scores. One SIPI total, positive outcome to assertive responses, was found
to be negatively correlated with pro-social behaviour (r = –0.432, p =
.040, 2-tailed). There were no statistically significant correlations between
615

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 15(5)
AU T I S M
measures of social functioning and response generation totals in the AS
group.

Discussion
The findings of the current study did not support the hypothesis that the
AS group would be more likely to attribute malevolent intent in ambigu-
ous scenarios, with no significant difference for the overall intent attribu-
tion score or for the subtotals for entry and provocation scenario types,
nor for scenario type, with neither group showing significant differences
between their attributions of intent in the entry and provocation situations.
Previous ToM research would suggest that the young people with AS
would have difficulties with attributing intent (Baron-Cohen, 2000), but
present findings did not support the notion of impaired attribution of
intent. Although the AS group had lower scores on a measure of ToM, they
were no more likely than the comparison group to attribute malevolent
intent to the protagonists in the SIPI scenarios. As understanding the intent
of others is an early stage in the development of ToM in typically develop-
ing children (Tomasello et al., 1993), a developmental perspective on ToM
acquisition (Steele et al., 2003) would suggest the performance of the AS
group on this task reflected their relatively good cognitive and language
skills and also that this was a relatively easy test of ToM compared to Strange
Stories. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that Strange Stories scores
would be associated with specific attributions of malevolence, as opposed
to benign and socially considerate attributions. Pierce et al. (1997) found
that larger numbers of social cues were associated with poorer interpreta-
tion of social situations, but in the present study, information was presented
in written form with only limited contextual information. Thus, the AS
group may have had more difficulties in the intent attribution stage had
more complex social scenarios had been presented.
The present findings supported the hypothesis that the two groups
would differ on a measure of attributional style, with the AS group en-
dorsing more internal, global and stable attributions than the comparison
group with regard to both the entry and the provocation scenarios. When
attributional style was examined within the groups, no differences were
observed for either group between the entry and the provocation scenar-
ios. Further analysis of the composite attribution score indicated that the
AS group differed from the comparison group on only one attributional
domain (global vs. specific) and endorsed more global explanations.
Although differences in attributional style have not been previously reported
(e.g. Blackshaw et al., 2001), the global versus specific dimension has not
previously been explored. The increased global explanations reported here
616

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
may represent a cognitive distortion in the processing of social interactions.
As Abramson et al. (1978: 49) propose, ‘Global attributions imply to the
individual that when he [sic] confronts new situations the outcome will
again be independent of his [sic] responses’. Thus, if people with ASD arrive
at novel social situations with this belief, coupled with a history of diffi-
cult interpersonal experiences (cf. Abell and Hare, 2005), they may have
little motivation to maintain interactions and employ pro-social or assertive
responses. Moreover, global attributional style is implicated in the develop-
ment of depressive symptomology (Abramson et al., 1978; Gladstone and
Kaslow, 1995), an association also identified in Asperger syndrome (Barnhill
and Smith-Myles, 2001).
The present findings supported the hypothesis that the AS group would
generate responses characterised by non-social withdrawal and also sup-
ported the prediction that they would generate fewer responses characterised
by social withdrawal, which corroborates previous research (Bauminger
et al., 2003; Meyer et al., 2006). Various explanations can be advanced to
accounting for the present findings; for example, restricted opportunities
for young people with ASD to engage in social encounters (Lord and
Magill-Evans, 1995) may lead to reduced opportunities to experience a
range of social problem-solving responses. Alternatively, impaired auto-
biographical memory in AS (Bowler et al., 2004) may result in poor recall
of previous social responses, thus reducing the ‘database’. People with AS
may be motivated by non-social outcomes and/or the avoidance of anxiety
associated with social interactions (Gillott et al., 2001) and therefore fail
to generate responses leading to more social outcomes.
With regard to assertive responses, there were no between-group differ-
ences in their evaluation of the quality of assertive responses when the total
ratings were compared. However, when the separate scenario ratings were
investigated, the AS group rated the quality of assertive responses as poorer
than the comparison group for the provocation scenarios in particular.
Within-group responses were similar, with both groups rating assertive
responses as better for provocation scenarios as compared to entry scenar-
ios. Koning and Magill-Evans (2001) reported that adolescent boys with
AS recounted difficulties in asserting themselves in social situations; thus,
the AS group in the current study may have been less positive about the
quality of an assertive response in provocation scenarios as they were less
confident of their ability to actually enact such a response, and such percep-
tions of self-efficacy could be explored in future research.
When evaluations of the quality of responses characterised by with-
drawal were explored, there were significant between-group differences for
either the overall total scores or for the provocation scenarios, but the AS
group rated withdrawal as a better quality response in entry scenarios
617

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
compared to the comparison group. Further analysis showed that they rated
withdrawal responses as better quality responses in the entry scenarios than
in the provocation scenarios. This rating of withdrawal as a better quality
response by the AS group for entry scenarios only, together with the differ-
ence between the ratings for entry and provocation scenarios, does not fit
with previous research, although difficulties in initiating social interactions
have been observed in young people with ASD (Lord and Magill-Evans,
1995; Bauminger et al., 2003) and young people with AS may have more
experiences of difficulties in ‘real-life’ entry scenarios and have found with-
drawal a useful strategy.
Overall, the between-group and within-group analyses showed an inter-
esting pattern of results, as although some between-group differences were
found at the response evaluation stage, both groups showed comparable
patterns of responses with respect to scenario type and rated assertive
responses as being of better quality in provocation scenarios compared to
entry scenarios. The opposite pattern was apparent in relation to with-
drawal responses, which were rated more positively for entry scenarios
than provocation scenarios, although the difference in the comparison
group was non-significant. One explanation is that the methodology failed
to identify extant differences, but it is also possible the AS group generally
showed similar patterns to comparison for this aspect of social informa-
tion processing and only differed in the more challenging interpersonal
scenarios.
The current findings confirmed the AS group as poorer than the com-
parison group in ToM abilities (Baron-Cohen, 1989), but did not show the
predicted (Fombonne et al., 1994) link between impaired ToM abilities and
impaired pro-social behaviour, with the interesting finding that ToM abili-
ties were positively correlated with carer-rated peer relationship difficulties.
This seems to support Frith et al.’s (1994) proposal that ToM abilities may
facilitate anti-social interpersonal behaviours involving manipulating others
(e.g. lying and cheating), but is unlikely to adequately explain the current
finding. Both Fombonne et al. and Frith et al. employed a measure of inter-
personal behaviour which did not focus particularly on peer relationships,
being constructed to tap specific ToM-related behaviours. Examination of
the relevant SDQ items in the present study suggests that they do not
reflect behaviours involving the deliberate manipulation of others, being
whether the participant was liked by other children and whether they
tended to play alone.
Only one aspect of social information processing as measured in the
present study was associated with ToM skills, with negative correlation be-
tween the percentages of responses involving non-social withdrawal and
Strange Stories test scores. This implies that higher scores on the latter
618

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
measure are associated with the generation of fewer responses charac-
terised by non-social withdrawal. This may reflect increased interpersonal
confidence in young people with better theory of mind skills. It is possible
that ToM skills lead to more success in interpersonal scenarios, resulting in
relatively less motivation to engage in non-social withdrawal strategies.

Limitations of the present study

The current study yielded limited support for the hypothesis of an associ-
ation between parental ratings of peer problems and social information
patterns, and also between pro-social behaviour and social information pro-
cessing patterns. Only one out of twelve SIPI scores (evaluation of a positive
outcome to assertive responses) was significantly correlated with pro-social
behaviour, with negative correlations between this score and ratings of
whether assertive responses would have a positive outcome. This is a
surprising finding that is difficult to explain with reference to the evidence
base reviewed. In addition, the study employed multiple statistical analyses
of a relatively small data set, thus increasing the possibility of type II errors.
Rather than employing Bonferroni corrections with the risk of exacerbating
the low statistical power, standardised effect sizes (r) were computed when
appropriate for statistically significant results (Nakagawa, 2004), all of which
were in the medium to large range.
The study employed a relatively novel approach to the study of social
cognition in ASD, being based on an empirically supported model of
social cognition developed independently of any specific clinical group.
The use of a comparison group was a major strength of the study, allowing
direct comparisons of information processing patterns to be made between
young people with AS and typically developing young people. With respect
to group matching, Mervis and Klein-Tasman (2004) argued that p levels
of at least .50 should be found on tests of mean differences on control vari-
ables. The p values of .792 for receptive language skills and .607 for chrono-
logical age suggest that both groups were well matched on these variables.
Although slightly under powered, the highly significant between-group
differences on the SIPI variable indicate that this is not a major concern.
A potential confound is that the AS group was drawn from both main-
stream and ASD specialist schools. This may be particularly relevant to the
current study given the role of the partner in peer interactions. Evidence
that older, typically developing children may adapt to the needs of peers
with ASD (Lord and Magill-Evans, 1995), who in turn interact more often
with typically developing peers (Bauminger et al., 2003), suggests that
the peer interactions experienced by children attending mainstream and
specialist schools may vary in frequency and nature. A key element of Crick
and Dodge’s (1994) model is the role of previous social interactions in the
619

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M15(5)
acquisition of social knowledge and rules. Although there were no differ-
ences in the total for the intent attribution stage of the SIPI, a three-way
analysis (ASD mainstream school vs. ASD specialist schools vs. comparison)
showed a significant between-group difference (χ2 = 6.120, df = 2, p =
.047). Post-hoc Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that the ASD specialist
school group were more likely to attribute malevolent intent than the
mainstream school (z = 2.230, p = .026, 2-tailed) and the comparison
groups (z = 2.171, p = .03, 2-tailed). A similar approach to the analysis of
attributional style showed a different pattern, with both groups of young
people with AS scoring significantly higher on the total for the composite
measure in contrast to the comparison group (mainstream vs. comparison,
z = 2.447, p = .015, 2-tailed; specialist school vs. comparison: z = 2.719,
p = .006, 2-tailed). Further analysis was beyond the scope of the present
study, but future research should consider the reciprocal impact of differ-
ent educational environments on social experiences.
As the SIPI was not specifically designed for use with young people
with ASD, one issue is the use of questions that in themselves involve
mentalistic functions (e.g. asking participants to ‘imagine’ their involve-
ment in a hypothetical situation). Thus, some responses of the AS group
may reflect difficulties in understanding the questions, rather than differ-
ences in information processing. However, the responses of the two groups
did follow some similar patterns; for example, both groups rated assertive
responses as better quality in response to provocation compared to entry
scenarios, which suggests that they understood and interpreted such ques-
tions in a similar manner, and overall there was no independent evidence
suggesting the AS group found the SIPI difficult to complete.
The current study utilised Crick and Dodge’s (1994) model of social
information processing and identified that the information processing
patterns of the young people with AS in the present study differed with
regard to the intent attribution, response generation and response evaluation
stages of Crick and Dodge’s model (Figure 2) and further research could
investigate cue encoding, goal clarification and behavioural enactment.

Applications of the present findings

Bauminger (2002) suggests that cognitive mediating processes are malleable
and teaching social problem solving can influence interpersonal behaviour
that leads to more successful social adjustment (cf. Ozonoff and Miller,
1995; Bauminger, 2002). The results of the study support this framework,
suggesting a particular focus on processes involved in the interpretation of
social cues and behaviours and on facilitating young people to generate
and access a broader range of behavioural responses, including alternative
strategies to withdrawal.
620

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G

Differences in
outcome expectations
and evaluations
4. RESPONSE
ACCESS OR
5. RESPONSE DECISION
CONSTRUCTION

Fewer
responses
generated DATABASE

3. CLARIFICATION • memory store 6. BEHAVIOURAL

OF GOALS • acquired rules ENACTMENT
• social schemas
• social knowledge

PEER
EVALUATION
AND
RESPONSE
Global attributional bias 1. ENCODING
OF CLUES

Figure 2 Modified model of social information processing

The results of the current study suggest that young people with AS also
have difficulty with other social cognitive skills involved in interpersonal
interactions, which would not necessarily benefit from just teaching ToM
skills. The intervention package described by Bauminger (2002) targeted
specific social cognitive skills, including the generation of solutions to
social problems and also the evaluation of potential solutions with respect
to the outcome. The results of the current study provide empirical justifi-
cation for the inclusion of these components into social skills interventions
as well as indicating that attributional style should be the focus of inter-
vention.
In addition, the present results have broader implications for interven-
tion work, particularly cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with
AS (Sofronoff et al., 2007; Hare, 2010). Abell and Hare (2005) propose
that ToM, executive function and specific autobiographical memory deficits
contribute to the social difficulties experienced by people with AS and that
repeated experiences of negative social interactions leads to an attributional
621

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M15(5)
bias in processing, which may also be connected to later biases in relation
to the processing of social cues. An interesting parallel can be drawn with
the Crick and Dodge model, as can hypotheses that the social rules and
schemata used to guide social interaction (i.e. the contents of the ‘data-
base’) are formed following repeated negative social experiences. Thus,
further social interactions are guided by attributions based on past experi-
ences, characterised in particular by a global bias. A further prediction from
Abell and Hare’s model is that a bias in the processing of social cues would
be represented in information processing patterns at the first stage of the
model, encoding of cues, and that both group and individual interventions
could be usefully focused at this step. Similarly, the present findings support
Bauminger et al.’s (2003) proposal that children with AS may benefit from
exposure to typically developing children, whilst recognising that interac-
tions with other children with a diagnosis of ASD may also be important
(cf. Barry et al., 2003).

Notes
1. Quiggle et al. (1992) included two further stories relating to failure, which were
found to be of limited utility (Quiggle, 2003, personal communication).

References
Abell, F. & Hare, D. (2005) ‘Experimental Investigation of the Phenomenology of
Delusional Beliefs in People with Asperger’s Syndrome’, Autism 9(5): 557–573.
Abramson, L.N., Seligman, M.E.P. & Teasdale, J.D. (1978) ‘Learned Helplessness in
Humans: Critique and Reformulation’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87(1): 49–74.
Adams, C., Green, J., Gilchrist, A. & Cox, A. (2002) ‘Conversational Behaviour of
Children with Asperger Syndrome and Conduct Disorder’, Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 43(5): 679–690.
Barnhill, G.P. & Smith-Myles, B. (2001) ‘Attributional Style and Depression in
Adolescents with Asperger Syndrome’, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 3(3):
175–192.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1989) ‘The Autistic Child’s Theory of Mind: A Case of Specific
Developmental Delay’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 30: 285–298.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2000) ‘Theory of Mind and Autism: A Fifteen Year Review’, in
S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Fluseberg & D.J. Cohen (eds), Understanding Other Minds:
Perspectives from Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Barry, T.D., Klinger, L.G., Lee, J.M., Palardy, N., Gilmore, T. & Bodin, S.D. (2003)
‘Examining the Effectiveness of an Outpatient Clinic Based Social Skills Group for
High-functioning Children with Autism’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
33(6): 685–701.
Bauminger, N. & Kasari, C. (2000) ‘Loneliness and Friendship in High-Functioning
Children with Autism’, Child Development 71(2): 447–456.
Bauminger, N. (2002) ‘The Facilitation of Social-Emotional Understanding and Social
Interaction in High-Functioning Children with Autism: Intervention Outcomes’,
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 32(4): 283–298.

622

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

 S O C I A L I N F O R M AT I O N P R O C E S S I N G
Bauminger, N., Shulman, C. & Agam, G. (2003) ‘Peer Interaction and Loneliness in
High Functioning Children with Autism’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
33(5): 489–506.
Bauminger, N., Schorr-Edelsztein, H. & Morash, J. (2005) ‘Social Information
Processing and Emotional Understanding in Children with Learning Disabilities’,
Journal of Learning Disabilities 38: 45–61.
Bauminger, N. & Kimhi-Kind (2008) ‘Social Information Processing, Security of
Attachment and Emotion Regulation in Children with Learning Disabilities’, Journal
of Learning Disabilities 41(4): 315–332.
Blackshaw, A., Kinderman, P., Hare, D. & Hatton, C. (2001) ‘Theory of Mind, Causal
Attribution and Paranoia in Asperger Syndrome’, Autism 5(2): 147–163.
Bowler, D.M., Gardiner, J.M. & Berthollier, N. (2004) ‘Source Memory in Asperger’s
Syndrome’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34: 533–542.
Crick, N.R. & Dodge, K.A. (1994) ‘A Review and Reformulation of Social
Information-Processing Mechanisms in Children’s Social Adjustment’, Psychological
Bulletin 115(1): 74–101.
Crick, N.R. & Dodge, K.A. (1996) ‘Social Information-Processing Mechanisms in
Reactive and Proactive Aggression’, Child Development 67: 993–1002.
Dodge, K.A., Petit, G.S., Bates, J.E. & Valente, E. (1995) ‘Social Information-Processing
Patterns Partially Mediate the Effects of Early Physical Abuse on Later Conduct
Problems’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 104: 632–643.
Dunn, L.M., Dunn, L.M., Whetton, C. & Juliet Burley, J. (1997) The British Picture
Vocabulary Scale. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Fombonne, E., Siddons, F., Achard, S., Frith, U. & Happé, F. (1994) ‘Adaptive
Behaviour and Theory of Mind’, European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 3(3): 176–186.
Frith, U., Happé, F. & Siddons, F. (1994) ‘Autism and Theory of Mind in Everyday
Life’, Social Development 3(2): 108–124.
Gillott, A., Furniss, F. & Walter, A. (2001) ‘Anxiety in High-Functioning Children
with Autism’, Autism 5(3): 277–286.
Gladstone, T.R.G. & Kaslow, N.J. (1995) ‘Depression and Attributions in Children and
Adolescents’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23(5): 597–606.
Goodman, R. (1997) ‘The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research
Note’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 40: 791–799.
Goodman, R. (2001) ‘Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 40(11): 1337–1345.
Happé, F. (1994) ‘An Advanced Test of Theory of Mind: Understanding of Story
Characters’ Thoughts and Feelings by Able Autistic, Mentally Handicapped and
Normal Children and Adults’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 24(2):
129–154.
Happé, F., Winner, E. & Brownell, H. (1998) ‘The Getting of Wisdom: Theory of
Mind in Old Age’, Developmental Psychology 34(2): 358–362.
Hare, D.J. (2010) ‘Developing Psychotherapeutic Interventions with People with
Autism Spectrum Disorders’, in J.L. Taylor, W.R. Lindsay, R. Hastings & C. Hatton
(eds) Psychological Therapies for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities. John Wiley & Sons Ltd:
Chichester.
Hill, E.L. & Russell, J. (2002) ‘Action Memory and Self-Monitoring in Children with
Autism: Self versus Other’, Infant and Child Development 11: 159–170.
Koning, C. & Magill-Evans, J. (2001) ‘Social and Language Skills in Adolescent Boys
with Asperger Syndrome’, Autism 5(1): 23–36.

623

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015

AU T I S M 15(5)
Lord, C. & Magill-Evans, J. (1995) ‘Peer Interactions of Autistic Children and
Adolescents’, Development and Psychopathology 7: 611–626.
Loveland, K.A., Pearson, D.A., Tunali-Kotoski, B., Ortegon, J. & Gibbs, M.C. (2001)
‘Judgements of Social Appropriateness by Children and Adolescents with Autism’,
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31(4): 367–376.
Meltzer, H., Gatward, R., Goodman, R. & Ford, F. (2000) Mental Health of Children and
Adolescents in Great Britain. London: The Stationary Office.
Mervis, C.B. & Klein-Tasman, B.P. (2004) ‘Methodological Issues in Group Matching
Designs: Alpha Levels for Control Variable Comparisons and Measurement
Characteristics of Control and Target Variables’, Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 34(1): 7–17.
Meyer, J.A., Mundy, P.C.,Van Hecke, A.V. & Durocher, J.S. (2006) ‘Social Attribution
Processes and Co-Morbid Psychiatric Symptoms in Children with Asperger
Syndrome’, Autism 10(4): 383–402.
Nakagawa, S. (2004) ‘A Farewell to Bonferroni: The Problems of Low Statistical Power
and Publication Bias’, Behavioral Ecology 15(6): 1044–1045.
Ozonoff, S. & Miller, J.N. (1995) ‘Teaching Theory of Mind: A New Approach to
Social Skills Training for Individuals with Autism’, Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 25: 415–433.
Pierce, K., Glad, K.S. & Schreibman, L. (1997) ‘Social Perception in Children with
Autism: An Attentional Deficit’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 27(3):
265–282.
Quiggle, N.L., Garber, J., Panak, W.F. & Dodge, K.A. (1992) ‘Social Information
Processing in Aggressive and Depressed Children’, Child Development 63: 1305–1320.
Seligman, M.E.P., Peterson, C.R., Kaslow, N., Tannenbaum, R.L., Alloy, L.B. &
Abramson, L.Y. (1984) ‘Attributional Style and Depressive Symptoms among
Children’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 93: 235–238.
Sigman, M. & Ruskin, E. (1999) ‘Continuity and Change in the Social Competence of
Children with Autism, Downs Syndrome and Developmental Delays’, Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development 64(1).
Sigman, M.D., Kasari, C., Kwon, J.H. & Yirmiya, N. (1992) ‘Responses to the Negative
Emotions of Others by Autistics, Retarded and Normal Children’, Child Development
63: 796–807.
Sofronoff, K., Attwood, T., Hinton, S. & Levin, I. (2007) ‘A Randomized Controlled
Trial of a Cognitive Behavioural Intervention for Anger Management in Children
Diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37:
1203–1214.
Steele, S., Joseph, R.M. & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2003) ‘Brief Report: Developmental
Changes in Theory of Mind Abilities in Children with Autism’, Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders 33(4): 461–467.
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A.C. & Ratner, H.H. (1993) ‘Cultural Learning’, Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 16: 495–552.
Travis, L. & Sigman, M. (1998) ‘Social Deficits and Interpersonal Relationships in
Autism’, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 4: 65–72.
Tur-Kaspa, H. & Bryan, T.H. (1994) ‘Social Information: Processing Skills of Students
with Learning Disabilities’, Learning Disability Research and Practice 9: 12–23.
Tur-Kaspa, H. (2004) ‘Social-Information-Processing Skills of Kindergarten Children
with Developmental Learning Disabilities’, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 19:
3–11.

624

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com at INDIANA UNIV on March 17, 2015