Cited by 161Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport

Peer preferences and characteristics of same-group and cross-group social interactions among autistic and non-autistic adolescents

Open access
Chen, Yu-Lun, Senande, Laura L, Thorsen, Michael, Patten, Kristie·2021·Autism

Abstract

Social interaction is inherently bidirectional, but research on autistic peer interactions often frames communication as unidirectional and in isolation from the peer context. This study investigated natural peer interactions among six autistic and six non-autistic adolescents in an inclusive school club over 5 months (14 45-min sessions in total) to examine the students’ peer preferences in real-world social interactions and how the preferences changed over time. We further examined whether social behavior characteristics differ between student and peer neurotype combinations. Findings showed that autistic students were more likely to interact with autistic peers then non-autistic peers. In both autistic and non-autistic students, the likelihood of interacting with a same-neurotype peer increased over time. Autistic and non-autistic students’ within-neurotype social interactions were more likely to reflect relational than functional purposes, be characterized as sharing thoughts and experiences rather than requesting help or objects, and be highly reciprocal, as compared with cross-neurotype interactions. These peer preferences and patterns of social interactions were not found among student-peer dyads with the same genders. These findings suggest that peer interaction is determined by more than just a student’s autism diagnosis, but by a combination of student and peer neurotypes. Lay abstract: Autistic students often experience challenges in peer interactions, especially for young adolescents who are navigating the increased social expectations in secondary education. Previous research on the peer interactions of autistic adolescents mainly compared the social behaviors of autistic and non-autistic students and overlooked the peers in the social context. However, recent research has shown that the social challenges faced by autistic may not be solely contributed by their social differences, but a mismatch in the social communication styles between autistic and non-autistic people. As such, this study aimed to investigate the student-and-peer match in real-world peer interactions between six autistic and six non-autistic adolescents in an inclusive school club. We examined the odds of autistic and non-autistic students interacting with either an autistic peer, a non-autistic peer, or multiple peers, and the results showed that autistic students were more likely to interact with autistic peers then non-autistic peers. This preference for same-group peer interactions strengthened over the 5-month school club in both autistic and non-autistic students. We further found that same-group peer interactions, in both autistic and non-autistic students, were more likely to convey a social interest rather than a functional purpose or need, be sharing thoughts, experiences, or items rather than requesting help or objects, and be highly reciprocal than cross-group social behaviors. Collectively, our findings support that peer interaction outcomes may be determined by the match between the group memberships of the student and their peers, either autistic or non-autistic, rather than the student’s autism diagnosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/13623613211005918

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even Autistic people who lack fluency in neurotypical social skills can engage in successful interactions and form meaningful, reciprocal social bonds with others on and off the spectrum.

    “It is imperative to keep in mind that even Autistic people who lack fluency in “neurotypical” social skills can engage in successful interactions and form meaningful, reciprocal social bonds with others on and off the spectrum (Chen et al., 2021; Crompton et al., 2020; Davis & Crompton, 2021; Heasman & Gillespie, 2019).”

    From Neurodiversity and Autism Intervention: Reconciling Perspectives Through a Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021

    The Methods (Procedure; page unavailable) count social attempts even without typical cues such as eye contact, and the Results (Social behavior characteristics; page unavailable) report highly reciprocal autistic-to-autistic interactions. The paper also examines interactions with non-autistic peers, but it does not establish that participants lacked fluency in neurotypical social skills or that the observed interactions formed meaningful, reciprocal bonds across both groups. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many social difficulties ascribed to autistic people as impairments are better understood as challenges of cross-neurotype interactions.

    “It should be noted that autistic people and professionals are increasingly aware that many of the social difficulties ascribed to autistic people as simply reflecting their impairments, are better understood as reflecting the challenges of ‘cross-neurotype’ interactions (Chen et al., 2021).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Alkhaldi R. S. Sheppard E. Mitchell P. (2019). Is there a link between autistic people being perceived unfavorably and having a mind that is difficult to read? Journal of Autism Development Disorder, 49(10), 3973– 3982. 10.1007/s10803-019-04101-1 PMC6751138 31197637 · DOI
  2. Allison P. D. (2001). Missing data (Vol. 136). Sage publications.
  3. Bakeman R. Gottman J. M. (1987). Applying observational methods: A systematic view. In Osofsky J. D. (ed.) Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 818– 854). John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Bauminger N. Shulman C. Agam G. (2003). Peer interaction and loneliness in high-functioning children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(5), 489– 507. 10.1023/A:1025827427901 14594329 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bolis D. Lahnakoski J. M. Seidel D. Tamm J. Schilbach L. (2021). Interpersonal similarity of autistic traits predicts friendship quality. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(1–2), 222– 231. 33104781 PMC7812635
  6. Chen Y.-L. Martin W. Vidiksis R. Patten K. (2021). Supporting peer engagement in adolescents on the autism spectrum with an inclusive, interest-based school. Manuscript submitted for publication. PMC10402833 37547547
  7. Cresswell L. Hinch R. Cage E. (2019). The experiences of peer relationships amongst autistic adolescents: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 61, 45– 60. 10.1016/j.rasd.2019.01.003 · DOI
  8. Crompton C. J. Ropar D. Evans-Williams C. V. Flynn E. G. Fletcher-Watson S. (2020). Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective. Autism, 24(7), 1704– 1712. 10.1177/1362361320919286 32431157 PMC7545656 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Crompton C. J. Sharp M. Axbey H. Fletcher-Watson S. Flynn E. G. Ropar D. (2020). Neurotype-matching, but not being autistic, influences self and observer ratings of interpersonal rapport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 586171. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586171 PMC7645034 33192918 · DOI
  10. De Jaegher H. (2013). Embodiment and sense-making in autism. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, Article 15. 10.3389/fnint.2013.00015 PMC3607806 23532205 · DOI
  11. Faso D. J. Corretti C. A. Ackerman R. A. Sasson N. J. (2016). The broad autism phenotype predicts relationship outcomes in newly formed college roommates. Autism, 20(4), 412– 424. 10.1177/1362361315585733 26014840 · DOI
  12. Gardiner E. Iarocci G. (2014). Students with autism spectrum disorder in the university context: Peer acceptance predicts intention to volunteer. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(5), 1008– 1017. 10.1007/s10803-013-1950-4 24077739 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Ghosh J. Li Y. Mitra R. (2018). On the use of Cauchy prior distributions for Bayesian logistic regression. Bayesian Analysis, 13(2), 359– 383.
  14. Heyman R. E. Lorber M. F. Eddy J. M. West T. V. (2014). Behavioral observation and coding. In Judd C. M. Reis H. T. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 345– 372). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511996481.018 · DOI
  15. Humphrey N. Symes W. (2011). Peer interaction patterns among adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) in mainstream school settings. Autism, 15(4), 397– 419. 10.1177/1362361310387804 21454385 · DOI
  16. Jaswal V. K. Akhtar N. (2019). Being vs. appearing socially uninterested: Challenging assumptions about social motivation in autism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, Article E82. 10.1017/s0140525x18001826 29914590 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Jones D. R. DeBrabander K. M. Sasson N. J. (2021). Effects of autism acceptance training on explicit and implicit biases toward autism. Autism. Advance online publication. 10.1177/1362361320984896 33472382 · DOI
  18. Locke J. Shih W. Kretzmann M. Kasari C. (2016). Examining playground engagement between elementary school children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 20(6), 653– 662. 10.1177/1362361315599468 26341991 PMC4779076 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Maiano C. Normand C. L. Salvas M. C. Moullec G. Aime A. (2016). Prevalence of school bullying among youth with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Autism Research, 9(6), 601– 615. 10.1002/aur.1568 26451871 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Martin W. B. Yu J. Wei X. Vidiksis R. Patten K. K. Riccio A. (2020). Promoting science, technology, and engineering self-efficacy and knowledge for all with an autism inclusion maker program. Frontiers in Education, 5, Article 75. 10.3389/feduc.2020.00075 · DOI
  21. McNeish D. Stapleton L. M. (2014). The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 295– 314. 10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x · DOI
  22. McNeish D. Stapleton L. M. (2016). Modeling clustered data with very few clusters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(4), 495– 518. 10.1080/00273171.2016.1167008 27269278 · DOI
  23. Milton D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883– 887. 10.1080/09687599.2012.710008 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Morrison K. E. DeBrabander K. M. Jones D. R. Faso D. J. Ackerman R. A. Sasson N. J. (2020). Outcomes of real-world social interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared to typically developing partners. Autism, 24(5), 1067– 1080. 10.1177/1362361319892701 31823656 · DOI
  25. O’Hagan S. Hebron J. (2016). Perceptions of friendship among adolescents with autism spectrum conditions in a mainstream high school resource provision. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 314– 328. 10.1080/08856257.2016.1223441 · DOI
  26. Rotheram-Fuller E. Kasari C. Chamberlain B. Locke J. (2010). Social involvement of children with autism spectrum disorders in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(11), 1227– 1234. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02289.x 20673234 PMC2970745 · DOI
  27. Sasson N. J. Morrison K. E. (2017). First impressions of adults with autism improve with diagnostic disclosure and increased autism knowledge of peers. Autism, 23(1), 50– 59. 10.1177/1362361317729526 29039208 · DOI
  28. Usher L. V. Burrows C. A. Schwartz C. B. Henderson H. A. (2015). Social competence with an unfamiliar peer in children and adolescents with high functioning autism: Measurement and individual differences. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 17, 25– 39. 10.1016/j.rasd.2015.05.005 26161136 PMC4492168 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y.-L., Senande, L. L., Thorsen, M., & Patten, K.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Yu-Lun
Venue
Autism
Published
2021-06-25
Volume
25
Issue
7
Pages
1885-1900
ISSN
  • 1362-3613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7005
OpenAlex
W3175643835
Cited by
161
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 2
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Autism (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Keywords
peer interaction, peer preference, adolescents, social interest, gender differences, peer relationships, social skills training, social skills groups
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Social Interaction, Adolescent, Autistic Disorder, Humans, Peer Group, Social Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review