Autism

http://aut.sagepub.com/

Peer interaction patterns among adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders

(ASDs) in mainstream school settings
Neil Humphrey and Wendy Symes
Autism 2011 15: 397 originally published online 31 March 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1362361310387804

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The National Autistic Society

Additional services and information for Autism can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://aut.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://aut.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 21, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 31, 2011

What is This?
Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012
 autism © 2011
Peer interaction patterns SAGE Publications
and The National
Autistic Society
among adolescents with Vol 15(4) 397–419; 387804
1362-3613(2011)

autistic spectrum disorders

(ASDs) in mainstream
school settings

NEIL HUMPHREY School of Education, University of

Manchester, Manchester, UK

W E N DY S Y M E S School of Education, University of Manchester,

Manchester, UK

A B S T R AC T The aim of the current study was to document the peer K E Y WO R D S

interaction patterns of students with autistic spectrum disorders in inclusive
mainstream settings. Structured observations of a group of 38 adoles- education,
cents with ASD drawn from 12 mainstream secondary schools were peer
conducted over a two-day period and data compared with those of interaction
school, age, and gender matched comparison groups of 35 adolescents
with dyslexia and 38 with no identified special educational needs
(the ASD and dyslexia groups were also matched on SEN provision).
Frequency and duration of peer interaction behaviours were coded. In
terms of duration, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) indi-
cated that participants with ASD spent more time engaged in solitary
behaviours, less time engaged in co-operative interaction with peers,
and more time engaging in reactive aggression towards peers than either
comparison group. In terms of frequency, similar patterns emerged,
but additionally participants with ASD engaged in fewer instances of
rough/vigorous play, and were subject to more instances of social initi-
ation and instrumental verbal aggression by peers than either com-
parison group. The findings of the current study support the authors’
theoretical model of peer group interaction processes for individuals
with ASD, and have implications for both social skills training and the
development of peer awareness and sensitivity. Limitations are noted.
ADDRESS Correspondence should be addressed to: N E I L H U M P H R E Y , School of
Education, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. Email:
neil.humphrey@manchester.ac.uk

Copyright © The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions: 397

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362361310387804

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M 15(4)
Children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) experi-
ence difficulties in communication, interaction and imagination. In line
with educational policy, they are increasingly likely to be educated in main-
stream schools (Dybvik, 2004; Keen and Ward, 2004). However, concerns
remain about the quality of their experiences in these settings (Humphrey
and Lewis, 2008). Research in England indicates that students with ASDs
are among the most likely to be excluded from school (Department for
Children, Schools and Families, 2009). Furthermore, teachers in main-
stream schools often report that they do not have the necessary training and
support to provide adequately for them (Robertson et al., 2003). Indeed,
experts in the field argue that the learning styles and cognitive profile of
students with ASD challenge professional assumptions about teaching and
learning more so than other groups of learners (Jordan, 2005).
One key element of the inclusion process for students with ASD that
has come under close scrutiny in recent years is that of their peer relation-
ships in mainstream schools. Notwithstanding the general importance and
developmental significance of positive peer relationships (Bierman, 2005),
this has become a particularly pressing issue in relation to ASD because
affected students, by definition, experience particular difficulties in inter-
acting with other people. The opportunity to interact with non-disabled
peers is often cited by advocates as one of the key benefits of including
students with ASD in mainstream schools. It is argued that through such
placement, they can develop their social skills, while their peer group can
learn to become more accepting of children who are ‘different’ (Boutot and
Bryant, 2005; Kasari and Rotherham-Fuller, 2007). Indeed, this aspect of
life in school is considered to be so pivotal that it led Ochs and colleagues
to conclude,‘the practice of inclusion rests primarily on unaffected school-
mates rather than teachers’ (2001: 399).
There is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that included students
with ASD experience negative social outcomes. They are generally found to
have fewer friends (Cairns and Cairns, 1994), have more limited social
networks (Chamberlain et al., 2003), and experience more rejection from
their peers than other children (Symes and Humphrey, 2010). Further-
more, they report receiving significantly less social support from their class-
mates and friends, and are bullied more than students with other or no
special educational needs (SEN) (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a). Whether
they subsequently experience greater levels of loneliness than their peers
is not clear. Bauminger and colleagues (2003) found this to be the case,
but Chamberlain and colleagues (2003) did not – although this may be in
part due to a more limited understanding of the concepts of friendship and
loneliness among students with ASD (Bauminger and Kasari, 2000).

398

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
Despite the above findings, the study of how students with ASD actually
interact with their peers in natural settings within school is somewhat
limited (Bauminger, 2002). In one of the few direct observational studies
in this area, Bauminger and colleagues (2003) found that students with
ASD spent less time engaged in social interaction than typically their devel-
oping peers, and displayed less positive interaction behaviours (e.g. eye
contact, smiling, talking), despite demonstrating a good understanding
of social interaction. Similar findings were reported by Lord and Magill-
Evans (1995), Hauck et al. (1995), and Stone and Caro-Martinez (1990).
However, these findings are somewhat limited in the context of the current
study as in all of the cited studies the participants with ASD were drawn
from special education settings rather than mainstream schools. Although
there are a handful of peer interaction studies about students in mainstream
settings, these relate to early years/primary school settings (Anderson et al.,
2004; Owen-DeSchryer et al., 2008), or report on students with a range
of developmental disabilities rather than ASD specifically, (e.g. Carter et al.,
2008), or fail to include adequate experimental control (e.g. Blair et al.,
2007; Downing, 1996). Furthermore, each of the aforementioned studies
made use of extremely small sample sizes which naturally restricted statis-
tical power and inference. Finally, with the exception of Anderson et al.
(2004) (New Zealand), they were all conducted in the USA. We were un-
able to find any published studies which examined the peer interaction
patterns of included students with ASD in secondary schools in the UK.
Connecting peer interaction patterns with social outcomes (such as
popularity and bullying) for included students with ASD requires a theo-
retical model that acknowledges the interplay between endogenous (within
the child) and exogenous (within the peer group) factors. In Figure 1 we
present such a model (herein referred to as the reciprocal effects peer inter-
action model, or REPIM), derived from the previous research in this area.
The authors have developed this model as a theoretical framework to
develop our understanding of how the various social outcomes that are
widely reported for included students with ASD originate and relate to one
another. The model is an inductive one, developed as an ‘organizing idea’.
Each component of the model is derived from the findings of at least one
study carried out in this area (see below). The ‘missing link’ in the model
as currently presented is the quality and frequency of peer interactions. It
is this hypothesized reduced quality and frequency of peer interaction that
we aimed to test in the current study, thus potentially confirming or refuting
an important link in our inductive model.

399

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M 15(4)

Figure 1 The reciprocal effects peer interaction model (REPIM) for

understanding negative social outcomes among included students with autistic
spectrum disorder (ASD)

The REPIM explained

Social outcomes for included students with ASD are proposed to originate
primarily at two levels. At the level of the student with ASD, while there is
initially the motivation for social interaction, problems in social cognition
cause a lack of appropriate skills to build positive relationships (Kasari et
al., 2001; Wing, 1988). At the level of the peer group, a general lack of
awareness and understanding leads to reduced acceptance of difference
(Campbell et al., 2004), particularly in relation to the poor social and
communicative skills (Adler et al., 1992) and atypical behavioural traits
(Robertson et al., 2003) associated with ASD.
The combination of these endogenous and exogenous factors is hypo-
thesized to result in reduced quality and frequency of peer interaction
among included students with ASD (the focus of the current study). Should
this be borne out, the empirical findings already established in relation to
the peer relationships of included students with ASD – such as their limited
social networks (Chamberlain et al., 2003), fewer friends (Cairns and Cairns,
400

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
1994), and lower levels of social support (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a)
– are a logical next step, given that positive interactions feed the develop-
ment of peer relationships (Bierman, 2005). In turn, students with poor
peer relationships are more vulnerable to bullying and social rejection –
and, indeed, there is empirical evidence of both negative outcomes in
relation to those with ASD (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a; Symes and
Humphrey, 2010). The final step in the model is increased isolation and
loneliness, which Bauminger et al. (2003) have demonstrated in relation
to young people with ASD.
These outcomes ultimately generate reciprocal effects at the level of the
student with ASD and his/her peer group. At the level of the student with
ASD, the negative social outcomes reduce the motivation for further peer
interaction, creating a pattern of avoidance and solitary behaviour that
does not provide adequate opportunities for the development of social and
communicative skills. At the level of the peer group, the reduced social
contact with students with ASD limits the opportunities for the development
of understanding and awareness, further accentuating feelings of differ-
ence. The overall processes described in this model are usefully captured
by Bauminger (2002: 283–4):
These children are caught in a vicious circle of social isolation. On the one
hand, they have the desire to be socially involved with their peers and express
loneliness and depression in the absence of such relationships. On the other
hand, they have poor friendships and do not know how to adequately inter-
act with their peers due to limited social and emotional understanding and
experiences.

The current study: a rationale

At a general level, there have been calls for more research in the area of
inclusive education for students with ASDs (Humphrey and Parkinson,
2006). In developing our rationale for this specific study, several issues
were considered pertinent. Research in this area has tended to focus on
academic rather than social outcomes (Frederickson et al., 2007), and as
noted above, the study of how students with ASD actually interact with
their peers in natural settings within school is limited (Bauminger, 2002).
The research that has been carried out has been informative, but limited
in its application to the context of inclusive education because participants
with ASD have thus far been drawn exclusively from special school settings.
Furthermore, published studies have thus far focused on early (Kasari and
Rotherham-Fuller, in press) and middle childhood (Bauminger et al., 2003).
Research examining peer interaction patterns of adolescents with ASD in
secondary (high) school settings is sparse by comparison. The secondary
401

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M 15(4)
school years are of particular interest and significance in this context – peer
relationships have been shown to decline with age (Rotherham-Fuller,
2005), perhaps as a result of social life becoming more complicated during
adolescence (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a). Furthermore, one could
suggest that the typical secondary school environment – busy, bustling, and
often chaotic – provides a less stable base upon which to develop positive
peer relationships for students with ASD than the more settled and support-
ive primary school setting, meaning that existing difficulties in peer inter-
action could be accentuated.
In light of the above, the aim of the current study was to investigate
the type, duration, and frequency of peer interaction behaviours among
students with ASD in mainstream secondary schools, as compared with
students with dyslexia and those with no SEN. Dyslexia1 was chosen as the
SEN control condition because like ASD, it can be thought of as a broad
spectrum of abilities and difficulties, and there is a similar proportion of
students whose needs are being met at the various stages of SEN assessment
and intervention (e.g. SA, SA+, SSEN)2 in English schools (Barnard et al.,
2002; Woods, 2002). Furthermore, male:female ratios for dyslexia and ASDs
are broadly similar (approximately 3:1 and 5:1, respectively – Dyslexia
Action, 2009; Howlin, 1998), and estimated incidence rates are compara-
ble (approximately 1.5% and 0.9%, respectively – Green et al., 2005;
Vellutino et al., 2004). However, the difficulties experienced by students
with dyslexia relate primarily to cognition and learning – providing a use-
ful contrast to the primary difficulties in communication and interaction
experienced by students with ASD (Department for Education and Skills
(DfES), 2001; Office for Public Management, 2006). This opportunity to
contrast the experiences of students with difficulties in such different
domains is important. Current theorizing about the nature of SEN among
influential figures in England (e.g. Lewis and Norwich, 2005) emphasizes
the need to consider how group needs (e.g. cognition and learning versus
communication and interaction) differentially affect outcomes for children
and young people. Furthermore, since we know that all students identi-
fied as having SEN are at an increased risk of social rejection by peers
(Mitsopoulou, 2006), it was also important – from a research design
perspective – to establish that any differences in peer interaction quality and
frequency evident among students were not simply as a result of them having
any SEN, but specifically ASD. Some recent studies in this area (e.g. Humphrey
and Symes, 2010a) have used such a design to good effect (that is, the
production of a robust research design with theoretically plausible results).
Other SEN ‘groupings’ – such as social, emotional and behavioural difficul-
ties – were rejected on the grounds of the lack of definitional clarity (Harden
et al., 2003) and the possible overlap with ASD (Wainscot et al., 2008).
402

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
On the basis of the REPIM model outlined above, we hypothesized that
students with ASD would spend more time engaged in solitary activities,
less time in co-operative activities, make fewer attempts at social initiation
and be approached less by their peers than students with dyslexia and those
with no SEN. Furthermore, we predicted that students with ASD would
experience more episodes of negative social interaction (e.g. aggressive
verbal or physical behaviour) than either of the two control groups.

Method3

Design
A quasi-experimental design was adopted. The independent variable was
SEN group status (ASD, DYS (dyslexia), or CON (no identified special edu-
cational needs)). The dependent variables were type, frequency, and dura-
tion of peer interaction.

Participants
Our sample comprised 111 students4 (38 in the ASD group, 35 in the DYS
group, and 38 in the CON group) drawn from 12 secondary mainstream
schools in the north-west of England (102 males, 9 females; mean age
13y9m)5. This exceeded a target sample size of n = 30 in each group that
would be needed to detect a large effect size at power = 0.80 and alpha =
0.05 (Cohen, 1992). A matched-triad process was undertaken to ensure
that the groups were matched as closely as possible by age and gender. A
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed no statistically signifi-
cant differences between the groups in age (p > .05). Furthermore, a chi-
square test confirmed no statistically significant association between group
and gender (p > .05). Students in the ASD and DYS groups all had relevant
confirmed diagnoses and were on their school’s SEN register. In all cases
diagnoses had been made by an appropriately qualified professional (e.g.
psychiatrist, psychologist) using established assessment techniques (e.g.
Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule). A matched-pairs process was
undertaken in an attempt to ensure that these two groups were matched
by stage of the SEN code of practice (DfES, 2001 – see footnote 2 above
for explanation of these stages). A chi-square test confirmed no statistically
significant association between group and SEN stage (p > .05). Table 1
provides a brief overview of the demographic information for each group.
Consent was sought and received from the head-teacher at each school,
from each participating student’s parents, and from the students themselves
(see ‘Ethical considerations’ below).

403

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M 15(4)
Table 1 Demographic information for participants in the current study

ASD (n = 38) DYS (n = 35) CON (n = 38)

Mean age 13y8m (SD = 1.54) 13y9m (SD = 1.57) 13y8m (SD = 1.53)
Gender
Male, % 90 92 90
Female, % 10 8 10
Level of SEN provision
Statement of SEN, % 60 43 N/A
School action plus, % 32 43
School action, % 8 14

Materials
Peer Interaction Observation Schedule (PIOS) The PIOS is a measure
of the type, duration (how long each behaviour lasts) and frequency (how
often a behaviour is observed) of the interaction between a focal student
and their peers. Adapted from an observation schedule used by Pellegrini
and Bartini (2000), the instrument consists of 22 observable behaviour
codes. 15 of these refer to behaviours exhibited by the focal student (e.g.
‘social initiation by focal student’), while the remaining seven pertain to
the behaviours of their peers (e.g. ‘acceptance of social initiation by focal
student’). A full list of the behaviour codes and their definitions can be
found in Appendix 1.
To use the measure, researchers observe the focal student continuously
for the full length of the observation period. The recording schedule is split
into one-minute intervals to make recording easier, and allow tracking of
how patterns of interactions evolve chronologically (that is, behaviours can
be recorded in the sequence in which they occur). If a behaviour occurs
for a minute or more, the appropriate boxes are marked with an X. If a
behaviour changes during a one-minute interval, the approximate pro-
portions of the old and new behaviour are recorded in seconds (e.g. 40
seconds of co-operative interaction, followed by 20 seconds of solitary
engaged behaviour).
A frequency score for each behaviour is calculated by summing the
distinct episodes that occurred in that code during the observation period,
and dividing that number by the total number of behaviours observed
overall. This gives the frequency score as a proportion of all the distinct
behaviours that were recorded. A duration score for each behaviour is calcu-
lated by summing the time recorded in that code during the observation
period, and dividing this by the overall observation time. This gives the
duration score as a proportion of the total observation duration.
404

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
Inter-rater reliability was established through a calibration exercise at
the beginning of the study. This involved discussion of each of the 22
behaviour codes and their definitions. Written examples were provided and
test-coded to ensure agreement among raters. Where discrepancies occurred
these were discussed until agreement was reached. This process was repeated
until inter-rater agreement on these sample behaviour examples was 100%.
During fieldwork in schools, any ‘ambiguous’ behaviours observed (e.g.
those where the observer was unsure of the correct behaviour code to
apply) were noted by the researcher tracking a given student and then
subsequently discussed with at least two other researchers until agreement
on a single code was reached (coding sheets were then amended accord-
ingly). For example, consider a one-minute episode during a lunchtime
observation in which a student engages in a behaviour which the observer
feels unable to attribute to a specific code (e.g. he/she cannot decide if it
is ‘solitary engaged’ or ‘solitary onlooker’). In such a circumstance, the
observer would record the duration of that behaviour under a bespoke
‘ambiguous’ code and make a detailed written note of behaviour engaged
in by the student. Immediately after the end of the observational period,
the episode would be shared with another researcher, and a final decision
would be taken as to which code should apply (e.g. ‘solitary onlooker’).
This would then be recorded in the appropriate section of the observation
schedule.

Procedure
Students were observed during two to four break and lunchtime sessions,
ranging from approximately 15 to 45 minutes in length, over a two-day
period. A team of eight researchers – including the two authors of this
paper – conducted the observations (although each student was only
observed by one researcher). Students were followed as closely as possible
during the observation periods, but the researchers tried not to directly
interact with them. The mean total observation time was 61 minutes.

Ethical considerations
Standard ethical procedures for educational (British Educational Research
Association, 2004) and psychological research (British Psychological Society,
2004) were followed throughout the study. As mentioned above, consent
was sought and received from the head-teacher at each school, from each
participating student’s parents and from the students themselves. Partici-
pating students were given a clear explanation of the purpose of the study,
and informed that their data would be treated in confidence and that they
would remain anonymous. Their right to withdraw at any point was also
made clear. The school special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO)
405

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M15(4)
confirmed consent at all three levels before the authors were introduced to
participants. One school did not want their students to be observed. This
meant that data for six students could not be collected. Furthermore, an
additional three students exercised their right to withdraw on the basis of
feeling uncomfortable being observed, leading to a final sample of N = 111.

Results
Descriptive statistics pertaining to the average total observation duration and
average total number of discrete behaviours observed for each group are
presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Mean total observation duration and frequency of discrete behaviours

in the current study

ASD DSY CON

Duration (seconds) 4051.58 3744 3513.16

(SD = 1665.79) (SD = 1872.89) (SD = 2030.81)
Frequency 35.3 36.6 34.84
(SD = 19.99) (SD = 33.70) (SD = 27.75)

Descriptive statistics for the frequency and duration of each behaviour

code are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Mean scores are proportional, as outlined
above. Higher scores therefore indicate that a behaviour was engaged in
more frequently, or for a longer period of time. Looking at Table 3, for
example, we can see that students with ASD engaged in solitary (unoccu-
pied) behaviour for 3.24% of the total number of behaviours they engaged
in. Likewise, looking at Table 4, students with ASD engaged in solitary
(unoccupied) behaviour for 2.96% of the total amount of time they were
being observed.

Duration
To explore group differences in duration of behaviours observed, a multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed. As predicted a main
effect of group (F(1.697) = .572, p < .01, η2 = .286) was revealed. Results
are displayed in Table 3.
Analysis by type revealed that students with ASD spent significantly
more time in solitary activities (unoccupied and engaged) and less time in
co-operative interaction than students in the DSY or CON groups. They
also spent more time engaging in reactive aggression (verbal) than either
control group.
406

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 Table 3 Duration of peer interaction behaviours among students in the current study

ASD DYS CON ANOVA (df = 2) Partial eta squared (η2)

FOCAL STUDENT
Solitary (unoccupied) .0296 .0119 .0049 4.307* .074
Solitary (engaged) .2437 .0854 .0697 14.969*** .217
Solitary (onlooker) .0378 .0114 .0187 2.793 .049
Parallel .1654 .1472 .1402 .343 .006
Co-operative (interaction) .4087 .6405 .6463 17.978*** .250
Co-operative (game) .0594 .0290 .0441 .581 .011
Rough/vigorous play .0100 .0232 .0133 2.756 .049
Locomotor .0056 .0272 .0307 1.507 .027
Instrumental aggression (verbal) .0013 .0005 .0002 1.938 .035
Instrumental aggression (physical) .0029 .0012 .0008 .689 .013
Social initiation by focal student .0064 .0043 .0101 1.326 .024
Reactive aggression (verbal) .0011 .0002 .0000 3.344* .058
Reactive aggression (physical) .0022 .0001 .0006 2.280 .041
Submissive/passive .0011 .0010 .0003 .658 .012
Acceptance of social initiation by peer .0050 .0034 .0026 .964 .018
PEER(S)
Social initiation by peer .0072 .0043 .0033 1.699 .031
Instrumental aggression (verbal) .0014 .0005 .0003 1.964 .035

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

Instrumental aggression (physical) .0001 .0016 .0011 .914 .017
Reactive aggression (verbal) .0007 .0000 .0002 1.872 .034
Reactive aggression (physical) .0027 .0000 .0006 .777 .014
Submissive/passive .0011 .0008 .0001 1.363 .025
Acceptance of social initiation by focal student .0064 .0063 .0126 1.253 .023
OVERALL GROUP EFFECT F = 1.697 (42)**
P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S

407
*p = <.05, ** p = <.01, *** p = <.001.
AU T I S M15(4)
No significant group differences were found in the duration focal
students in the three groups spent in the following behaviours: solitary
(onlooker), parallel behaviour, co-operative (game), rough/vigorous play,
locomotor, instrumental aggression (both verbal and physical), social initi-
ation by focal student, reactive aggression (physical), submissive/passive
behaviour, and acceptance of social initiation by peers. In terms of peer
behaviour, no significant differences were found in the duration of time
peers of students in the three groups spent in the following behaviours:
social initiation by peer, instrumental aggression (verbal and physical),
reactive aggression (verbal and physical), submissive/passive, and accep-
tance of social initiation by focal student.

Frequency To explore group differences in frequency of behaviours

observed, MANOVA was performed. As predicted, a main effect of group
(F(1.488) = 5.20, p < .05, η2 = .260) was revealed. Results are displayed
in Table 4.
Analysis by type revealed that students with ASD engaged in solitary
behaviours (unoccupied, engaged, or onlooker) significantly more fre-
quently and engaged in co-operative interaction less frequently than students
in the DSY or CON groups. Students with ASD were also significantly less
likely to engage in rough/vigorous play, but more likely to display reactive
aggression (verbal) than either control group. Peers of students with ASD
were more likely to initiate social interaction with them, but were also
more likely to use instrumental aggression (verbal) than peers of students
in the DSY or CON groups.
No significant differences were found in how frequently focal students
in the ASD, DSY, or CON groups engaged in parallel behaviour, co-operative
(game), locomotor, instrumental (both verbal and physical), social initia-
tion by the focal student, reactive aggression (physical), submissive/passive
behaviour or acceptance of social initiation by peers. In terms of peer beha-
viour, there were no significant difference in how frequently peers of
students with ASD, DYS, or CON engaged in instrumental aggression (phys-
ical), reactive aggression (both verbal and physical), submissive/passive
behaviour, and acceptance of social initiation by the focal student.

Discussion
The main findings of the current study were that included students with
ASD spent more time engaged in solitary behaviours, less time engaged in
co-operative interaction with peers, and more time engaging in reactive
aggression towards peers than either comparison group. In terms of fre-
quency of observed behaviours, similar patterns emerged, but additionally
408

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 Table 4 Frequency of peer interaction behaviours among students in the current study

ASD DYS CON ANOVA (df = 2) Partial eta squared (η2)

FOCAL STUDENT
Solitary (unoccupied) .0324 0.104 .0054 7.032*** .115
Solitary (engaged) .1586 .0840 .0723 7.335*** .120
Solitary (onlooker) .0440 .0147 .0262 3.085* .054
Parallel .1614 .1743 .1800 .171 .003
Co-operative (interaction) .3409 .4416 .4343 7.438*** .121
Co-operative (game) .0226 .0164 .0263 .486 .009
Rough/vigorous play .0198 .0564 .0378 3.574* .062
Locomotor .0083 .0313 .0292 1.142 .021
Instrumental aggression (verbal) .0082 .0043 .0014 1.878 .034
Instrumental aggression (physical) .0032 .0095 .0041 .623 .011
Social initiation by focal student .0381 .0326 .0463 .695 .013
Reactive aggression (verbal) .0082 .0022 .0004 3.811* .066
Reactive aggression (physical) .0040 .0025 .0101 .710 .013
Submissive/passive .0054 .0045 .0027 .414 .008
Acceptance of social initiation by peer .0316 .0245 .0164 1.795 .032
PEER(S)
Social initiation by peer .0538 .0322 .0212 3.327* .058
Instrumental aggression (verbal) .0086 .0016 .0026 3.139* .055

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

Instrumental aggression (physical) .0016 .0069 .0109 .825 .015
Reactive aggression (verbal) .0038 .0000 .0014 2.617 .046
Reactive aggression (physical) .0016 .0000 .0031 .894 .016
Submissive/passive .0082 .0091 .0110 .044 .001
Acceptance of social initiation by focal student .0359 .0410 .0540 .712 .013
OVERALL GROUP EFFECT F = 1.488 (42)*
P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S

409
*p = <.05, ***p = <.001
AU T I S M 15(4)
participants with ASD engaged in less instances of rough/vigorous play, and
were subject to more instances of social initiation and instrumental verbal
aggression by peers than either comparison group. These findings broadly
support the REPIM model introduced earlier in this article (although there
is one exception, which is discussed below) and that of other authors, who
have consistently found that such students find interacting with their peers
difficult, and have fewer friends, more limited social networks, and less
peer social support as a result (e.g. Cairns and Cairns, 1994; Humphrey and
Symes, 2010a; Kasari and Rotherham-Fuller, in press). In this section we
address each of our key findings and consider the implications for our
theoretical model and practice in this area.
The finding that included students with ASD spent more time engaged
in solitary behaviours and less time engaged in co-operative interaction with
peers than the two control groups resonates with Bauminger and colleagues’
(2003) finding that such students spent less time engaged in social inter-
action than typically their developing peers. This is also broadly in line with
the conclusions of Lord and Magill-Evans (1995), Hauck et al. (1995), and
Stone and Caro-Martinez (1990) (although as noted before these studies
reported on students in special school settings). The predictions of the
REPIM model are also borne out here. Importantly, students with ASD spent
around 25% less of their time engaged in co-operative interaction and
around 17–20% more of their time engaged in solitary behaviour than the
participants in the two control groups (see Table 3). This obviously places
limits on the opportunities to practise and develop social and communica-
tive skills that are so vital in the development of positive peer relationships.
Another key finding was that peers of students with ASD engaged in
verbal instrumental aggression more frequently than the peers of students
in the other two groups. This is also in line with the REPIM model and
previous research in this area, which demonstrated that these students are
at a higher risk of bullying than other groups of learners (e.g. Humphrey
and Symes, 2010a; National Autistic Society, 2006). The finding could also
help to explain why they are less likely to report that they are being bullied
(National Autistic Society, 2006). If bullying is verbal rather than physical
in nature, the social impairments that characterize ASD may prevent them
from interpreting what is happening to them as bullying (Moore, 2007).
Such a finding has important implications for intervention. Included
students with ASD could be taught, for example, how to recognize when
they are being bullied verbally through the use of social stories (e.g.
Reynhout and Carter, 2006; Rowe, 1999).
The fact that students with ASD were significantly more likely to engage
in reactive verbal aggression than either control group can perhaps be
explained as a direct response to the greater proportion of instrumental
410

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
verbal aggression from their peers. Again, this has important implications.
Reactive aggression is unlikely to be a successful strategy for dealing with
bullying, and may exacerbate existing difficulties. Thus, it is essential that
students with ASD are equipped with other strategies to use when they
encounter instrumental aggression from peers, such as reporting incidents
to a teacher or other member of staff. It is known that students with ASD
are more likely to seek help when they are being bullied if they feel that
the person they confide in can be trusted and will help them (Humphrey
and Symes, 2010b). Therefore, clear procedures would need to be in place,
and followed by the school, if the use of reactive aggression as a response
to bullying is to be reduced.
One finding that did not directly support the REPIM model was that
that peers of students with ASD engaged in significantly more frequent
instances of social initiation (e.g. asking a student to join their game or
activity) than the peers of students in the other two groups. Similarly, our
initial data exploration revealed a direct match between the duration of time
students with ASD spent in social initiation and the length of time peers
spent accepting this initiation (indicating that in those instances where
students with ASD did initiate social approaches, these were accepted by
peers). These findings do not reflect past research (e.g. Adler et al., 1992),
which has suggested that acceptance of social initiations is determined
largely by popularity factors that are deemed to be important within the
stratified social order (which, in boys, include several factors that would
place students with ASD near the bottom of the social hierarchy, e.g. athletic
ability, coolness, savoir-faire). However, students with ASD did not always
accept the social advances of their peers – indeed, this is evidenced by the
lack of difference in acceptance of social initiation by peers across the three
groups, in spite of the increased frequency of such initiations toward
students in the ASD group.
The above finding potentially has important practical implications.
Having peers who are committed to developing positive relationships can
be a crucial step forward for improving the social outcomes of included
students with ASD, and may serve to reduce feelings of distrust of other
children and young people expressed in recent studies (see Humphrey and
Lewis, 2008; Humphrey and Symes, 2010b). If some peers of students with
ASD are willing to interact and engage with them socially, then perhaps
more explicit guidance is required to enable such students to understand
when a social initiation has been made, and how to respond appropriately
in this situation. The involvement of peers would also be vital, as they can
learn to make social advances more explicit and tangible (e.g. by saying the
name of the student when they greet them), thus rendering them more
‘ASD-friendly’. Similar modifications to conversational language have also
411

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 15(4)
AU T I S M
been recommended for teachers – see Humphrey, (2008). Such strategies
could usefully be integrated into a broader effort among schools to raise
awareness and understanding of ASD among typically developing peers.

Limitations
This study strove to build upon existing knowledge about the social worlds
of included students with ASD and, in particular, to develop understand-
ing of their peer interaction patterns. Observing students matched on a
number of key variables in natural social settings using trained researchers
and a structured observation schedule strengthened the validity of our
findings. However, like all studies, there are some limitations that need to
be considered.
Firstly, although a strength of this study was that it involved the obser-
vation of behaviour in natural settings, the importance of gaining informed
consent from the participants meant that there were always aware they were
being watched – covert observation was not an option here. This will un-
doubtedly have influenced the behaviour of participants. For example, a
minority of students attempted to run away and hide from the researchers,
while others made social approaches. Alongside this, peers of the focal
students may also have been aware that they were being watched and
changed their behaviour accordingly, such as being less likely to engage in
acts of physical aggression towards the focal students (given this, the
increased peer verbal aggression outlined above is all the more striking).
Efforts were made to minimize the influence of the researchers’ presence,
such as observing students from a reasonable distance, but the influence of
this artefact of the study methodology cannot be discounted.
While the PIOS observation schedule used is well established and has
been used in other published studies (e.g. Pellegrini and Bartini, 2000), it
is not completely exhaustive and therefore we do not claim that it is able to
capture the full variety of student peer interaction behaviours. For instance,
the codes used (see Appendix 1) do not capture the ‘micro’ behaviours
(such as eye contact) that may be important in social interaction, particu-
larly in relation to the behaviour of students with ASD (for instance,
Bauminger et al. (2003) found that such students were less likely to make
eye contact during social interaction than their typically developing peers).
That said, the PIOS’s strength is that it captures a broader range of ‘macro’
behaviours than other schedules that have been used in this area, and as
such was considered an ideal instrument for testing the predictions of the
REPIM model.
A further limitation of the study reported in this article was the lack of
independent diagnostic confirmation using a single instrument for parti-
412

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
cipants in the ASD group. However, while this would have increased the
internal validity of our research, the time and expense that would be
incurred in undertaking such a procedure made it infeasible – especially
given that all participants with ASD already had relevant confirmed diag-
noses (in addition to the fact that they were each in receipt of SEN provi-
sion in relation to difficulties associated with ASD). Thus, we were happy
to include participants in the study on the basis of professional judgements
that had already been made.
A final limitation to be considered in relation to the current study is
the fact that we were unable to perform ‘blind’ observations (that is, each
researcher knew the group status – ASD, DYS, or CON – of the students
they were observing). While performing blind observations would have
greatly strengthened the robustness and validity of our findings, it was prac-
tically impossible in the ‘real world’ setting of the research, especially given
that the observations were conducted as part of a wider study, during
which each of the students with ASD had already been introduced to the
researchers. Non-blind observations in a context such as that of the current
study obviously carry with them the risk of expectancy/typing effects,
wherein the ratings of the observer are influenced by his/her knowledge
of the characteristics of the individuals under study. However, the observa-
tions were all carried out by trained researchers with guidance given to
focus purely upon the specific patterns of behaviour exhibited by partici-
pants, irrespective of their group status.

Conclusion
The current study is the first comparative study to report on the peer inter-
action patterns of students with ASD in secondary mainstream settings using
observational techniques. Our main findings were that, in terms of dura-
tion, participants with ASD spent more time engaged in solitary behaviours,
less time engaged in co-operative interaction with peers, and more time
engaging in reactive aggression towards peers than either comparison group.
In terms of frequency, similar patterns emerged, but additionally partici-
pants with ASD engaged in less instances of rough/vigorous play, and
were subject to more instances of social initiation and instrumental verbal
aggression by peers than either comparison group. These findings align
well with previous research in this area and provide support for our theo-
retical model of the relationship between peer interaction patterns and
social outcomes for students with ASD (see Figure 1) – although there is
a clear need for this inductive model to be more rigorously tested in a
single, large scale study where the various components can be tested simul-
taneously and subjected to appropriate analysis (such as structural equation
413

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M 15(4)
modelling). The study has also yielded a number of practical implications,
including the need for intervention for included students with ASD to
develop their social and communicative skills in specific areas such as
understanding when a social initiation has been made (and how to respond
appropriately in this situation) and how to recognize and respond effec-
tively to bullying. Among peers, sensitively handled approaches to raising
awareness and understanding of ASD (e.g. Gus, 2000), along with the pro-
vision of clear guidance around how to communicate in an ‘ASD-friendly’
manner, will most likely be beneficial in increasing acceptance of differ-
ence. The use of a two-pronged approach, which targets both included
students with ASD and their peers, is preferable in that it acknowledges the
endogenous and exogenous factors at play in the development of social
relationships.

Notes
1 Dyslexia is defined as being ‘evident when fluent and accurate word identification
(reading) does not develop, or does so very incompletely’ (British Psychological
Society, 1999).
2 Students identified as having SEN in schools in England are classified according to
the nature and level of additional provision they receive as a result of their
difficulties. Thus, they can be at School Action (SA), School Action Plus (SAP) or in
receipt of a Statement of SEN (SSEN). Students at SA have their special needs met
within their school’s normal resources. Those at SAP are likely to have additional
support from an external agency (e.g. educational psychologist). Finally, students
whose needs have not been met at either SA or SAP will typically undergo a full
statutory assessment of their needs, resulting in the production of an SSEN, which
legally secures a particular level of resources that can be used to support the
student.
3 All of the data reported in this article were collected during the execution of a
larger project on inclusive education for students with ASD funded by the
Economic and Social Research Council (grant reference RES-061-25-0054).
4 Our original sample comprised 40 students in each group (total N = 120), but
lack of school and/or student consent meant that 9 students (2 in the ASD group,
5 in the DYS group and 2 in the CON group) did not participate in the
observational strand of the larger study (see ‘Ethical considerations’).
5 Note: This male:female ratio does not match the aforementioned population
estimates of 3:1/5:1. Aside from being a peculiarity of our sample, this may
indicate that the male:female ratios for ASD incidence in mainstream schools differ
from the population of individuals with ASD.

References
Adler, P.A., Kless, S.J. & Adler, P. (1992) ‘Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity
among Elementary School Boys and Girls’, Sociology and Education 65: 169–87.
Anderson, A., Moore, D., Godfrey, R. & Fletcher-Flinn, C. (2004) ‘Social Skills
Assessment of Children with Autism in Free-Play Situations’, Autism 8: 1362–3613.

414

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
Barnard, J., Broach, S., Prior D. & Potter, A. (2002) Autism in Schools: Crisis or Challenge?
London: NAS.
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: 283–98.
Bauminger, N. & Kasari, C. (2000) ‘Loneliness and Friendship in High-Functioning
Children with Autism’, Child Development 71: 447–56.
Bauminger, N., Shulman, C. & Agam, G. (2003) ‘Peer Interaction and Loneliness in
High-Functioning Children with Autism’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
33: 489–507.
Bierman, K.L. (2005) Peer Rejection: Developmental Processes and Intervention Strategies. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Blair, K.C., Umbrelt, J., Dunlap, G. & Jung, G. (2007) ‘Promoting Inclusion and Peer
Participation through Assessment-Based Intervention’, Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education 27: 134–47.
Boutot, A. & Bryant, D.P. (2005) ‘Social Integration of Students with Autism in
Inclusive Settings’, Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 40: 14–23.
British Educational Research Association (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational
Research. Southwell, Notts: BERA.
British Psychological Society (1999) Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological Assessment. Report of a
Working Party of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology. Leicester: BPS.
British Psychological Society (2004) Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines.
Leicester: BPS.
Cairns, R.B. & Cairns, B.D. (1994) Lifelines and Risks: Pathways of Youth in Our Time. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, J.M., Ferguson, J.E, Herzinger, C.V., Jackson, J.N. & Marino, C. (2004)
‘Combined Descriptive and Explanatory Information Improves Peers’ Perceptions
of Autism’, Research in Developmental Disabilities 25: 321–9.
Carter, E.W., Sisco, L.G., Brown, L., Brickham, D. & Al-Khabbaz, Z.A. (2008) ‘Peer
Interactions and Academic Engagement of Youth with Developmental Disabilities
in Inclusive Middle and High School Classrooms’, American Journal on Mental Retardation
113: 479–94.
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C. & Rotherham-Fuller, E. (2003) ‘Involvement or isolation?
The Social Networks of Children with Autism in Regular Classrooms’, Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders 37: 230–42.
Cohen, J. (1992) ‘A Power Primer’, Psychological Bulletin 112: 155–9.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009) Children with Special Educational
Needs 2009: An Analysis. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2001) Special Educational Needs: Code of Practice.
Nottingham: DfES.
Downing, J. (1996) ‘The Process of Including Elementary Students with Autism and
Intellectual Impairments in their Typical Classrooms’, paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, FL: April
1996.
Dybvik, A.C. (2004) Autism and the Inclusion Mandate. Education Next 4: 42–9.
Dyslexia Action (2009) What is Dyslexia? Available at: www.dyslexiaaction.org.uk
(accessed March 2009).
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L. & Soulsby, C. (2007) Assessing the Social
and Affective Outcomes of Inclusion. British Journal of Special Education 42: 105–15

415

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M 15(4)
Green, H., McGinnity, A., Meltzer, H., Ford, T. & Goodman, R. (2005) Mental Health of
Children and Young People in Great Britain, 2004. London: Office for National Statistics.
Gus, L. (2000) ‘Autism: Promoting Peer Understanding’, Educational Psychology in Practice
16: 461–8.
Harden, A., Thomas, J., Evans, J., Scanlon, M. & Sinclair, J. (2003) Supporting Pupils with
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) in Mainstream Primary Schools: A Systematic Review of
Recent Research on Strategy Effectiveness. London: Institute of Education.
Hauck, M., Fein, D., Waterhouse, L. & Feinstein, C. (1995) ‘Social initiations by
autistic children to adults and other children’, Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 25: 579–95.
Howlin, P. (1998) Children with Autism and Asperger Syndrome. London: Wiley.
Humphrey, N. (2008) ‘Including Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in
Mainstream Schools’, Support for Learning 23: 41–7.
Humphrey, N. & Lewis, S. (2008) ‘“Make Me Normal”: The Views and Experiences of
Pupils on the Autistic Spectrum in Mainstream Secondary Schools’, Autism: An
International Journal of Research and Practice 12: 39–62.
Humphrey, N. & Parkinson, G. (2006) ‘Research on Interventions for Children and
Young People on the Autistic Spectrum: A Critical Perspective’, Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs 6: 76–86.
Humphrey, N. & Symes, W. (2010a) ‘Perceptions of Social Support and Experience of
Bullying among Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Secondary
Schools’, European Journal of Special Needs Education 25: 77–91.
Humphrey, N. & Symes, W. (2010b) Responses to Bullying and Use of Social Support
among Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Schools: A
Qualitative Study’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 10: 1–10.
Jordan, R. (2005) ‘Autistic Spectrum Disorders’, in Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (eds)
Special Teaching for Special Children? Buckingham: Open University Press, 110–22.
Kasari, C., Chamberlain, B. & Bauminger, N. (2001) ‘Social Emotions and Social
Relationships: Can Children with Autism Compensate?’, in Burack, J. & Charman, T.
(eds) The Development of Autism: Perspectives from Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 309–23.
Kasari, C. & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007) ‘Peer Relationships of Children with Autism:
Challenges and Interventions’, in Hollander, E. & Anagnostou, E. (eds) Clinical Manual
for the Treatment of Autism. Arlington,VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 235–58.
Keen, D. & Ward, S. (2004) ‘Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Child Population Profile’,
Autism 8: 39–48.
Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (eds) (2005) Special Teaching for Special Children? Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Lord, C. & Magill-Evans, J. (1995) ‘Peer Interactions of Autistic Children and
Adolescents’, Development and Psychopathology 7: 611–26.
Mitsopoulou, E. (2006) ‘An Investigation of the Attitudes of Year 7 Pupils towards
Their Classmates Who Are Identified as Having Special Educational Needs’,
Psychology of Education Review 30: 39–51.
Moore, C. (2007) ‘Speaking as a Parent: Thoughts about Educational Inclusion for
Autistic Children’, in Cigman, R. (ed.) Included or Excluded? The Challenge of Mainstream for
some SEN Children. London: Routledge, 34–41.
National Autistic Society (2006) B is for Bullied. London: NAS.
Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., Solomon, O. & Sirota, K.G. (2001) Inclusion as Social
Practice: Views of Children with autism. Social Development 10: 399–419.

416

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
Office for Public Management (2006) The Equalities Review: Issues Paper on 5–19 Age Group.
London: OPM.
Owen-DeSchryer, J.S., Carr, E.G., Cale, S.I. & Blakeley-Smith, A. (2008) ‘Promoting
Social Interactions between Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Their
Peer in Inclusive School settings’, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 23:
15–28.
Pellegrini, A.D. & Bartini, M. (2000) ‘A Longitudinal Study of Bullying,Victimization,
and Peer Affiliation during the Transistion from Primary to Middle School’,
American Educational Research Journal 37: 699–725.
Reynhout, G. & Carter, M. (2006) ‘Social Stories for Children with Disabilities’, Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders 36: 445–69.
Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B. & Kasari, C. (2003) ‘General Education Teachers’
Relationships with Included Students with Autism’, Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 33: 123–30.
Rotherham-Fuller, E.J. (2005) ‘Age-Related Changes in the Social Inclusion of
Children with Autism in General Education Classrooms’, unpublished thesis,
University of California.
Rowe, C. (1999) ‘Do Social Stories Benefit Children with Autism in Mainstream
Primary Schools?’, British Journal of Special Education 26: 12–14.
Stone, W.L. & Caro-Martinez, L.M. (1990) ‘Naturalistic Observations of Spontaneous
Communication in Autistic Children’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 20:
437–53.
Symes, W. & Humphrey, N. (2010) ‘Peer-Group Indicators of Social Inclusion among
Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in Mainstream Secondary Schools:
A Comparative Study’, School Psychology International 31: 478–494.
Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J. & Scanlon, D.M. (2004) ‘Specific
Reading Disability (Dyslexia): What Have We Learned in the Past Four Decades?’,
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45: 2–40.
Wainscot, J.J., Naylor, P., Sutcliffe, P., Tantam, D. & Williams, J. (2008) ‘Relationships
with Peers and Use of the School Environment of Mainstream Secondary School
Pupils with Asperger Syndrome (High-Functioning Autism): A Case Control
Study’, International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 8: 25–38.
Wing, L. (1988) ‘The Continuum of Autistic Disorders’, in Schopler, E. &
Mesihov, G.M. (eds) Diagnosis and Assessment In Autism. New York, NY: Plenum, 91–110.
Woods, K.A. (2002) ‘What Do We Mean When We Say Dyslexia and What Difference
Does It Make Anyway?’, In Ainscow, M. & Farrell, P. (eds) Making Special Education
Inclusive. London: Fulton, 139–50.

417

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

AU T I S M 15(4)
Appendix 1: Behaviour codes: definitions
Focal student (FS)
1 Solitary unoccupied FS alone and not looking at others,
e.g. daydreaming
2 Solitary engaged FS alone but engaged with some
kind of activity, e.g. reading a book
3 Solitary onlooker FS watching, but not interacting
with, another student/s
4 Parallel FS is next to another student, both
engaged in an activity, but not
interacting
5 Co-operative interaction FS is engaged in reciprocal
interaction with another student
6 Co-operative game e.g. playing conkers
7 Rough/vigorous play e.g. play fighting or wrestling
8 Locomotor e.g. running around – but not as
part of a game with rules (for this,
code as co-op game)
9 Instrumental aggression verbal not in reaction to aggression by
peer, e.g. telling another student to
‘F*** off’ without provocation
10 Instrumental aggression not in reaction to aggression by
physical peer, e.g. pushing another student
without provocation
11 Social initiation by focal for instance, offers invitation to play
student chess
12 Reactive aggression verbal as above but in reaction to
aggression by peer
13 Reactive aggression physical as above but in reaction to
aggression by peer
14 Submissive/passive no retaliation, shows pain, cries,
submission, tries to leave
15 Acceptance of social initiation demonstrates positive social
by peer behaviour, either verbal (e.g. says
‘OK’) or physical (e.g. smiles), in
reaction to social initiation

418

Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012

 P E E R I N T E R AC T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S
Peer(s)
16 Social initiation by peer
17 Instrumental aggression verbal
18 Instrumental aggression
physical
19 Reactive aggression verbal
20 Reactive aggression physical
21 Submissive/passive
22 Acceptance of social initiation
by FS
Downloaded from aut.sagepub.com by guest on March 14, 2012
for instance, offers invitation to play
chess
not in reaction to aggression by
peer, e.g. telling focal student to
‘F*** off’ without provocation
not in reaction to aggression by
peer, e.g. pushing focal student
without provocation
as above but in reaction to
aggression by focal student
as above but in reaction to
aggression by focal student
no retaliation, shows pain, cries,
submission, tries to leave
demonstrates positive social
behaviour, either verbal (e.g. says
‘OK’) or physical (e.g. smiles) in
reaction to social initiation
419