Spontaneity of Communication in Individuals with Autism

Abstract

This article provides an examination of issues related to spontaneity of communication in children with autism. Deficits relating to spontaneity or initiation are frequently reported in individuals with autism, particularly in relation to communication and social behavior. Nevertheless, spontaneity is not necessarily clearly conceptualized or measured. Several approaches to conceptualization of communicative spontaneity are examined with a particular focus on the continuum model and how it might be practically applied. A range of possible explanations for deficits in spontaneity of communication in children with autism is subsequently explored, including external factors (highly structured teaching programs, failure to systematically instruct for spontaneity) and intrinsic characteristics (intellectual disability, stimulus overselectivity, weak central coherence). Possible implications for future research are presented.

A Review of the Efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System Intervention

“…The use of picture exchange with a partner (rather than touching or pointing to a symbol) is a key distinguishing feature of PECS, but it is unclear whether exchange per se is essential to efficacy. The issue of developing spontaneity is addressed in an unusually systematic way in the PECS program (Chiang and Carter 2008) but extant research provides only limited information on the circumstances under which communication occurs. Thus, there would appear to be considerable scope for examination of how specific components contribute to the overall efficacy of PECS.…”

“…In relation to PECS, it is argued that individuals with autism in particular are less likely to be motivated by the social consequences of labeling or commenting (Bondy and Frost 1995) and more likely to be motivated by requesting and immediately obtaining a specific, typically concrete, desired item (Bondy and Frost 1994). Third, PECS systematically addresses the issue of spontaneity, which has often been reported as problematic in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (Chiang and Carter 2008;Koegel 2000). Rather than being dependent on a partner to establish a communicative exchange, or requiring a partner to watch for the learner to point to a picture board or generate a manual sign, which could easily be missed, PECS specifically teaches the individual to approach the partner and gain their attention by putting a picture symbol into their hand.…”

Stimulus Overselectivity Four Decades Later: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications for Current Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Overselectivity has also been reported in typical preschoolers (Bickel et al 1984) and older children (Eimas 1969;Koegel and Wilhelm 1973), in learning disabled children (Bailey 1981), in hearing-impaired children (Fairbank et al 1986), in mentally retarded children (Brack 2001;Huguenin 1997) and mentally retarded youth without autism (Dickson et al 2006;Dube and McIlvane 1997;Huguenin 1997;Schneider and Salzberg 1982), and in adults with autism (Matthews et al 2001;Remington et al 2009). Clearly, stimulus overselectivity is not unique to autism (Dube et al 2003;McHugh and Reed 2007;Miyashita 1981), but it is a phenomenon common in autism as a slew of mostly older studies reveals (Anderson and Rincover 1982;Bickel et al 1984;Boser et al 2002;Chiang and Carter 2008;Dunlap et al 1979;Edwards et al 1976;Falcomata et al 2007;Frankel et al 1984;Gersten 1983;Glenn et al 1980;Hedbring and Newsom 1985;Katoh and Kobayashi 1985;Koegel and Wilhelm 1973;Koegel and Rincover 1976;Koegel and Schreibman 1977;Koegel et al 1979;Kolko et al 1980;Kovattana and Kraemer 1974;Matthews et al 2001;Myles et al 1989;Ploog and Kim 2007;…”

“…Clearly, stimulus overselectivity is not unique to autism (Dube et al 2003;McHugh and Reed 2007;Miyashita 1981), but it is a phenomenon common in autism as a slew of mostly older studies reveals (Anderson and Rincover 1982;Bickel et al 1984;Boser et al 2002;Chiang and Carter 2008;Dunlap et al 1979;Edwards et al 1976;Falcomata et al 2007;Frankel et al 1984;Gersten 1983;Glenn et al 1980;Hedbring and Newsom 1985;Katoh and Kobayashi 1985;Koegel and Wilhelm 1973;Koegel and Rincover 1976;Koegel and Schreibman 1977;Koegel et al 1979;Kolko et al 1980;Kovattana and Kraemer 1974;Matthews et al 2001;Myles et al 1989;Ploog and Kim 2007;Reynolds et al 1974;Rincover and Tripp 1979;Rincover and Ducharme 1987;Schreibman and Lovaas 1973;Schreibman 1975;Schreibman et al 1977Schreibman et al , 1986Sonoyama and Kobayashi 1986). There are, however, a number of more recent-albeit not behavior analytical-studies, which did not refer to overselectivity by name, but, as will be argued below, described a phenomenon that is characterized by atypical response patterns with respect to elements of multidimensional stimuli specifically in persons with ASD (e.g., Bonnel et al 2003;Chiang and Carter 2008;Haviland et al 1996;…”

“…Note that Chiang and Carter (2008) linked deficits in spontaneity of communication in children with ASD specifically to stimulus overselectivity.…”