






























































Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The social problems experienced by individuals with autism, including sensory sensitivities, emotional affect, and body language. It also discusses the impact of these challenges on social interactions and the effectiveness of social skills training interventions. The document also examines the role of neurotypicals in social norms and the integration-separation dialectic in communication between neurotypicals and individuals with autism.
Typology: Assignments
1 / 70
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Using Relational Dialectics Theory to Better Understand Autistic Communication Competence
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in theGraduate School of The Ohio State University
By Stefanie A. Best Graduate Program in Communication
The Ohio State University 2012
Master's Examination Committee: Stacie Powers, Advisor Susan Kline
Copyrighted by Stefanie Ann Best
iii
Acknowledgments
I owe my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Stacie Powers, for the extensive support and guidance she has provided me in the process of producing this thesis. I am also thankful to Dr. Susan Kline, whose feedback and advice on this project were invaluable.
iv
Vita
May 2006 .......................................................C. Leon King High School 2010................................................................B.A. Communication, University of Delaware 2010 to present ..............................................Graduate Associate, School of Communication, The Ohio State University
Fields of Study
Major Field: Communication
Using Relational Dialectics Theory to Better Understand Autistic Communication Competence The current study analyzes issues of communicative competence discussed between people with Asperger’s Syndrome (“Aspies”), a form of autism, and non-autistic, cognitively normative people (commonly referred to as “neurotypicals” by those on the autism spectrum). Issues related to communicative competence were discussed within an online support forum for people with Asperger’s Syndrome. The study is informed Baxter and Montgomery’s Relational Dialectics Theory (1996) and current literature on communicative competence. Recently scholars of both communicative competence and autism have begun to call for an interactional, or relationally-based, view and assessment of competence. Relational Dialectics Theory (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) is used to assess what issues of competence are identified as relevant to the autistic experience by people living with Asperger’s Syndrome. Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) is a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder which largely impacts diagnosed individuals’ ability to learn and utilize social skills (White, Koenig, & Scahill, 2003). Autism spectrum disorders are the fastest-growing group of diagnosed disorders in the United States (Lord, Rist, DiLavore, Shulman, Thurm & Pickles, 2006). The social deficiencies are problematic for people diagnosed with
expressiveness, typical conversational procedures such as turn-taking, understanding non- literal language, appropriate speech prosody, and overall contextually appropriate social behavior (Martin & McDonald, 2004; Krasny, Williams, Provencal, & Ozonoff, 2003; Nadig & Shaw, 2011; Kerbel & Grunwell, 1998; Shaked & Yirmiya, 2003; Tager- Flusberg, 2006) These identified social deficiencies in autistic behavior are similar to topics regularly examined in competence studies in the field of interpersonal communication (Table 1). While many classically low-functioning autistic patients are uninterested in social relationships, such social deficiencies are problematic for people diagnosed with High- Functioning Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder—Not Otherwise Specified. People diagnosed with HFA, AS and PDD-NOS are typically of average or above average intelligence and desire fulfilling social relationships (White, Keonig & Scahill, 2006) like any normative person without developmental disabilities (typically referred to within the autism community as “neurotypicals” or “NTs”). Autism affects the ability of the individual to receive and interpret messages, as well as produce appropriate communicative messages in everyday social interactions. Autistic individuals typically face difficulty in “identifying and processing emotion” in a way that allows for effective communication with others (Harms, Martin & Wallace, 2010, p. 290). The difficulty in identifying and processing emotion encompasses a broad set of microlevel behaviors and skills. Other social problems experienced by people with autism include flattened emotional affect, as well as inappropriate body language or physical behavior, including the presence of repetitive motions or tics which often originate in the tendency of autistic people to “stim” or self-stimulate as a method of
coping with sensory sensitivities (Iarocci & McDonald, 2006). In addition, autism spectrum disorders are often associated with physical sensitivities; hyper- or hyposensitive hearing, hypersensitivity to light, or hyper- or hypo-sensitivities to physical sensations such as textures of food or certain types of clothing are common. Such sensitivity to sensory overload, often resulting in coping behaviors (Chamak et al., 2008), which can manifest as repetitive behaviors such as rocking and hand flapping (Colman et al, 1976).These sensitivities are present in between 30% and 100% of people with autism (Dawson & Watling, 2000) and can vary in their intensity. Such behaviors can, for observers, be anywhere from mildly distracting to extremely inappropriate depending on the social context. Such physical behaviors confuse and confound efforts at normative communication. For autistic people involved in face to face interaction, a significant amount of communicated information is difficult to comprehend or incorporate into effective and appropriate communication with others. The challenges faced by people with autism in processing sensory information and producing messages can manifest as difficulty in interpreting social situations and knowing how to behave appropriately in the correct context. These challenges can result in difficulty in establishing and maintaining friendships and intimate relationships, communicating with family members, instructors, and employers, and accomplishing everyday tasks such as making a phone call or interacting with workers at a store or bank. Difficulties in social interactions can also create a cycle of self-reinforcing challenges: by gaining more experience with facial expressions through social interaction, one learns how to recognize facial emotions (Harms, Martin, & Wallace,
ability to assign mental states to others that may differ from one’s own mental state, and is believed to be a necessary element in achieving skilled social behavior. ToM has been assessed in much of the research on autism as an individual trait which is lacking in people with autism spectrum disorders, meaning that people with autism are not able to understand the perspectives of others. ToM has been measured utilizing experimental, task-oriented methodologies, such as the mind-in-the-eyes test. In this test, subjects are asked to intuit emotional states from images of people’s eyes (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, & Hill, 2001). Another popular measure of ToM is the false-belief test, in which a confederate places an object in one of two containers in front of a child. The confederate then leaves the room, after which a second confederate enters the room and changes the location of the object to the other container, leaving the room after this task is accomplished. The child is then told that the first confederate will return to the room, and is asked where the first confederate will look for the object. A child who answers correctly (the object is in the first container) is assessed as possessing Theory of Mind. Children typically begin to give the correct answer consistently around the age of two years. Children diagnosed with autism at older ages have been observed to give incorrect or inconsistent answers (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985). From these results it is derived that people with autism do not possess Theory of Mind. However, the ecological validity of such studies is criticized, particularly pertaining to the social context of ToM (Roeyers & Demurie, 2010). Some authors point out that even neurotypical people often fail to accurately predict another’s mental state or potential behavior, challenging the notion that ToM is a necessary and sufficient prerequisite to
adequate social skills (Senju et al, 2009; Begeer et al, 2010). The typical characterization of ToM is of a specialized capacity, with no simpler components that can be acquired gradually throughout development. However, some studies have demonstrated that individuals with autism are capable of achieving mental representations that allow them to infer ToM: Many individuals with autism even state that they are in fact the only humans with a ToM, referring to their theoretical approach to other minds. Those without autism use less theory and more intuitive simulation in their attempts to make sense of others’ subjective experiences (Sterck & Begeer, 2010, p. 7) indicating that individuals with autism are capable of achieving ToM in a manner that is different from normative methods, but still adequate for some purposes of ToM. It is therefore possible that some individuals with high-functioning autism are capable of “mind-reading” neurotypical people and can possess an adequate viewpoint of their perspectives. From Communication Deficiency to Interacting Differently Currently, communication literature has not fully explored the difficulties in social cognition and communication competency experienced by people with autism spectrum disorders. Much of the research in these areas focuses on a clinical perspective— identifying perceived deficiencies behavior and attempting to resolve them through therapeutic or medical techniques. Therapeutic techniques frequently focus on teaching the diagnosed persons to behave differently or to adopt the typical social script for a given situation. Intervention therapies and programs focused on social skills training have
autistic communicators as active interactants in interpersonal communication. Often the limitations in social skills are lessened when the autistic individual has the opportunity to communicate in a way that meets their particular needs, such as through typing instead of speech. Bagatell describes an autistic individual who expressed a greater sense of freedom from writing than communicating orally, and who described computer-mediated communication as “’kind of like what sign language is for the Deaf. It’s the autistic way of communicating.’ Indeed, the computer…offers a language that is visually received….Clearly, the Internet has given autistic people a voice” (Bagatell, 2010, p. 37). The focus of the autistic community on autistic communicators as active interactants suggests a need for interaction- or relationship-based perspectives in the assessment and targeted improvement of autistic interactive competence. A growing trend in autism research attempts to identify how autistic people develop non-normative strategies of social cognition (Sterck & Begeer, 2010; Losh & Capps, 2006; Ponnet et al, 2004). A focus on autistic participants as active communicators suggests support for a transition in research away from simply identifying and attempting to ameliorate deficits. Further research is needed to confirm that the education desired by members of the autistic community is congruent with current therapeutic goals as defined by clinical research. If the high-functioning autistic individual is beginning to be accepted as a participant in their own treatment, then it is important to determine what outcomes are desired by autistic individuals in order to create treatment programs with the greatest positive impact. Relational Dialectics Theory Approach to Competence
Relational dialectics theory aims to analyze competence within the interaction between two or more interactional partners (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). Relational dialectics is based on the notion that conflict and contradiction are inherent to social life and are not necessarily negative elements of relationships. Baxter and Montgomery define this as dialectical tension, in which two or more contrasting concepts can exist in a “both/and” relationship as opposed to the “either/or” approach typified in the approaches usually applied to the study of competence. Contradiction over time creates change, so that assessments of competence within a relationship or set of relationships, or even within a social group, may evolve over time. Baxter and Montgomery identify three core dialectics, or contradictions, that may manifest within interactions: integration and separation, stability and change, and expression and privacy are each contradictions which may manifest dynamically within relationships. Dialectics are not always dichotomous; some dialectics can consist of multivocal tensions informed by many ideas or phenomena which can negate each other (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). Tensions between two or more concepts within relationships cannot be solved, but only negotiated. Negotiating tension requires the use of strategies which necessitate competence in social skills. Strategies for negotiating tensions such as redefining conflicting concepts, balancing between the poles of a dialectical tension, or cycling between oppositions (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998), are enacted through interactional processes within relationships. The negotiation of tensions is achieved through praxis, the “simultaneous subject- and-object nature of the human experience” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998, p. 9). Individuals engage in the process of creating meaning through acting and being acted
It is difficult to define competence from the approach of Relational Dialectics Theory without limiting the assessment to simply measuring the individuals within a relationship’s perception of each other’s competence. This would, however, limit the voice of the relationship itself. A social approach to competence should measure the competence of the relationship or interaction itself, not the competence of the individuals involved. Imposing external criteria in defining competence, such as determining whether the communication within the relationship is appropriate, effective, or truthful, is also misguided. The interactive relationship of individuals will define for itself what criteria represent competence. Competence can be judged to the extent that an interaction satisfies the criteria, the interactional goals and desires, of the relationship. This allows each relationship that might be studied the freedom to define for itself what communication behaviors are appropriate or inappropriate. From a dialectical perspective, a relationship can be judged as competent to the extent their interactions meet the standards for competence defined within the relationship. The relational dialectics approach to defining competence allows for relationships to be judged by the standards of the relationship, which may vary from the dominant standards of competence of the society, or conflict with standards of a social network or community. This approach allows that individuals engaged in relationships seeking to improve their competence may embrace some approaches and reject others, based on the standards of their particular relationship. Relational Dialectics Theory suggests a different approach to studying the communication competence of people with autism spectrum disorders. Through Relational Dialectics Theory, the autistic individual is approached as an actor within the
interaction; competence is not solely the result or responsibility of the individual’s actions but rather is a result of the interaction. Previous approaches addressing autistic communication skill have focused on defining and measuring competence deficits and training autistic children and adults to compensate for these deficits (Ozonoff & Miller, 1995). Such approaches have often done so from the perspective of fixing perceived deficits within the autistic individual. The autistic individual is responsible for generating appropriate and desirable social skills, which are externally judged by researchers and therapists. By approaching the study of autistic communication from a dialectical perspective, competence research can explore what social contexts, expectations, and roles are more or less effective in contributing to competent communication between the autistic person and others. The investigation of dialectics such as integration-separation, expression-privacy, and stability-change (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, Montgomery & Baxter, 1998) within the social interactions of people with autism spectrum disorders will help to formulate an interaction-based understanding of the challenges people on the spectrum face in communication. The current study aims to identify what dialectical tensions emerge from interactions between people with AS and their partners in dyadic relationships. The study also seeks to understand what communication issues people with AS want to understand in the interest of improving competence in interactions, and to what extent those identified issues are congruent with the impairments identified in the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome. The following research questions are proposed: 1a. What communicative competency issues do people with Asperger’s Syndrome indicate an interest in understanding?