Autism Spectrum

Autism Spectrum

© 2015 Chen et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0)
License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further
permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on
how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 2699–2709
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
2699
Origi n al R esearch
open access to scientific and medical research
Open Access Full Text Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S87844
Motivation for everyday social participation in
cognitively able individuals with autism spectrum
disorder
Yu-Wei Chen1
Anita C Bundy1
Reinie Cordier2
Yi-Ling Chien3
Stewart L Einfeld1,4
1
Faculty of Health Sciences, The
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW,
Australia; 2
School of Occupational
Therapy and Social Work, Faculty of
Health Sciences, Curtin University,
Perth, WA, Australia; 3
Department of
Psychiatry, National Taiwan University
Hospital and College of Medicine,
Taipei, Taiwan; 4
Brain and Mind
Research Institute, The University of
Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Objective: The purpose of the present study was to examine motivation for the contextual
nature of motivations for social participation in cognitively able adolescents and adults with
autism spectrum disorder, using self-determination theory as a theoretical framework.
Methods: Fourteen Australians and 16 Taiwanese (aged 16–45 years) with Asperger’s syndrome
and high functioning autism were asked to carry a device which prompted them seven times/day for
7 days, to record what they were doing, with whom, perceived difficulty and social reciprocity, and
the reasons for engaging in a situation, which were then coded into degree of self-determination.
Results: Multilevel analyses showed that participants were more likely to be self-determined
while engaging in “solitary/parallel leisure” and “social activities” than in other types of activities.
Interactions with “family members” and “casual/intimate friends” were also positively
associated with self-determined motivation. Further, participants were more likely to perceive
higher levels of being listened to during interaction with casual/intimate friends than in interaction
with other people. Global social anxiety served as a moderator for their perceptions of
difficulty and social reciprocity during social engagement.
Conclusion: The findings highlight the context-dependent motivations for social engagement
of cognitively able individuals with autism spectrum disorder.
Keywords: autism, real-life experience, social motivation, social interaction, ecological
momentary assessment
Introduction
Cognitively able adolescents and adults with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder
(ASD), such as those once diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome (AS) or high functioning
autism, commonly have restricted social participation as a result of social and communication
deficits.1–4 They frequently report social isolation and negative experiences
in social situations, which may influence their motivation for social engagement.
Whether individuals with ASD wish to engage socially (ie, possess social motivation)
is controversial. Theory and research examining this question is inconclusive and
the findings are at odds. The term “autism” is drawn from the Greek word, “autos”,
meaning “self”. The name was first applied to children who were socially isolated,
seemingly by choice. Thus, the popular belief that individuals with ASD lack the
motivation to engage socially. Recently, Chevallier et al proposed a social motivation
theory of autism, describing it as an extreme case of diminished social motivation.5
Other researchers studying social motivation concluded that children with ASD display
less desire for interaction than typically developing peers,6
a finding explicitly and
directly gleaned from asking participants to view pictures of people taken from the
side view and indicate whether they wanted to interact with those individuals.
Correspondence: Yu-Wei Chen
Faculty of Health Sciences, The University
of Sydney, 75 East Street, Lidcombe,
NSW 2141, Australia
Tel +61 2 9351 9798
Email yu-wei.chen@sydney.edu.au
Journal name: Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
Article Designation: Original Research
Year: 2015
Volume: 11
Running head verso: Chen et al
Running head recto: Motivation for social participation in ASD
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S87844
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2700
Chen et al
The results of other studies refute the poor social motivation
hypothesis. For example, Deckers et al asked children with
ASD to indicate whether they would like to get acquainted
with individuals presented in profile pictures of faces.6
If they
wanted to know a person, they pulled on a joystick and turned
the photo toward them. If they did not want to meet the person,
they pushed on the joystick which turned the picture away (ie,
Face Turn Approach-Avoidance Task).7
Unlike asking them
explicitly, using this implicit approach, Deckers et al found that
children with ASD were inclined to express a desire to approach
others. Other researchers8,9 have used electroencephalography
with cognitively able children with ASD, finding greater left
than right anterior cortical activity while at rest, a pattern associated
with a disposition to approach socially.10
A third hypothesis is that social motivation in individuals
with ASD is context dependent. That is, individuals are
motivated to engage socially in specific contexts and not in
others. For example, using experience sampling methodology
(ESM), Hintzen et al found that cognitively able adults
with ASD chose to spend more time with familiar people
than did adults without ASD.11 In addition, we found that
cognitively able adolescents and adults with ASD reported
enjoying everyday social situations when they were conversing
with friends compared with other people or being alone
(Chen et al, unpublished data, 2015).
Self-determination theory (SDT),12–14 which focuses on how
social contexts affect engagement, may help understand the
contextual nature of motivations for social interaction in people
with ASD. Instead of treating motivation as a unitary construct,
SDT addresses the orientation/type of motivation which concerns
the reasons or goals that give rise to an action.14 According
to SDT, motivations can be self-determined in situations that
individuals find compelling (ie, intrinsically motivated) or that
they think are good for them (ie, identified regulation). In contrast,
individuals sometimes perform behaviors to satisfy external
demands (ie, external regulation), or to avoid guilt or attain
recognition (ie, introjected regulation); both are extrinsically
motivated. However, amotivated behaviors occur in situations
where an individual lacks a reason for or an intention to act.
SDT suggests that orientation of motivation can be
predicted by the degree to which an action satisfies basic
psychological needs. Deci and Ryan described three basic
psychological needs inherent to all human beings:12 autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. Autonomy comprises feelings
of volition and self-ownership. Competence refers to the
experience of effectance and mastery. Relatedness is the need
to feel connected and experience reciprocal care and love.
Human needs play a mediating role between the actions
of individuals and the social context.12–14 Deci and Ryan
suggested that participation in a supportive social environment
is crucial to satisfaction of psychological needs; which, in turn,
facilitates self-determined behaviors and positive experiences.
Our previous findings that cognitively able adolescents and
young adults with ASD enjoyed social interactions with certain
contexts suggests that those interactions met basic needs.
In contrast, Whitehouse et al found that adolescents with AS
have little intrinsic motivation for establishing friendships,
probably because their needs are not met.15
The lack of clarity around the motivation for social participation
of adolescents and adults with ASD may, in part, reflect
differences in methodology. While we have used ESM16,17 to
explore social experiences in everyday contexts, most previous
researchers have used retrospective interview or global
self-rating scales. For example, Whitehouse et al15 used the
Friendship Motivation Questionnaire,18 which required participants
to indicate how true statements were of them. This
task is highly cognitive, requiring aggregation of experiences
over time.19 Retrospective responses are easily contaminated
by memory bias20 or by the emotional states elicited by
reflective questioning.19 More importantly, retrospective and
one-time reporting are divorced from real life contexts and
experiences of social participation. Thus, the low motivation
for social engagement identified by Whitehouse et al15 may
not truly reflect their social desires in everyday life.
ESM is an ecological momentary assessment used to
identify dynamic relationships between subjective experiences
and everyday contexts.19 ESM allows participants to
report their actions, momentary thoughts, and feelings in real
time, across natural settings and over a period of time. This
method enables to identify fluctuations in perceptions about
everyday experiences within a person.21 As such, it is suited
to capturing the variability inherent to the ASD population.
Unlike single-case studies, data collected with ESM can
be aggregated and analyzed at within- and between-person
levels simultaneously.21 In addition, compared with retrospective
approaches, data collected through ESM have greater
ecological validity and are less subject to recall or social
appropriateness bias.16,19 Further, ESM survey questions are
short, straightforward, and address only the immediate context,
which involves less cognitive demand than retrospective
methods. Recent research has established the validity and
usability of ESM with the ASD population.11,22–26
The purpose of the present study was to examine motivation
for social participation in everyday contexts among
cognitively able adolescents and adults with ASD. We used
SDT as a theoretical framework and ESM as a methodology.
To examine the extent to which the basic needs of competence
and relatedness were met in everyday social experiences, we
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2701
Motivation for social participation in ASD
investigated perceptions of difficulty and social reciprocity.
Given the heterogeneity of people with ASD and our
previous findings (Chen et al, unpublished data, 2015), we
examined severity of ASD symptomology and global social
anxiety as moderators of motivation for and perceptions of
everyday participation. In addition, because we had found
that Australian females with ASD are more socially active
than Australian males and Taiwanese people (Chen et al,
unpublished data, 2015), we also examined whether participant
group (Australian females vs other people) served as
a moderator.
Methods
The study had approval from the University of Sydney Human
Research Ethics Committee, the Autism Spectrum Australia
Research Approval Committee, and the Research Ethics
Committee of National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH).
All participants provided written consent, and parents provided
additional consent for participants younger than 18.
Because the study began prior to release of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 5th edition,27
we used DSM-IV criteria for ASD diagnosis.
Participants
Thirty-two individuals with AS or high functioning autism
agreed to participate: 14 Australians (four males) were
recruited via research flyers circulated around Australia
and 18 Taiwanese (14 males) were referred by psychiatrists
employed at NTUH. All individuals met the following inclusion
criteria: 1) a formal diagnosis from a psychiatrist or
psychologist using the DSM-IV criteria;3
2) aged between
16 and 45 years, and 3) having sufficient reading comprehension
to understand the surveys. Reading comprehension
of Australian participants was confirmed by standard
scores of $85 on the Reading Comprehension Subtest of
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-3rd edition.28 Because
there are no equivalent reading assessments for Taiwanese
adults, the reading comprehension of Taiwanese participants
was confirmed by a verbal intelligence quotient $70 on the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV.29 No participants had
a diagnosis of intellectual disability, neurological or other
developmental disorders (eg, cerebral palsy).
In order for their data to be included, participants had to
have completed at least 17 of 49 surveys (.33%) in accordance
with suggestions from previous researchers.30 Data from two
Taiwanese males were excluded from the final sample.
One discontinued participation after encountering technical
issues with the iOS device. The second completed only 15
surveys in 7 days; the minimum requirement was 17 surveys
(see Procedure). Thus, the final sample included data from
14 Australians (four males; aged 16–43 years [mean =24.8,
standard deviation {SD} =9.0]) and 16 Taiwanese (12 males;
aged 19–45 years [mean =27.8, SD =6.3]).
In the final sample, the main diagnosis was AS (n=12
[86%] in the Australian group and n=13 [81%] in the
Taiwanese group; Table 1). Half of the Australian participants
Table 1 Characteristics of individuals with autism spectrum
disorder (ASD)
Characteristicsa Australia
(n=14)
Taiwan
(n=16)
Sex
Male
Female
4 (28.6)
10 (71.4)
12 (75.0)
4 (25.0)
ASD diagnosis
HFA
AS
2 (14.3)
12 (85.7)
3 (18.8)
13 (81.3)
Comorbid diagnoses
ADHD
Depression
Anxiety
OCD
Depression and anxiety
Depression and anxiety and OCD
1 (7.1)
1 (7.1)
1 (7.1)
0
3 (21.4)
1 (7.1)
2 (12.5)
0
0
2 (12.5)
0
0
Age in years 24.8 (9.0) 27.8 (6.3)
Total standard scores of SRS 77.7 (6.5) 70.6 (8.7)
Total raw scores of SIAS 46.0 (14.2) 44.1 (17.3)
Reading comprehension abilities
(standard scores)b
107.3 (9.4) 106.2 (13.1)
Living status
Alone
With partner/children
With parents/siblings
With others
2 (14.3)
3 (21.4)
6 (42.9)
3 (21.4)
1 (6.3)
0
15 (93.8)
0
Relationship status
Single
Boyfriend/girlfriend
Partner/married
Separated/divorced
Other
9 (64.3)
1 (7.1)
3 (21.4)
0
1 (7.1)
12 (75.0)
3 (18.8)
0
1 (6.3)
0
Completed education level
High school
Certificate
Diploma
Associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
4 (28.6)
5 (35.7)
2 (14.3)
0
1 (7.1)
2 (14.3)
4 (25.0)
0
0
1 (6.3)
9 (56.3)
2 (12.5)
Current employment/education status
Student
Unemployed
Part-time
Full-time
Volunteer work
7 (50.0)
1 (7.1)
2 (14.3)
3 (21.4)
1 (7.1)
4 (25.0)
7 (43.8)
1 (6.3)
4 (25.0)
0
Notes: a
Count (%) for categorical data, mean (standard deviation) for continuous
data. bMeasured by Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-3rd Edition for Australian
participants and a verbal IQ for Taiwanese sample.
Abbreviations: HFA, high-functioning autism; AS, Asperger’s syndrome; ADHD,
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCD, obsessive–compulsive disorder; SRS, Social
Responsiveness Scale; SIAS, Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; IQ, intelligence quotient.
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2702
Chen et al
and a quarter of the Taiwanese participants had concomitant
mental health diagnoses (eg, attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, depression, anxiety, obsessive–compulsive disorder).
Regarding current education and employment status,
seven (50%) Australians and four (25%) Taiwanese were still
students. One (7%) Australian and seven (44%) Taiwanese
were unemployed.
ESM
We developed an ESM survey to explore what participants
were doing (everyday activities, Figure 1 for options) and
who they were communicating with (social interaction conditions,
Figure 2 for options). Each time they were signaled,
participants chose the main activity in which they were
engaged and as many social partners as were relevant. They
indicated why they were doing the activity (from a list) and
their experiences of: a) difficulty of activity engagement, and
b) social reciprocity during interactions. Social reciprocity
included questions about being listened to (do you think
they were really listening to what you had to say?) and caring
about others (did you care about what they were doing/
saying?). Participants responded “yes” or “no” to perceived
difficulty and from “0” (not at all) to “10” (very much) for
perceived social reciprocity. The ESM survey was loaded to
the Participation in Everyday Life Survey Application (PIEL
App), an ESM platform designed for iOS devices.31 The PIEL
App prompted participants to complete the ESM surveys,
time stamped the responses, and stored the data.
Measures of ASD severity and global
social anxiety
The Social Responsiveness Scale – Second Edition (SRS-2)32
was used to evaluate the severity of ASD symptoms. In
Taiwan, the Chinese version of SRS33 was used. The SRS-2
is a parent/teacher-report or self-report questionnaire for
individuals 2.5 years or older. In this study, participants
who were aged 19 years and above completed the “selfreport
version”. Parents of younger participants under 19
completed the “school-age version”. The SRS-2 comprises
65 items organized into five subscales: social awareness,
social cognition, social communication, social motivation,
and restricted interests and repetitive behaviors. Items are
rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (not true), to 3 (almost
always true). Total standard scores of 60 or higher are clinically
significant and indicate deficiencies in social reciprocal
behavior that may interfere with everyday social interactions.
The SRS-2 has evidence of sound psychometric properties
when used with adults.32,34
To evaluate the severity of global social anxiety in
Australian and Taiwanese participants, the Social Interaction
Anxiety Scale (SIAS)35 and the Chinese version of the
SIAS36 were used. The 20-item self-report scale measures
experiences in social situations associated with social anxiety
according to DSM-IV criteria.3
Participants rated the items
using a 5-point scale (0= “not at all characteristic of me” to
4= “extremely characteristic of me”). Higher total scores indicate
greater levels of social anxiety. The SIAS and Chinese
version of the SIAS have good evidence of reliability and
validity across clinical and community populations.35,36
Procedure
We provided participants with an iPod Touch or delivered
the PIEL App to their iOS device (ie, iPod Touch or iPhone).
We conducted a 30- to 60-minute individual training session
with each participant on the use of the PIEL App
and the iOS device. The training was held at a university
campus, outpatient clinic of the hospital or a quiet public
place (eg, a library). During the training, participants also
completed the SIAS and the SRS-2. Parents of participants
under 19 received the school-age version of SRS-2 by mail.
Australian participants took the Woodcock Reading Mastery
Test-3rd edition to ensure reading comprehension ability.
Following training, participants carried the device for
7 consecutive days. The device prompted participants seven
times each day at random intervals to respond to the same ESM
survey. Each participant determined the available hours for
sampling time by identifying their waking hours. They were
instructed to answer as many surveys as possible but to ignore
signals that occurred at inconvenient times (eg, when bathing).
The survey became dormant if participants did not respond to
a prompt within 2 minutes. Participants were encouraged to
contact the first author directly if they required assistance.
Data analysis
We plotted the data for descriptive analysis. We coded activities
into five types: “non-activity”, “productivity”, “solitary/
parallel leisure”, “social activities”, and “self-care” (Figure 1
for types). We coded reasons for engaging in activities into
five levels based on degree of self-determination drawn
from SDT:12 a) intrinsic motivation (I like it), b) three levels
of extrinsic motivation: identified regulation (I am doing it
for my own good); introjected regulation (I want people to
like me; I want to look occupied), and external regulation
(I have to), and c) amotivation (It’s just a habit; nothing else
to do). For each participant, we calculated the proportion of
each motivation associated with each activity and interaction
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2703
Motivation for social participation in ASD
3DUWFOXEELQJVRFLDOL]LQJ
7DONLQJWH[WLQJSKRQH
(OHFWURQLFJDPHV
5XQQLQJMRJJLQJILWQHVVVSRUW
79ILOP
5HDGLQJZULWLQJPXVLFZHE
+RPHFKRUHV
&ODVVZRUNPHHWLQJ
6KRSSLQJ
3HUVRQDOFDUH
(DWLQJ
2EVHUYLQJSHRSOHDFWLYLW
‘RLQJQRWKLQJUHVWLQJ
1RQDFWLYLW
6HOIFDUH
3URGXFWLYLW
6ROLWDUSDUDOOHO
OHLVXUH
6RFLDODFWLYLWLHV

0HDQSURSRUWLRQLQHDFKDFWLYLW

,QWULQVLFPRWLYDWLRQ ,GHQWLILHGUHJXODWLRQ ,QWURMHFWHGUHJXODWLRQ ([WHUQDOUHJXODWLRQ $PRWLYDWLRQ
Figure 1 Motivation for engagement in everyday activities.
with different people. We also calculated the proportion of
perceived difficulty and overall means of social reciprocity
associated with each activity and interaction, respectively.
Prior to calculating overall means, we centered each participant’s
ratings at his or her mean to account for individual
differences.
ESM data have a hierarchical structure with multiple
surveys (Level 1) nested within data from each participant
(Level 2). We performed multilevel analyses to examine
how motivation and perceptions were associated with
everyday participation. Given that multilevel analysis takes
into account the dependency of the surveys from the same
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2704
Chen et al
6LEOLQJV
3DUHQWVJUDQGSDUHQWV
)ULHQGV
3DUWQHUERIULHQGJLUOIULHQG
&ODVVPDWHVFROOHDJXHV
&XVWRPHUVFOLHQWV
7HDFKHUFRDFKERVVWKHUDSLVW
3HRSOHDWVFKRRO
ZRUN
&DVXDOLQWLPDWH
IULHQGV
)DPLOPHPEHUV

0HDQSURSRUWLRQLQHDFKVRFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQ
VWDWH

,QWULQVLFPRWLYDWLRQ ,GHQWLILHGUHJXODWLRQ ,QWURMHFWHGUHJXODWLRQ ([WHUQDOUHJXODWLRQ $PRWLYDWLRQ
Figure 2 Motivation for interaction with people.
participant,37,38 the method is preferred over the conventional
ordinary least squares approaches for ESM data.39,40 In addition,
multilevel analysis allows examination of relationships
between variables at different levels and also accounts for
potential moderating effects of Level 2 variables on the
relationships of Level 1 variables.37,38 Previous researchers
suggested a minimum Level 2 sample size of 30 to achieve
sufficient power.41,42
We examined associations between everyday activities
and the dependent variables, “degree of self-determination”
and “perceived difficulty”, in two multilevel logistic
analyses. In each analysis, “non-activity”, “productivity”,
“solitary/parallel leisure”, and “social activities” were the
Level 1 independent variables and “self-care” was the
reference. To examine source of motivation as a dependent
variable in multilevel logistic analysis, the five motivation
levels were coded as “relatively self-determined” (intrinsic
motivation, identified regulation) or “relatively externally
determined” (introjected regulation, external regulation,
amotivation); the “relatively externally determined” was
the reference.
To examine perceived social reciprocity, we conducted
two multilevel linear analyses with “being listened to” and
“caring about others” as continuous dependent variables.
Because participants were able to select multiple social
partners in a single interaction, we coded each social partner
as a binary (yes/no) variable: “no one”, “family members”,
“casual/intimate friends”, or “people at school/work”. All
the four types of social partners were included as Level 1
independent variables in the analysis of motivation. The
analyses of perceived social reciprocity included only three
independent variables: “family members”, “casual/intimate
friends”, and “people at school/work” because social
reciprocity requires the presence of a social partner.
In each multilevel analysis, we simultaneously analyzed
individual characteristics as Level 2 independent variables to
examine their associations with motivation and perceived social
reciprocity. These variables were severity of ASD (ie, total
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2705
Motivation for social participation in ASD
standard scores of SRS-2), severity of global social anxiety
(ie, total raw scores of SIAS), and participant group (Australian
females vs other participants). SRS-2 and SIAS data were grand
mean centered for comparisons across participants.37,38
To examine potential moderating effects of individual
characteristics (severity of ASD, global social anxiety, and
participant group), we added the interactions between Level 1
and Level 2 independent variables to the original multilevel
analyses. These additional analyses helped identify whether
the Level 2 independent variables moderated the relationships
between Level 1 independent and dependent variables.
To reduce model complexity and maximize stability, we
removed cross-level interactions which showed no significant
relationships to the dependent variable when establishing
the final model.37,38
We used Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling
(HLM 6.08) software43 to perform the multilevel analyses.
Associations between independent and dependent variables
were evaluated through the estimation of the odds ratios
(ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs)
for the multilevel logistic analysis, and a fixed regression
coefficient (β) and standard errors for the multilevel linear
analysis. Significance in cross-level interaction indicates a
significant moderating effect of a Level 2 independent variable
on the relationship between Level 1 independent and
dependent variables.
Results
Participants completed an average of 38, of a possible 49
(average response rates: 77.6%), ESM surveys (SD =7,
range =23–49), providing a total of 1,131 surveys. Overall,
participants spent the majority of time engaging in activities
related to “solitary/parallel leisure” (42.4%), followed by
25.0% in “productivity” (ie, home chores and class, work
or meeting), and 12.2% in “non-activity”. They engaged
infrequently (10.8%) in “social activities” and they did not
interact with another person most of the time (71.6%). “Casual
friends/an intimate friend” (11.4%) were the ones they mainly
interact with when they engaged in conversation.
Figure 1 shows that participants were most frequently
intrinsically motivated to engage in social and solitary/
parallel leisure activities, except running/jogging/fitness/
sport where the behaviors were identified as regulated.
Conversely, participants were frequently externally regulated
(the least autonomous response) when they engaged in selfcare
and productive activities. However, participants seldom
perceived everyday activities as difficult. They described
“productive activities” as difficult only 16.3% of the time,
“social activities” 15.5% of the time, and “self-care” 10.5%
of the time.
Figure 2 shows that participants were intrinsically motivated
to interact with family members and casual/intimate
friends. However, they frequently perceived interaction with
people at school/work as externally regulated. In terms of
perceived social reciprocity, participants perceived relatively
high levels of being listened to while interacting with family
members (mean [M] =0.313, SD =1.139) and casual/intimate
friends (M =0.281, SD =0.753) compared with people at
school/work (M =0.004, SD =0.804). Further, they cared
more about family members (M =0.345, SD =0.876) and
casual/intimate friends (M =-0.035, SD =0.985) than people
at school/work (M =-0.305, SD =0.736).
Relationships of motivation and
perception of difficulty with everyday
activities
Table 2 summarizes the results of the multilevel analyses of
motivation and perceived difficulty of activities. Participants
Table 2 Multilevel logistic analyses of self-determined motivation and perception of difficulty during the engagement in everyday
activities (N=30, number of surveys =1,131)
Variables Self-determined motivation Perception of difficulty
OR (95% CI) P-value OR (95% CI) P-value
Level 1
Types of activity (vs self-care)
Non-activity 1.24 (0.67–2.31) 0.50 0.52 (0.16–1.74) 0.29
Productivity 0.58 (0.33–1.04) 0.07 2.47 (1.01–6.06) ,0.05*
Solitary/parallel leisure 4.15 (2.41–7.15) ,0.01** 0.80 (0.32–2.00) 0.62
Social activity 2.11 (1.10–4.08) ,0.05* 2.45 (0.93–6.44) 0.07
Level 2
ASD severity 1.05 (0.95–1.17) 0.34 1.10 (0.97–1.26) 0.15
Severity of global social anxiety 0.96 (0.91–1.01) 0.13 1.01 (0.95–1.07) 0.75
Australian females (vs others) 0.56 (0.14–2.35) 0.42 2.58 (0.57–11.83) 0.21
Notes: *P,0.05; **P,0.01.
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ASD, autism spectrum disorder.
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2706
Chen et al
were more likely to be self-determined while engaging in
“solitary/parallel leisure” and “social activities” than in other
activities. However, Australian females displayed a weak
relationship between self-determined motivation and solitary/
parallel leisure (OR =0.44, 95% CI =0.22–0.89). Regarding
perceived difficulty, participants were more likely to report productive
activities as difficult than other activities. Participants
with higher levels of global social anxiety had stronger
relationships between perceived difficulty and engagement
in productive activities (OR =1.05, 95% CI =1.01–1.09) and
social activities (OR =1.08, 95% CI =1.03–1.14).
Relationships between motivation and
perceived social reciprocity and types of
social interaction
Multilevel analyses in Table 3 showed that participants were
more likely to be self-determined while interacting with family
members and casual/intimate friends than with other social
partners. Further, they were more likely to perceive higher
levels of being listened to during interaction with casual/
intimate friends. Upon close inspection, global social anxiety
moderated the relationship between thought of caring about
others and interaction with casual/intimate friends (β=-0.10,
standard error =0.02, P,0.01). That is, participants with higher
levels of global social anxiety were less likely to care about
casual/intimate friends while interacting with them.
Discussion
We explored the motivation for social engagement in
everyday contexts among cognitively able adolescents and
adults with ASD through the lens of SDT, using ESM as
a methodology. We investigated the controversy whether
cognitively able adolescents and adults with ASD desire
to engage socially. Three possible perspectives have been
proposed: they prefer not to engage socially;5,6 they wish to
engage socially but express that desire more implicitly than
explicitly;6,8,9 and the desire for social engagement is context
specific as suggested by SDT.12–14 Our findings support the
latter view.
In line with SDT,12,14 the results suggest that cognitively
able adolescents and adults with ASD were motivated to
interact in situations where they felt competent and experienced
social reciprocity. Specifically, they were motivated
to engage in social activities where they did not experience
significant difficulty. Further, cognitively able adolescents and
adults with ASD were motivated to interact with friends and
perceived their friends as listening to them during interactions.
These findings indicate that social activities and interactions
with friends are the everyday contexts that support basic
psychological needs and facilitate motivation for engagement.
Consequently, they reported enjoying these social situations
(Chen et al, unpublished data, 2015). Thus, our findings highlight
the importance of context when exploring motivation
for, and perceptions of, everyday social participation.
Perceiving the social contexts of interaction with friends
as being listened to may reflect how cognitively able adolescents
and adults with ASD characterize friendship. Our
findings are similar to those of Howard et al44 who found
that adolescents with ASD defined a friend as a person who
provides care and responds to needs. These findings suggest
Table 3 Multilevel analyses of the self-determined motivation and perceptions of social reciprocity while interacting with different
people
Variables Multilevel logistic analysis
(N=30, number of
surveys =1,131)
Multilevel linear analysesa
(N=27, number of surveys =316)
Self-determined motivation Being listened to Caring about others
OR (95% CI) P-value Coefficient (SE) P-value Coefficient (SE) P-value
Level 1
Social interaction situation
No one 1.89 (0.95–3.81) 0.71
With family members 2.62 (1.13–6.06) ,0.05* 0.58 (0.45) 0.21 0.41 (0.47) 0.38
With casual/intimate friends 4.17 (2.10–8.31) ,0.01** 1.24 (0.36) ,0.05* 0.69 (0.37) 0.06
With people at school/work 1.17 (0.54–2.53) 0.70 0.56 (0.41) 0.18 0.05 (0.43) 0.91
Level 2
ASD severity 1.05 (0.96–1.15) 0.32 0.04 (0.06) 0.47 0.78 (0.66) 0.25
Severity of global social anxiety 0.96 (0.92–1.01) 0.09 -0.02 (0.03) 0.40 0.05 (0.05) 0.39
Australian females (vs others) 0.38 (0.11–1.29) 0.12 0.48 (0.73) 0.52 -0.01 (0.02) 0.59
Notes: a
Three Taiwanese male participants were excluded from the analyses as they did not interact with other people during the sampling period. *P,0.05; **P,0.01.
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ASD, autism spectrum disorder; SE, standard error.
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2707
Motivation for social participation in ASD
that, whereas children consider friendships in terms of
companionship,45 adolescents and adults value the affective
components of friendship.
In addition to the impact of context, our findings suggest
that global social anxiety, an individual characteristic,
influences perceptions of competence and social reciprocity
in social interactions. Individuals with higher global social
anxiety were more likely to perceive social activities as
difficult than those with lower levels of social anxiety. This
finding may suggest that cognitively able individuals with
ASD who concurrently have social anxiety may be more
self-aware of their social difficulties than those without social
anxiety.46 The association between perception of difficulty
in social activities and social anxiety may explain our previous
finding of a negative relationship between time spent in
social situations and severity of social anxiety (Chen et al,
unpublished data, 2015).
In contrast to our current findings, other researchers15
have identified that adolescents with AS are not intrinsically
motivated to develop friendships. In addition to the difference
in methodology used, the discrepancy in the findings
may be explained by the extent to which basic needs to feel
competent and related are met at different stages of a social
interaction. When our participants responded to a signal
from the iOS device and indicated that they were already
engaged in a social interaction with a trusted friend or
partner – someone with whom the participant had already
established a relationship. Other researchers, however, have
described difficulty with the initiation of social interactions
and establishing friendships,4
which may reflect a gap
between social demands and their beliefs about their social
skills.47,48 Conscious awareness of being “different” and fear
of being “excluded” may contribute to reduced feelings of
relatedness;4
which, in turn, may result in fewer attempts
at initiating everyday social interactions.11,49,50 Presumably,
friendships develop out of a motivation to engage with others;
if motivation is low because of unmet basic needs, then
friendships will not follow. However, clearly our participants
managed to establish some valued friendships.
We did not find a significant relationship between interacting
with friends and caring about what they were thinking
or doing. This may reflect a core characteristic of ASD: a lack
of social reciprocity.3
Deficits in understanding social or
emotional cues of others and considering others’ perspectives
may influence willingness to care about others.51,52 Although
our participants nominated friends, further research is
required to investigate the meaning and true nature of their
friendships.
Limitations in this study design require consideration
when interpreting the findings. First, we did not recruit
neurotypical adolescents and adults because the purpose of
the study was to explore the motivation for social engagement
and identify individual characteristics related to motivation
and needs satisfaction among individuals with ASD. Thus,
we do not know how the experiences of our participants
compare with those of neurotypical adolescents and adults.
Further, because of the relatively low incidence of cognitively
able adolescents and adults with autism, our participants
represented a wide age range. Therefore, the effect of differences
in developmental stage on our findings is unknown.
Further research in these areas is required. Second, due to
different recruitment procedures, we were unable to match
the number of males and females in Australia and Taiwan.
We had more female participants in Australia, probably due
to their interest and willingness to volunteer.16 Nonetheless,
we did not find differences between groups as a function of
nationality. Further, the results align with the findings of
previous researchers. Finally, half of the participants from
Australia and a quarter of those from Taiwan had comorbid
mental health diagnoses. Because of the relatively small
sample size, we were not able to take into account the effects
of additional diagnoses or medications on social experience.
Further research is needed to examine the effects of
comorbidities and compare the findings with neurotypical
adolescents and adults. While the application of multilevel
analysis may offset the unequal numbers of male and female
participants in the two countries,37 a larger sample size is
required before the findings can be generalized.
Conclusion
Our findings highlight several important considerations for
research and practice. Exploring in-the-moment experiences
may provide contextually accurate and detailed information
to facilitate intervention to enhance social participation of
cognitively able adolescents and adults with ASD. Although
our participants were motivated and did not perceive significant
difficulty while being engaged socially, they still
spent limited time in social situations. Researchers and
professionals may need to consider ways to improve social
skills and enhance perceived competence for initiating
social interactions. Perceived challenges with initiating
social interaction may be the result of previous experiences
(eg, being excluded). Given that severity of social anxiety
was often associated with perceptions of social engagement,
strategies targeting social anxiety management should be
incorporated into interventions. Because cognitively able
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2708
Chen et al
adolescents and adults with ASD were motivated to interact
with friends, service providers and researchers may need to
consider incorporating peers in intervention and promoting
friendship as an important intervention outcome.
Acknowledgments
The study was completed by the first author as part of the
requirements for the completion of PhD under supervision of
the second, third, and fifth authors. The authors would like to
acknowledge the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of
Sydney for the awarding of Mary Frances Stephens Scholarship
and Postgraduate Research Support Scheme. This
study was supported by National Science Council (NSC102-
2314-B-002-019) and National Taiwan University Hospital
(NTUH101-M2004), Taiwan. The authors thank Prof Susan
Shur-Fen Gau and Prof Shu-Hui Chen for their permission
to use the Chinese version of Social Responsiveness Scale
and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. The authors also
thank the people who participated in the research, National
Taiwan University Hospital, Autism Spectrum Australia
(Aspect), and other autism related associations in Australia
for assistance in research advertisement and recruitment.
The authors are grateful to Ms Sarah Wilkes-Gillan for help
with editing.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
1. Howlin P, Mawhood L, Rutter M. Autism and developmental receptive
language disorder – a follow-up comparison in early adult life. II: Social,
behavioural, and psychiatric outcomes. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.
2000;41(5):561–578.
2. Shattuck PT, Seltzer MM, Greenberg JS, et al. Change in autism symptoms
and maladaptive behaviors in adolescents and adults with an autism
spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37(9):1735–1747.
3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual
of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association; 2000.
4. Müller E, Schuler A, Yates GB. Social challenges and supports from the
perspective of individuals with Asperger syndrome and other autism
spectrum disabilities. Autism. 2008;12(2):173–190.
5. Chevallier C, Kohls G, Troiani V, Brodkin ES, Schultz RT. The social
motivation theory of autism. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16(4):231–239.
6. Deckers A, Roelofs J, Muris P, Rinck M. Desire for social interaction in
children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Specttrum
Disorders. 2014;8(4):449–453.
7. Voncken M, Rinck M, Deckers A, Lange WG. Anticipation of social
interaction changes implicit approach-avoidance behavior of socially
anxious individuals. Cognitive Ther Res. 2012;36(6):740–749.
8. Burnette CP, Henderson HA, Inge AP, Zahka NE, Schwartz CB,
Mundy PC. Anterior EEG asymmetry and the modifier model of autism.
J Autism Dev Disord. 2011;41(8):1113–1124.
9. Sutton SK, Burnette CP, Mundy PC, et al. Resting cortical brain activity
and social behavior in higher functioning children with autism. J Child
Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46(2):211–222.
10. Davidson RJ. Anxiety and affective style: Role of prefrontal cortex and
amygdala. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51(1):68–80.
11. Hintzen A, Delespaul P, van Os J, Myin-Germeys I. Social needs in
daily life in adults with pervasive developmental disorders. Psychiatry
Res. 2010;179(1):75–80.
12. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry.
2000;11(4):227–268.
13. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of
human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology.
2008;49(3):182–185.
14. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol.
2000;55(1):68–78.
15. Whitehouse AJO, Durkin K, Jaquet E, Ziatas K. Friendship, loneliness
and depression in adolescents with Asperger’s Syndrome. J Adolesc.
2009;32(2):309–322.
16. Hektner JM, Schmidt JA, Csikszentmihalyi M. Experience sampling
method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc; 2007.
17. Csikszentmihalyi M, Larson RW. Being adolescent: Conflict and growth
in the teenage years. New York: Basic Books; 1984.
18. Richard JF, Schneider BH. Assessing friendship motivation during
preadolescence and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence.
2005;25(3):367–385.
19. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1–32.
20. Tourangeau R. Remembering what happened: Memory errors and
survey reports. In: Stone AA, Turkkan JS, Bachrach CA, Jobe JB,
Kurtzman H.S, Cain VS, editors. The science of self-report: Implications
for research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999:29–47.
21. Conner TS, Tennen H, Fleeson W, Barrett LF. Experience sampling
methods: A modern idiographic approach to personality research.
Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2009;3(3):292–313.
22. Chen YW, Bundy A, Cordier R, Einfeld S. Feasibility and usability
of experience sampling methodology for capturing everyday experiences
of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Disabil Health J.
2014;7(3):361–366.
23. Chen YW, Cordier R, Brown N. A preliminary study on the reliability
and validity of using experience sampling method in children with
autism spectrum disorders. Dev Neurorehabil. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
24. Khor AS, Gray KM, Reid SC, Melvin GA. Feasibility and validity of
ecological momentary assessment in adolescents with high-functioning
autism and Asperger’s disorder. J Adolesc. 2014;37(1):37–46.
25. Cordier R, Brown N, Chen YW, Wilkes-Gillan S, Falkmer T. Piloting
the use of experience sampling method to investigate the everyday
social experiences of children with Asperger syndrome/high functioning
autism. Dev Neurorehabil. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
26. Hare DJ, Wood C, Wastell S, Skirrow P. Anxiety in Asperger’s syndrome:
Assessment in real time. Autism. 2015;19(5):542–552.
27. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual
of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association; 2013.
28. Woodcock RW. Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Third Edition
(WRMT-III). San Antonio, TX Pearson Education, Inc.; 2011.
29. Wechsler D. WAIS-IV Administration and Scoring Manual. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2008.
30. Myin-Germeys I, Nicolson NA, Delespaul PA. The context of delusional
experiences in the daily life of patients with schizophrenia. Psychol
Med. 2001;31(3):489–498.
31. The University of Sydney; 2012. Manual of PIEL Survey Application.
[Mobile app]. Available from: http://pielsurvey.org/. Accessed January
20, 2014.
32. Constantino JN, Gruber CP. Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition
(SRS-2). Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services; 2012.
33. Gau SS, Liu LT, Wu YY, Chiu YN, Tsai WC. Psychometric properties
of the Chinese version of the Social Responsiveness Scale. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2013;7(2):349–360.
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
Publish your work in this journal
Submit your manuscript here: http://www.dovepress.com/neuropsychiatric-disease-and-treatment-journal
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment is an international, peerreviewed
journal of clinical therapeutics and pharmacology focusing
on concise rapid reporting of clinical or pre-clinical studies on a
range of neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders. This journal
is indexed on PubMed Central, the ‘PsycINFO’ database and CAS,
and is the official journal of The International Neuropsychiatric
Association (INA). The manuscript management system is completely
online and includes a very quick and fair peer-review system, which
is all easy to use. Visit http://www.dovepress.com/testimonials.php to
read real quotes from published authors.
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
Dovepress
2709
Motivation for social participation in ASD
34. Bölte S. Brief Report: The Social Responsiveness Scale for Adults
(SRS-A): Initial results in a German cohort. J Autism Dev Dis. 2012;
42(9):1998–1999.
35. Mattick RP, Clarke JC. Development and validation of measures of social
phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav Res Ther.
1998;36(4):455–470.
36. Yang JF. The relations of social anxiety, Internet social anxiety and
characteristics of the Internet [master’s thesis]. Taiwan: Department
of Psychology, National Taiwan University; 2003.
37. Hox J. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York:
Routledge; 2010.
38. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd;
2012.
39. Schwartz JE, Stone AA. Strategies for analyzing ecological momentary
assessment data. Health Psychol. 1998;17(1):6–16.
40. Fleeson W. Studying personality processes: Explaining change in
between-persons longitudinal and within-person multilevel models. In:
Robins RW, Fraley RC, Krueger RF, editors. Handbook of research
methods in personality psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press;
2007:523–542.
41. Scherbaum CA, Ferreter JM. Estimating statistical power and required
sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling.
Organ Res Methods. 2009;12(2):347–367.
42. Maas CJ, Hox JJ. Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis.
Stat Neerl. 2004;58(2):127–137.
43. Raudenbush SW, Bryk A, Cheong YF, Congdon R, du Toit M.
HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood,
IL: Scientific Software International, Inc; 2011.
44. Howard B, Cohn E, Orsmond G. Understanding and negotiating friendships:
Perspectives from an adolescent with Asperger syndrome. Autism.
2006;10(6):619–627.
45. Calder L, Hill V, Pellicano E. ‘Sometimes I want to play by myself’:
Understanding what friendship means to children with autism in mainstream
primary schools. Autism. 2013;17(3):296–316.
46. Mazurek MO, Kanne SM. Friendship and internalizing symptoms
among children and adolescents with ASD. J Autism Dev Disord. 2010;
40(12):1512–1520.
47. Capps L, Sigman M, Yirmiya N. Self-competence and emotional understanding
in high-functioning children with autism. Dev Psychopathol.
1995;7(1):137–149.
48. Vickerstaff S, Heriot S, Wong M, Lopes A, Dossetor D. Intellectual
ability, self-perceived social competence, and depressive symptomatology
in children with high-functioning autistic spectrum disorders.
J Autism Dev Dis. 2007;37(9):1647–1664.
49. Orsmond GI, Kuo HY. The daily lives of adolescents with an autism
spectrum disorder. Autism. 2011;15(5):579–599.
50. Shattuck PT, Orsmond GI, Wagner M, Cooper BP. Participation in
social activities among adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder.
PloS One. 2011;6(11):e27176.
51. Baron-Cohen S. The autistic child’s theory of mind: A case of specific
developmental delay. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1989;30(2):285–297.
52. Baron-Cohen S, Jolliffe T, Mortimore C, Robertson M. Another
advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from very high functioning
adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.
1997;38(7):813–822.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/282278165
Self-Presentation and the Role of Perspective
Taking and Social Motivation in Autism
Spectrum Disorder
ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS · SEPTEMBER 2015
Impact Factor: 3.06 · DOI: 10.1007/s10803-015-2610-7
READS
37
4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Anke M Scheeren
University of Amsterdam
21 PUBLICATIONS 112 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Hans M Koot
VU University Amsterdam
279 PUBLICATIONS 6,750 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Sander Begeer
VU University Amsterdam
70 PUBLICATIONS 499 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting you access and read them immediately.
Available from: Sander Begeer
Retrieved on: 30 October 2015
ORIGINAL PAPER
Self-Presentation and the Role of Perspective Taking and Social
Motivation in Autism Spectrum Disorder
Anke M. Scheeren1,2 • Robin Banerjee3 • Hans M. Koot2 • Sander Begeer2
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract We compared self-presentation abilities of 132
children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders
(ASD) to those of 41 typically developing (TD) peers, and
examined the potential link with their social motivation and
perspective taking. Participants introduced themselves to
an interviewer in a baseline condition (without incentive)
and a self-promotion condition (with incentive). Children
with ASD (6–12 years) were just as likely as or even more
likely than TD children to highlight personal characteristics
that would increase their chances of obtaining the incentive.
Thus, they were strategic in their self-presentation.
However, adolescents with ASD (12–19 years) were less
strategic than TD adolescents as well as children with
ASD. We discuss the role of social motivation and perspective
taking in children’s self-presentation.
Keywords Autism Self-presentation Adolescents
Social motivation Theory of mind
Introduction
Self-presentation is an effort to shape others’ perceptions
of ourselves (Levine and Feldman 1997), and is a key
aspect of everyday social behavior (Leary and Kowalski
1990). As Baumeister and Leary (1995) put it, all human
beings have ‘a need to belong’ and therefore we engage in
behaviors, such as self-presentation, that will promote our
chances of social belonging. A successful self-presentation
likely relies on both the motivation to make a good
impression (Leary and Kowalski 1990) and the ability to
imagine what kind of information the other person would
like to hear. Many children with an autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) show limitations in their social motivation
(Chevallier et al. 2012a) and perspective taking skills
(Yirmiya et al. 1998). Based on these features, children
with ASD are expected to be limited in their self-presentation
skills. Empirical studies have indeed shown that
children with ASD are less strategic in the way they present
themselves compared to typically developing peers (Begeer
et al. 2008; Scheeren et al. 2010). However, these
studies relied on children’s responses to hypothetical situations
(Begeer et al. 2008) or included relatively small
samples (Scheeren et al. 2010). In the present study, we
examined the self-presentation abilities of a large sample of
children and adolescents with ASD in both hypothetical
and real social contexts and we evaluated the role of
children’s social motivation and perspective taking skills.
In typical development, children can adjust their selfpresentation
to audience preferences from 8 years onwards
(Aloise-Young 1993; Banerjee 2002). When informed that
they may be selected for a prize-winning game based on
their self-description typically developing (TD) children
highlight their positive attributes and game-related abilities.
In a study by Begeer et al. (2008) children with ASD
& Anke M. Scheeren
ankescheeren@gmail.com
1 Present Address: Department of Psychology, Dutch Autism
and ADHD Research Center, University of Amsterdam,
Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Developmental Psychology, VU University
Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
3 School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Pevensey
Building, Falmer BN1 9QH, UK
123
J Autism Dev Disord
DOI 10.1007/s10803-015-2610-7
(6–12 years) also increased in positive statements about
themselves, yet these statements were less related to their
abilities or preferences in playing games. These findings
suggest that children with ASD can be motivated to adjust
their self-presentation, but they do so less strategically.
A limitation of the aforementioned study is that children’s
self-presentation abilities were based on their
responses to hypothetical scenarios. Children were
instructed to imagine that a camera crew came to their
school and interviewed them. The hypothetical nature of
the procedure may have been particularly disadvantageous
for children with ASD given their limited imaginative
abilities (Craig and Baron-Cohen 1999). Therefore,
Scheeren et al. (2010) expanded the experimental paradigm
by including social situations where the participant presents
him/herself directly to an interviewer. However,
regardless of the context, both children (6–10 years) and
adolescents (16–20 years) with ASD were found to be less
strategic in their self-presentation compared to TD
participants.
A reduced strategic self-presentation may stem from
limited perspective taking abilities. Yet, some participants
with ASD in the Scheeren et al. (2010) study explained that
they did know what kind of self-presentation was expected
from them, but they preferred to be veridical rather than
adhering to specific audience preferences. In other words,
their need to stay true to themselves sometimes overruled
their ‘need to belong’. A lack of social motivation thus
offers an additional explanation for reduced strategic selfpresentation
in ASD. This explanation agrees well with
recent findings of a reduced tendency of individuals with
ASD to manage their social reputation (Cage et al. 2013;
Izuma et al. 2011).
Even though social interactive abilities tend to improve
in adolescence in ASD (McGovern and Sigman 2005),
Scheeren et al. (2010) found children to outperform adolescents
with regard to strategic self-presentation. If selfpresentation
relies crucially on motivation, then highly
motivated children may be equally strategic or even more
strategic compared to poorly motivated adolescents. In the
present study we further explored the differences in selfpresentation
between children and adolescents with ASD.
We aimed to (a) replicate previous research findings on
self-presenting in ASD within a larger sample and (b) examine
the potential role of perspective taking skills and
social motivation in self-presentation.
In keeping with previous procedures, we tested selfpresentation
abilities in both real and hypothetical contexts.
In the real life context, participants with and without an
ASD diagnosis presented themselves to an interviewer in
two consecutive conditions: (1) a baseline condition without
an incentive, and (2) a self-promotion condition with
the possible prospect of entering a prize-winning game. A
more positive self-description in the self-promotion condition
compared to baseline reflects the fundamental ability
to adjust one’s self-presentation to reach a desired goal (in
this case a prize-winning game). A positive self-presentation
is considered strategic when those personal characteristics
are stressed that increase the likelihood that the
incentive will be obtained. In line with previous findings
we expected that children and adolescents with ASD would
increase their positive self-statements in the self-promotion
condition, but would use fewer strategic self-statements
than the comparison group. In the hypothetical context, all
participants described how they would introduce themselves
in a self-promotion situation. Again, we hypothesized
that participants with ASD would be less strategic
than the comparison group. Finally, we assessed children’s
ability to take others’ perspectives with a set of complex
social stories and we asked parents to rate their child’s
social motivation. Social motivation was defined as a
preference to be in the company of others rather than being
alone. We expected children’s perspective taking and
social motivation to be positively associated with their
ability to present themselves strategically to an audience,
both in the group with and without ASD.
Methods
Participants
In total 214 children and adolescents (183 boys; 31 girls)
with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and a normal
intellectual ability participated in this study. These participants
were recruited via a specialized school that only
admitted students with a clinical diagnosis of ASD and a
normal intellectual ability. All children were diagnosed by
an independent psychiatrist/psychologist prior to the current
study according to DSM-IV-TR criteria (APA 2000).
As a comparison group, 73 children and adolescents (62
boys; 11 girls) with a typical development were recruited
via regular primary and secondary schools.
Within the ASD group, 82 participants (38 %) were
excluded from the final analysis due to a receptive verbal
IQ-score below 70 based on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test-III-NL (Dunn and Dunn 2004; n = 4), incomplete
data of children’s self-presentation (n = 11),
receptive verbal IQ (n = 6), Theory of Mind (n = 9) or
social motivation (n = 41), or an unsuccessful task
manipulation as indicated by a lack of motivation to participate
in a prize-winning game (n = 11). Participants
with ASD who were included in the final analysis had a
significantly higher receptive verbal IQ compared to their
excluded counterparts (included: 105.9; excluded: 99.5;
t(206) = 3.34, p = .001), but groups were comparable
J Autism Dev Disord
123
with regard to age and parent-reported autistic symptom
ratings on the Social Responsiveness Scale (Constantino
and Gruber 2007; p’s[.10). Within the comparison group,
31 participants (32 %) were excluded from the final analysis
due to incomplete data of self-presentation (n = 3),
receptive verbal IQ (n = 3), Theory of Mind (n = 5) or
social motivation (n = 13), a score of 70 or higher on the
Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS; n = 4), or an unsuccessful
task manipulation (n = 4). Included participants in
the comparison group did not differ from their excluded
peers with regard to age, receptive verbal IQ and SRS score
(all p’s[.10). Thus, in the final analyses the self-presentation
abilities of 132 participants (115 boys; 17 girls) with
a clinical diagnosis of either autism (n = 24), Asperger’s
syndrome (n = 20) or PDD-NOS (n = 88) were compared
to those of 41 peers without ASD (38 boys; 3 girls). To
allow for a direct comparison with previous findings of
Scheeren et al. (2010), we created two different age groups:
a children’s group younger than 12.0 years and a group of
adolescents older than 12.0 years. Separate analyses for the
child and adolescent groups revealed that children with
ASD had a significantly lower receptive verbal IQ compared
to their TD peers, whereas adolescents with ASD had
a significantly higher receptive verbal IQ compared to the
TD adolescents (see Table 1). Because receptive verbal IQ
may play a role in the performance on a verbal task, we
decided to add receptive verbal IQ as a covariate in the
analyses. Furthermore, as would be expected, parents of a
child/adolescent with ASD reported significantly more
autistic symptoms on the SRS compared to parents of a
typically developing child/adolescent (see Table 1). A
small number of participants with ASD did obtain rather
low SRS scores (60), indicating that parents did not
observe as many autistic symptoms in their child’s
behavior in the past six months. The older age of these
participants (67 % were adolescents) might explain their
lower scores on the SRS. Some adolescents with ASD may
have learned social skills or social rules by then.
Measures
Self-Presentation Task: Baseline Condition
At the start of the interview, the interviewer shortly
introduced him/herself to the participant by saying: ‘My
name is …, I am … years old, and I live in …’. Then the
interviewer asked: ‘Can you also tell me something about
yourself?’ After the participant’s initial response, the
interviewer gave a second prompt: ‘Can you tell me
something more about yourself?’ If the participant’s
response took longer than 2 min, the interviewer was
instructed to kindly interrupt and to continue with the
interview.
Self-Presentation Task: Self-Promotion Condition
Following the self-presentation task used by Begeer et al.
(2008) and Scheeren et al. (2010), a prize-winning game
was introduced to raise participants’ motivation to selfpromote.
The interviewer said ‘A couple of children who
participate in this study can enter a game where you win
lots of cool prizes. To determine who should be picked for
this game with prizes, I ask everyone to tell me something
about him/herself. I will write everything down that you
tell me, so we can reread it later and decide which children
should be selected for the game with prizes. So, can you
tell me something about yourself?’ After the participant’s
initial answer the interviewer asked: ‘Can you tell me
something more about yourself?’ To check whether the
participant was sufficiently motivated to be selected for the
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the group with ASD and the typically developing (TD) comparison group
Child
variables
Group with ASD Comparison group Group
difference
(ASD–TD)
Age group
difference
(Child–Adol)
Children (n = 44) Adolescents (n = 88) Children (n = 21) Adolescents (n = 20) C A ASD TD
M
(SD)
Range M
(SD)
Range M
(SD)
Range M
(SD)
Range Sig.
(p)
Sig.
(p)
Sig.
(p)
Sig.
(p)
Age (in years) 10.2
(1.36)
6.9–11.9 15.2
(1.79)
12.1–18.8 9.8
(1.64)
6.0–11.9 14.0
(1.28)
12.5–16.8 .26 .00 .001 .001
Gender (boy;
girl)
38; 6 77; 11 21; 0 17; 3 .08 .76 .85 .07
Receptive
verbal IQ
104.1
(12.59)
72–127 106.8
(12.46)
76–132 112.0
(9.08)
99–130 99.4
(8.13)
85–125 .01 .00 .25 .001
SRS score 83.3
(21.66)
36–126 78.9
(23.20)
23–133 31.5
(14.46)
13–59 32.5
(10.72)
19–63 .001 .001 .30 .82
C children, A adolescents, SRS social responsiveness scale
J Autism Dev Disord
123
game, each participant was asked to rate how much fun he/
she thought it would be to enter the game on a five-point
scale ranging from 0 (no fun at all) to 4 (a lot of fun).
Hypothetical Self-Promotion Task
The hypothetical self-promotion task was partly modeled
after the self-promotion condition used in the interview. In
both tasks the participant (a) presents him/herself to an
unknown adult, (b) a non-social incentive is offered, and
(c) the selection criteria to obtain the incentive are only
vaguely specified. In the hypothetical self-promotion task
the interviewer reads the following vignette out loud to the
participant: ‘Imagine that you have new neighbors. You
have heard that your new neighbors are looking for
someone to do some small chores in and around the house
and they are willing to pay a lot of money for it. You can
think of lots of nice things to spend that money. Now, you
meet your neighbor for the first time and he/she introduces
him/herself to you. What would you tell him/her about
yourself?’
Emotionality Activity Sociability Temperament Survey
(EAS)
The EAS (Buss and Plomin 1984) is a 20-item parental
temperament questionnaire consisting of four subscales:
emotionality (e.g., ‘Child gets easily upset’), activity (e.g.,
‘Child is always on the go’), sociability (e.g., ‘Child likes
to be with people’) and shyness (e.g., ‘Child takes long
time to warm up to people’). In this study we will only
discuss the results of the sociability scale, which we used as
an index of general social motivation. This scale consists of
five statements that can be answered on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (not at all descriptive of my child) to 5
(very well descriptive of my child). A higher score indicates
a stronger preference to be among others rather than
being alone. Average Cronbach’s alpha of the EAS scales
was .78 in a Dutch elementary school sample, which is
acceptable given the low number of items in each scale
(Boer and Westenberg 1994).
Advanced Theory of Mind task
The advanced Theory of Mind task assesses participants’
perspective taking and consists of five social stories (for a
more detailed description, please see Scheeren et al. 2013).
After a story is read out loud to the participant, a question
follows about the protagonist’s mental state (e.g., intention,
belief, emotion). Each of the five mental state questions is
awarded one point (correct) or zero points (incorrect or
‘don’t know’) and the results add up to a total score of 0–5.
Interrater reliability of the mental state questions was
moderate to very good (20 % of the data were coded by
two individuals), with kappa’s ranging from .57 to 1.00.
Procedure
Parents of all participants and participants of 12 years and
older gave their informed consent to enter the study. Participants
were tested individually at school by a trained
interviewer (typically a psychology or medical student) as
part of a large study on social and empathic abilities of
children with ASD. The baseline condition of the self-presentation
task was presented right at the start of the interview.
Shortly after, the advanced Theory of Mind task was
administered. The Theory of Mind task took about 20 min.
After another 40 min of testing the interviewer introduced
the self-promotion condition (prize-winning game), which
was followed up in 5 min by the hypothetical self-promotion
task. After a child’s participation, parents would receive a
booklet of questionnaires about their child’s functioning.
When the entire study was completed, participants entered a
lottery game created by the researchers.
Coding
Coders who were blind to participants’ group status coded
all self-statements (sentences with ‘I’ as grammatical
subject or other self-referring statement) positive, neutral,
or negative. Positive self-statements included references to
positive affect (‘I like basketball’), abilities (‘I can make
nice drawings’), or socially desirable attributes (‘I am nice
to other children’). Each positive self-statement was further
coded as strategic (i.e., enhancing the chances of receiving
the incentive) or non-strategic (other). In the self-presentation
to the interviewer, strategic statements were always
game-related (‘I like playing video games’). If the participant
made a strategic statement without referring to the
self (‘Video games are fun’), this would also be coded as a
strategic statement. In the hypothetical self-promotion task,
a strategic statement was always chore-related (‘I would
like to do some chores’). We established a moderate to
very good interrater reliability in a previous study with the
same coding protocol and the same coders (Scheeren et al.
2010).
Results
Self-Presentation Task
Those participants who rated the prize-winning game as
‘no fun’ were excluded from the analyses, because we
assumed they would not be sufficiently motivated to make
a positive and strategic self-presentation. Therefore, 11
J Autism Dev Disord
123
participants with ASD (3 children and 8 adolescents) and 4
participants from the comparison group (2 children and 2
adolescents) were excluded from the analyses (see also
Participants section). The fun ratings in the remaining
participants ranged between ‘fun’ (2) to ‘a lot of fun’ (4).
The group with ASD reported equally high fun ratings as
the TD group, both at child (v2
(2) = 1.13, p = .57) and
adolescent level (v2
(2) = 2.50, p = .29).
Because the number of self-statements varied considerably
between participants (e.g., number of neutral selfstatements
in the baseline condition ranged between 1 and
13), we calculated the proportion of positive strategic selfstatements
of the total number of expressed self-statements
(positive, neutral and negative self-statements). See
Table 2 for means and SDs of the main outcome variables
of the self-presentation task. First, to check whether the
basic task manipulation of the self-presentation task (adding
the incentive of a prize-winning game) was successful,
the proportion of positive self-statements in the self-promotion
condition was compared to that expressed during
baseline. In a MANOVA, Group (ASD vs. TD) and Age
Group (younger vs. older) were entered as between subject
factors and Condition (baseline vs. self-promotion) as a
within subject factor. Indeed, participants expressed significantly
more positive self-statements in the self-promotion
condition (38 %) compared to baseline [12 %; F(1,
169) = 89.18, p.001, partial eta squared = .35]. Also, a
Group 9 Age group 9 Condition effect was found [F(1,
169) = 4.67, p.05, partial eta squared = .03]. Post-hoc
comparisons indicated that within the younger groups,
children with ASD increased less in positive self-statements
from baseline to self-promotion condition compared
to their TD peers [F(1, 63) = 5.41, p = .02, partial eta
squared = .08]. This Group 9 Condition interaction was
not found among the adolescents, indicating equal condition
effects in both groups.
Possible group differences in strategic self-statements
were examined with a MANOVA with Group (ASD vs.
TD) and Age Group (younger vs. older) as between subject
factors, Strategy (strategic vs. non-strategic) as within
subject factor, and positive self-statements as dependent
variable. No main effect of Strategy was found [F(1,
169) = 1.78, p = .18, partial eta squared = .01], but a
three-way interaction effect [F(1, 169) = 5.32, p.05,
partial eta squared = .03] was followed up by separate
MANOVA’s for each Age group and each Group. Within
the younger age group, the participants with ASD showed
the same distribution of strategic versus non-strategic selfstatements
as TD peers [F(1, 63) = 1.82, p = .18, partial
eta squared = .03]. Within the older age group, there was a
trend for a Group 9 Strategy interaction [F(1,
106) = 3.65, p = .06, partial eta squared = .03]. Adolescents
with ASD tended to mention fewer strategic selfstatements
(14 %) compared to TD adolescents (24 %;
t(106) = 1.98, p = .05). Separate MANOVA’s for each
Group showed a significant Age group 9 Strategy interaction
only within the group with ASD [F(1, 130) = 6.25,
p.05, partial eta squared = .05]. Adolescents with ASD
also mentioned significantly fewer strategic self-statements
(14 %) compared to the children with ASD [29 %;
t(130) = 3.37, p = .001].
Because groups differed in receptive verbal IQ, we
repeated the main analysis with receptive verbal IQ as a
covariate. Results remained largely the same, except that
we now found a trend for a Group 9 Strategy interaction
in the younger age group [F(1, 62) = 3.09, p = .08, partial
eta squared = .05]. Children with ASD tended to report
even more strategic self-statements than their TD peers
[F(1, 62) = 4.02, p = .05, partial eta squared = .06].
Furthermore, the smaller proportion of strategic selfstatements
reported by adolescents with ASD compared to
TD adolescents was significant after adding receptive
verbal IQ as a covariate [F(1, 105) = 2.88, p.05, partial
eta squared = .03].
Finally, to examine a potential developmental trend of
declining strategic self-presentation in ASD we also
Table 2 Main outcome variables for the group with ASD and the typically developing comparison group
Condition/task Type of positive
self-statement
Group with ASD Comparison group
Children
(n = 44)
Adolescents
(n = 88)
Children
(n = 21)
Adolescents
(n = 20)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Baseline condition Strategic .03 (.09) .05 (.11) .06 (.13) .07 (.11)
Non-strategic .05 (.11) .06 (.12) .11 (.16) .04 (.08)
Self-promotion condition Strategic .29 (.34) .14 (.18) .17 (.20) .24 (.27)
Non-strategic .17 (.22) .19 (.24) .18 (.17) .13 (.13)
Hypothetical self-promotion Strategic .40 (.45) .33 (36) .21 (.34) .45 (.31)
Non-strategic .05 (.13) .06 (.19) .06 (.16) .06 (.12)
Each score is the proportion of a particular type of self-statement compared to the total number of self-statements expressed in that condition or
task
J Autism Dev Disord
123
performed a hierarchical regression analysis where we
entered age as a continuous predictor of the strategic selfpresentation
scores, after controlling for verbal IQ. In the
case of both TD children and TD adolescents, age did not
significantly add explained variance in strategic selfstatements
(TD children: DR2 = .03; b = -.16; p = .49;
TD adolescents: DR2 = .02; b = -.16; p = .57). Similarly,
for the children with ASD, age also did not add
explained variance to the model (DR2 = .00; b = .00;
p = .99). However, within the group of adolescents with
ASD, age did predict variance in strategic self-statements
(DR2 = .07; b = -.26; p = .02). Specifically, older adolescents
with ASD tended to mention even fewer strategic
self-statements than younger adolescents with ASD.
Hypothetical Self-Promotion Task
See Table 2 for means and SD’s of the main outcome
variables of the hypothetical self-promotion task. We ran a
MANOVA on the positive self-statements mentioned in the
hypothetical self-promotion task. Group and Age group
were entered as between subject variables and Strategy
(strategic vs. non-strategic) as within subject variable. A
three-way interaction effect (F(1, 153) = 3.86, p = .05,
partial eta squared = .03) was followed up by separate
MANOVA’s for each Age group and Group. In both age
groups, participants with ASD showed the same distribution
of strategic versus non-strategic self-statements as the
TD group (children: F(1, 53) = 2.04, p = .16, partial eta
squared = .04) adolescents: F(1, 100) = 1.60, p = .21,
partial eta squared = .02). Hence, based on the hypothetical
self-promotion task no support was found for a reduced
strategic self-presentation in the ASD group. Only within
the TD group, a trend for an Age group 9 Strategy interaction
was found (F(1, 36) = 3.94, p = .06, partial eta
squared = .10), because TD adolescents expressed significantly
more strategic self-statements (45 %) than TD
children (21 %; t(36) = 2.28, p.05). In contrast, adolescents
with ASD did not differ in their use of strategic
self-statements (33 %) compared to children with ASD
(40 %; t(117) = .85, p = .40). When the analyses were
repeated with receptive verbal IQ as a covariate, all results
remained the same except for the difference in strategic
self-statements between TD adolescents and TD children,
which became significant (F(1, 35) = 4.25, p.05, partial
eta squared = .11).
Perspective Taking and Social Motivation
ANCOVA’s were used to test for possible group differences
in children’s perspective taking and social motivation. After
controlling for age and verbal ability (both factors have been
positively associated with performance on Theory of Mind
tasks), participants with ASD showed similar perspective
taking ability as indicated by their comparable performances
on the advanced Theory of Mind stories (ASD: M = 3.6,
SD = 1.18; TD: M = 3.1, SD = 1.07; F(1, 172) = 1.11,
p = .29, partial eta squared = .01). For a complete discussion
of the Theory of Mind results, please see Scheeren et al.
(2013). With regard to social motivation, parents with a
child with ASD reported that their child had a significantly
weaker preference to be in the company of others
(M = 14.9, SD = 3.61) compared to parents with a TD
child (M = 19.5, SD = 2.90; F(1, 172) = 46.96, p.001,
partial eta squared = .22).
We performed a hierarchical linear regression analysis
to check whether the reduced strategic self-presentation
during the self-promotion condition of the group of adolescents
with ASD was (partly) mediated by their reduced
social motivation. After controlling for group status, social
motivation was entered as a second predictor in the
regression model. Adding social motivation did not
decrease the Beta of the group status variable, nor did it
significantly increase the explained variance of the model
(see Table 3). Hence, the association between group status
and strategic self-presentation in the adolescent group does
not appear to be mediated by a reduced social motivation.
An additional Sobel test confirmed this conclusion.
Symptom Severity and Self-Presentation
We performed additional exploratory analyses to check
whether ASD symptom severity (as operationalized by the
SRS) was associated with our primary outcome measure:
children’s strategic self-statements in the self-promotion
condition. In the group with ASD, symptom severity was
not significantly correlated with strategic self-statements
during self-promotion (Pearson’s r = .00, p = .98). Also,
we examined whether the tendency for children with ASD
to have circumscribed interests and show rigid behavior
was associated with poorer self-presentation. It is plausible
that a lack of flexibility lowers a strategic presentation of
Table 3 Results of a multiple hierarchical regression analysis in the
group of adolescents with strategic self-statements in the self-promotion
condition as outcome variable
Predictors Strategic self-statements
DR2 B SE b Sig.
Step 1 .04
Group -.10 .05 -.19 .05
Step 2 .00
Group -.11 .06 -.22 .05
Social motivation -.00 .01 -.06 .62
Total R2 .04
J Autism Dev Disord
123
the self. However, we found an increase in positive selfstatements
from baseline to self-promotion conditions in all
groups of participants. Even the least strategic group, the
adolescents with ASD, increased from 11 to 33 % of
positive self-statements (as a percentage of the total number
of self-statements). This indicates that participants with
ASD are not merely repeating the same information that
they reported during baseline. Furthermore, the subscale of
the SRS ‘autistic mannerisms’ was not significantly correlated
with strategic self-statements during self-promotion
(Pearson’s r = -.04, p = .75).
Discussion
We compared self-presentation abilities of children and
adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) to those
of typically developing (TD) peers in real and hypothetical
social contexts and examined the potential link with children’s
perspective taking and social motivation. As
expected, participants with and without ASD increased
their positive self-statements when they knew they might
be selected for a prize-winning game. Counter to previous
findings (Begeer et al. 2008; Scheeren et al. 2010), we did
not find uniform support for a reduced strategic self-presentation
in ASD. Children with ASD (6–12 years) equally
expressed strategic self-statements during self-promoting
as their TD peers, both in real and hypothetical social
contexts. After controlling for verbal IQ differences, children
with ASD showed a tendency to be even more
strategic than the TD group in the real social context.
Adolescents with and without ASD (12–19 years) did not
differ in their performances on the hypothetical self-promotion
task, but adolescents with ASD tended to be less
strategic in the real context compared to TD adolescents.
After controlling for verbal IQ differences, this group difference
was significant. Although participants with ASD
were less socially motivated than TD participants according
to their parents, this reduced social motivation could
not explain the reduced strategic self-presentation of the
adolescents with ASD.
The unexpected finding that school-aged children with
ASD were equally strategic or even more strategic than TD
peers during self-promoting suggests that, once an incentive
is added, children with ASD appear to be competent in
presenting themselves. This conclusion stands in clear
contrast with the limitations in strategic self-presentation of
children with ASD found in previous studies (Begeer et al.
2008; Scheeren et al. 2010). Differences in outcome might
stem from a dependency on imaginative abilities in the
Begeer et al. study (2008) and the relatively small sample
size in the Scheeren et al. study (2010). Children with ASD
in the present study might have been equally or perhaps
even more motivated to obtain the incentive (participate in
a game with prizes) compared to their TD peers. Indeed,
their estimations of how much fun they thought the game
would be were comparable to those of the TD peer group.
However, additional exploratory analyses did not reveal a
significant association between participants’ fun estimations
and their degree of strategic self-presentation during
self-promotion (ASD group: r = .07, p = .23; TD group:
r = .10, p = .56). An alternative explanation for the surprisingly
good outcomes of the children with ASD is that
many of them have received social skills training. Indeed,
when we asked parents to report on the type of treatment
their child had received, we found that 63 % of the participants
with ASD in the current sample had received a
programme of social skills training. However, social skills
training cannot fully explain the strategic self-presentation
by the young group with ASD, because the older group
with ASD also received (even more) social skills training
and they were actually less strategic in promoting
themselves.
Performances of the adolescent group with ASD matches
earlier findings of reduced strategic self-presentation
in ASD. During typical adolescence, peer relations become
increasingly important and complex (Carter et al. 2014)
and reputation management becomes important as well.
Adolescents with ASD may fall behind their TD peers in
their reputation management abilities, because social
expectations and demands may exceed their development
of social skills (Rosenthal et al. 2013). In the Scheeren
et al. study (2010), some adolescents with ASD uttered
reluctance to change the way they presented themselves to
an audience just to please the audience’s preferences or fit
the audience’s frame of reference. This suggests a role for
motivation rather than ability. Yet, in the present study,
adolescents with and without ASD reported equal motivation
to participate in the prize-winning game. We also
examined the role of perspective taking abilities and social
motivation. On a group level, participants with ASD did
not show perspective taking problems compared to the TD
group (for an elaborate discussion see Scheeren et al.
2013). Participants with ASD did show a significantly
reduced preference for social engagements as reported by
their parents, which corresponds well with previous findings
and the social motivation theory (Chevallier et al.
2012a, b; Whitehouse et al. 2009). However, general social
motivation of the adolescents with ASD was unrelated to
their strategic self-presentation. Thus, general social
motivation does not appear to affect the way they present
themselves to others. Nonetheless, it may still be that only
a specific aspect of social motivation, such as caring about
social evaluations of peers, is involved in self-presenting.
Social motivation as we operationalized it in this study may
not cover this particular aspect.
J Autism Dev Disord
123
Based on cross-sectional data across a broad age range,
self-presentation in ASD does not seem to follow the usual
pattern of development. During a conversation with an
interviewer, adolescents with ASD were substantially less
strategic in their self-presentation than their younger counterparts,
and analyses revealed a developmental decline in
strategic self-presentation within the adolescent group. Also,
counter to the age effect found in the TD group, adolescents
with ASD did not use more strategic self-statements in the
hypothetical task compared to children. Thus, while stability
or increases in strategic self-presentation might characterize
normal development, we may actually observe reductions in
strategic self-presentation in ASD. Poor self-presentation
may have a large impact on the daily lives of individuals
with ASD. Self-presentation is not only required in the
social realm (making and maintaining friendships), but is
also required for a successful integration in the community
such as finding a job or an accommodation (think of an
interview with a future employer or landlord). It is known
that individuals with ASD, despite adequate intellectual
abilities, find it difficult to find a paid job or live independently
(Howlin and Moss 2012). Poor community integration
not only poses a large economic burden on society, but
also puts the individual with ASD at risk for social alienation,
reduced feelings of autonomy, and reduced quality of
life. Self-presentation may therefore be an important topic
for practitioners to focus on. Further longitudinal research is
warranted to establish the role of age and development in
self-presentation.
Some additional limitations of the present study may also
be fruitfully addressed in further research. First of all, we
relied on adult interviewers but children and adolescents are
likely to present themselves differently to an age mate than
to an unfamiliar adult. Increased similarity between participant
and interviewer possibly makes it easier for participants
to identify themselves with the interviewer’s intentions
and wishes (Preston and de Waal 2002), and may therefore
increase the chances of a successful strategic self-presentation.
Based on the literature, it is expected that typically
developing children will be more strategic in their interaction
with a peer than an adult due to increased social
motivation or increased similarity (Preston and de Waal
2002; Saarni 2001), and this peer effect may be less pronounced
among children and adolescents with HFASD
(Hauck et al. 1995; Jackson et al. 2003). Thus, although we
cannot generalize the present findings to other social contexts
with different conversation partners, we believe that
systematic variation of the interviewer status in future
studies would further enhance our understanding of the selfpresentation
profile of youths with ASD.
Moreover, our operationalization of children’s social
motivation was broad (i.e., preference to be in the company
of others) and based on parents’ perspective. Even though
parent reports of children’s behavior are generally reliable
(e.g., Dirks and Boyle 2010), meaningful (Verhulst et al.
1994) and diagnostically relevant (Ozonoff et al. 2009), it
may be difficult for parents to report on the internal
motives of their child. Future studies on the role of children’s
social motivation in self-presentation or reputation
management should therefore ideally include both broad
and narrow operationalizations of social motivation and
different informants (parent and child) or methods (experiment
and questionnaires). This would help researchers
to determine the extent to which aspects of social motivation
play a role in children’s self-presentation.
Overall, the present study offers valuable new evidence
on the social profile of children and adolescents on the
autistic spectrum. With a large sample, we have been able
to illuminate a complex pattern of self-presentational
behavior that varies by age. Of particular interest is the
suggestion that even if children with ASD can exhibit
strategic self-presentational behavior, perhaps facilitated
by experiences of social skills training, this tendency is less
apparent in adolescents who in general have been exposed
to even more such training. We believe this sets an
important agenda for research that can further clarify the
interplay of social, cognitive, and motivational factors in
the self-presentational profile of individuals with ASD
through the life course. This work would, in turn, provide a
robust foundation for targeted intervention work that
addresses the nuances of everyday social interaction.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all children and
adolescents and their parents for participating in this study, with
special thanks to the Berg en Bosch school. This study was financially
supported by Stichting Nuts Ohra [SNO-T-0701-116].
Author Contributions AMS contributed to the design, data collection
and data analysis of the study, and was responsible for writing and
revising the manuscript. RB contributed to the design of the study,
analysis and interpretation of the data, and writing the manuscript. HMK
contributed to the design and funding of the study, and to the writing and
revision of the manuscript. SB contributed to the design and funding of
the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, and writing the
manuscript. All approved of the final version of the manuscript.
References
Aloise-Young, P. A. (1993). The development of self-presentation:
self-promotion in 6-year-old to 10-year-old children. Social
Cognition, 11, 201–222.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Banerjee, R. (2002). Audience effects on self-presentation in childhood.
Social Development, 11, 487–507.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
J Autism Dev Disord
123
Begeer, S., Banerjee, R., Lunenburg, P., Meerum Terwogt, M.,
Stegge, H., & Rieffe, C. (2008). Brief report: Self-presentation of
children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorder, 38, 1187–1191.
Boer, F., & Westenberg, P. M. (1994). The factor structure of the
Buss and Plomin EAS temperament survey (parental ratings) in a
Dutch sample of elementary school children. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 62, 537–551.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing
personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Inc.
Cage, E., Pellicano, E., Shah, P., & Bird, G. (2013). Reputation
management: Evidence for ability but reduced propensity in
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43,
1437–1446.
Carter, E. W., Common, E. A., Sreckovic, M. A., Huber, H. B.,
Bottema-Beutel, K., Gustafson, J. R., et al. (2014). Promoting
social competence and peer relationships for adolescents with
autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 35,
91–101.
Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T.
(2012a). The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 16, 231–239.
Chevallier, C., Molesworth, C., & Happe´, F. (2012b). Diminished
social motivation negatively impacts reputation management:
Autism spectrum disorders as a case in point. PLoS ONE, 7,
e31107.
Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2007). Social responsiveness
scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Craig, J., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Creativity and imagination in
autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 29, 319–326.
Dirks, M. A., & Boyle, M. H. (2010). The comparability of motherreport
structured interviews and checklists for the quantification
of youth externalizing symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 51, 1040–1049.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (2004). Peabody picture vocabulary test
(PPVT)-III-NL. Amsterdam: Hartcourt Test Publishers.
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, 579–595.
Howlin, P., & Moss, P. (2012). Adults with autism spectrum
disorders. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne
De Psychiatrie, 57(5), 275–283.
Izuma, K., Matsumoto, K., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R. (2011).
Insensitivity to social reputation in autism. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
108, 17302–17307.
Jackson, C. T., Fein, D., Wolf, J., Jones, G., Hauck, M., Waterhouse,
L., & Feinstein, C. (2003). Responses and sustained interactions
in children with mental retardation and autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 33, 115–121.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A
literature review and two-component model. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
Levine, S. P., & Feldman, R. S. (1997). Self-presentational goals,
self-monitoring, and nonverbal behavior. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 19, 505–518.
McGovern, C. W., & Sigman, M. (2005). Continuity and change from
early childhood to adolescence in autism. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 401–408.
Ozonoff, S., Young, G. S., Steinfeld, M. B., Hill, M. M., Cook, I., &
Hutman, T. (2009). How early do parents concerns predict later
autism diagnosis? Journal of Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 30, 367–375.
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and
proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72.
Rosenthal, M., Rosenthal, M., Wallace, G. L., Lawson, R., Wills, M.
C., Dixon, E., et al. (2013). Impairments in real-world executive
function increase from childhood to adolescence in autism
spectrum disorders. Neuropsychology, 27, 13–18.
Saarni, C. (2001). Cognition, context, and goals: Significant components
in social emotional effectiveness. Social Development, 10,
125–129.
Scheeren, A. M., Begeer, S., Banerjee, R., Meerum Terwogt, M., &
Koot, H. M. (2010). Can you tell me something about yourself?
Self-presentation in children and adolescents with high functioning
autism spectrum disorder in hypothetical and real life
situations. Autism, 14, 457–473.
Scheeren, A. M., de Rosnay, M., Koot, H. M., & Begeer, S. (2013).
Rethinking theory of mind in high-functioning autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54,
628–635.
Verhulst, F. C., Koot, H. M., & Van der Ende, J. (1994). Differential
predictive value of parents’ and teachers’ reports of children’s
problem behaviors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 22, 531–546.
Whitehouse, A. J., Durkin, K., Jaquet, E., & Ziatas, K. (2009).
Friendship, loneliness and depression in adolescents with
Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 309–322.
Yirmiya, N., Erel, O., Shaked, M., & Solomonica-Levi, D. (1998).
Meta-analyses comparing theory of mind abilities of individuals
with autism, individuals with mental retardation, and normally
developing individuals. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 283–307.
J Autism Dev Disord
123

 

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!