testing the situationally modified social rank theory on - bctra

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION JOURNAL Vol. 38, No. 3, 261-274, 2004

Testing the Situationally ModifiedSocial Rank Theory on FriendshipQuality in Male Youth with High-Functioning Autism SpectrumDisorder

I-Tsun Chiang, Youngkhill Lee, Georgia Frey, and Bryan McCormick

This study examined the impact of a situationally modified social rank (SMSR) based interven-tion on friendship quality of boys with high-functioning autistic spectrum disorders (HFASDs).Six male youth ages 10-14 years with HFASDs and their mothers, and six typically developingage/gender matched peers participated. Youth with HFASDs were trained to use a popularvideogame for 3-6 weeks. After the training period, they taught peers without HFASDs to playthe game. All participants completed pre- and post-intervention interviews that addressed socialsituations and intervention outcomes. Youth also completed friendship questionnaires pre- andpost-intervention. The findings suggest that the SMSR based intervention improved somecomponents of friendship quality, peer recognition through physical competence, and socialexpectations among participants.

KEY WORDS: Autism Spectrum Disorders, Social Rank Theory, Situationally Modified SocialRank, Friendship

Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are be- tal disabilities in the United States (Nationalcoming one of the most common developmen- Information Center for Children and Youth

I-Tsun Chiang is an Assistant Professor at National Pingtung University of Science andTechnology; Lee, Frey and McCormick are Associate Professors at Indiana University.

Third Quarter 2004 261

with Disabilities, 2003). The condition is char-acterized by deficits in communication, socialinteraction, and behavior (American Psychiat-ric Association, 1994), which typically lead todifficulties developing social relationships andreciprocal social interactions (Strain &Schwartz, 2001). Recent research indicatesthat youth with high functioning ASDs(HFASDs) express interest in social relation-ships, but lack skills and experiences in socialinitiation and social-emotional understandingthat ultimately interfere with development ofpeer friendships (Bauminger, 2002). This hasbeen supported by personal accounts of friend-ship difficulties reported by individuals withHFASDs:

"Why don't I know to follow groupsoutside of class? I noticed that we allgot along and at first I went off to lunchwith groups from my class who mademe feel included. Then they seemed todrift off without me. . . . I don't under-stand the cues and get left out. . . . Iwant to make real friendships and ithurts that I can't get past step one (Wil-liams, 1994, pp. 78-79)."

Children's friendships play an importantrole in promoting social development and ad-justment (Parker & Asher, 1987). However,the lack of optimal peer relationships mayresult in social isolation, where children areactively rejected, socially withdrawn or ne-glected by peers (Rubin, 1985). Baumingerand Kasari (2000) specifically explored per-ceptions of loneliness and friendship in youthwith HFASDs and reported that these individ-uals felt lonelier and expressed poorer friend-ship quality than typically developing youth.

Efforts to improve friendship quality foryouth with HFASDs have focused on socialskills training. Siegel, Goldstein, and Minshew(1996) maintain that social interventions foryouth with HFASDs should focus on socialskills training such as recognizing, under-standing and responding to social cues. Themajority of social interventions have incorpo-

rated these areas, with mixed success (Baum-inger, 2002; Morrison, Kamps, Garcia, &Parker, 2001). Peer-mediated interventions areone of the most commonly used formats toimplement social skills training (McConnell,2002; Rogers, 2000). In peer-mediated inter-ventions, involvement in activities with typi-cally developing peers is a key component inmaximizing successful social outcomes (Har-ing & Breen, 1992; Simpson, Myles, Sasso, &Kamps, 1997). However, peer-mediated inter-ventions are often criticized due to: (a) rein-forcement of hierarchical roles such as "giver"(trained peer) and "receiver" (youth withHFASDs); (b) failure to use natural socialcues; and (c) the false impression that normalpeer friendships are promoted (McConnell,Whitaker, Barratt, Joy, Potter & Thomas,1998). Traditional peer-mediated, social skillstraining may help youth with HFASDs func-tion more appropriately among peers, but itdoes not appear to improve friendship quality.That is, understanding the mechanics of socialinteractions does not necessarily lead to betterpeer relationships.

Social Rank TheoryThe lack of a theoretical foundation may

partially explain the reported shortcomings ofpeer-mediated, social skills training interven-tions. Shank, Coyle, Boyd, and Kinney (1996)cautioned that the failure to incorporate theo-ries into health-related research creates a gapin building outcomes and Austin (1999) notedthat theories help understand clinical reality.Dunn (1993) further suggested that theoreti-cally grounded research increases validity ofthe knowledge base.

To function successfully in peer relation-ships, interventions should be sensitized toage-related social dynamics. Social rank the-ory provides a theoretical framework fromwhich to develop a peer-mediated interventionto improve social relationships of youth withHFASDs. Social rank theory was initially usedto describe group living animal behavior, but italso applies to human social engagement. The

262 Therapeutic Recreation Journal

theory stipulates that social ranks among ani-mals living in groups and human society main-tain hierarchical organization that allow accessto significant resources, such as food, territory,and sexual opportunities from an evolutionaryview (Gilbert, 1992; Gilbert, Allan, Brough,Melley, & Miles, 2002). All human groupsorganize themselves in hierarchies and an av-erage individual belongs to multiple hierar-chies that often involve different skills. Hier-archies or social ranks are created as onedominates others with skills and powers.Those who have a particular talent or skill aregiven the opportunity to exercise their powerfor the benefit of the group (Sloman, Atkinson,Milligan, & Liotti, 2002).

Throughout their school careers, youthconstruct their identities and status throughinteractions with peers (Farmer, 2000), andschool is a challenging social setting with clearhierarchies (Macintyre & West, 1991). Evenas early as preschool, students develop socialstructures of distinct peer groups and are se-lective in their peer affiliations (Snyder,Horsch, & Childs, 1997). Such selectivity issustained across the school years as youthcreate and modify their identities, behaviors,and values through peer associations and so-cial roles (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Social hi-erarchies particularly emerge as some individ-uals and peer groups have greater socialprominence and power than others (Adler &Adler, 1996; Cairns & Cairns). In school set-tings, children who are "popular" or "cool" aretypically composed of athletes, cheerleaders,members of the student government, and theirfriends (Adler & Adler).

Researchers argue that the social status ofstudents with disabilities integrated into main-stream classes may be lower than the socialstatus of students without disabilities (Pearl, etal., 1998; Taylor, Asher, & Williams, 1987;Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996). Negativelabels such as unlovable, worthless, bad, inad-equate, and useless are assignments of statusthat locate the individual in a low rank position(Sloman, Price, Gilbert, & Gardner, 1994).Low social ranks lead to de-escalating strate-

gies which include low self-esteem, avoid-ance, submissive behavior, self-isolation, in-voluntary subordinate self-perception, feelingsof shame, and depression (Gilbert & Allan,1998). According to this theory, children withHFASDs tend to experience a low social rankbecause they may be perceived to be incom-petent and thus negatively labeled. This leadsto development of de-escalating strategies thatmight interfere with the ability to recognize,understand, and process social cues, or de-velop relationships.

To date, it appears that modifying the so-cial rank of children with HFASDS as amethod of affecting social relationships hasnot been attempted. Social rank theory impliesthat improved social status might positivelyinfluence peer relationships. Social rank canbe altered through acquisition of certain skillsthat are valued by youth culture. Goldberg andChandler (1992) identified physical compe-tence as a significant factor in social statusamong male youth society. Smith (2003) pro-posed that social interventions that incorporatephysical activity are a valuable approach toenhancing the quality of peer relationships.Therefore, physical activity could be used tomodify social ranks between youth with andwithout HFASDs. If youth with HFASDs candemonstrate a level of competence comparableto peers in a socially valued physical activity,social rank may be modified and the status ofyouth with HFASDs would theoretically im-prove. As a result, self-perceptions of certainsocial variables such as friendship quality heldby this group may improve.

Purpose Statement and ResearchHypothesis

The purpose of this study was to examinewhether a situationally modified social rank(SMSR), created through a game that requiresphysical competence, influenced perceptionsof friendship quality in boys with ASDs. It washypothesized that the SMSR interventionwould have a positive impact on friendshipquality in the target population.


MethodsThe use of mixed research methods en-

hances the validity of research findings(Dootson, 1995; Mathison, 1988), aids inelimination of subjective bias, allows thedismissal of plausible rival explanations(Mathison; Denzin, 1970), and maximizesconfidence in data and results (Dootson;Kvale, 1996; Morse, 1991). This study em-ployed both quantitative (questionnaire) andqualitative methods (i.e., semi-structured in-terviewing, informal conversations, and ob-servation) in an attempt to comprehensivelyevaluate the treatment effect.

ParticipantsSix male youth diagnosed with HFASDs

ages 10-14 years, and their mothers volun-teered to participate. Several were referred bythe director of a campus-based activity pro-gram for youth with disabilities, and recruitedthrough direct contact. The project was alsoannounced and described in detail during localautism support group meetings. Potential par-ticipants were advised of the time requirementand inclusion criteria for involvement in thestudy. The resulting participant number re-flects those capable of both meeting the projecttime commitment to the project and identify-ing a peer partner.

Participants were diagnosed with Pervasive

Developmental Disorder or Asperger's syn-drome, and received special educational ser-vices under the category of Autism. Five wereincluded in regular classes and one was homeschooled by his mother who was a teacher. Allwere intellectually average and capable of re-ciprocal conversation, according to parent re-ports and personal interactions. They werealso free from (a) aggressive or self-stimulat-ing behaviors and (b) physical or sensory dis-abilities that could interfere with the ability toparticipate in the intervention. Six age andgender matched peers without HFASDs wereidentified as friends by participants withHFASDs, and recruited via direct contact. Theidentified friends were mostly neighbors orschool acquaintances and the extent thesefriendships were limited. Specifically, they didnot voluntarily socialize on a regular basis, asconfirmed by parents and peers. All partici-pants signed informed consent documents pre-viously approved by the university human sub-jects review board. Pseudonyms are used torepresent participants and characteristics arepresented in Table 1.

Independent Variable: SituationallyModified Social Rank (SMSR)

In order to create a SMSR situation, youthwith ASDs were trained to be proficient inplaying Dance Dance Revolution® (DDR), a

Table 1.

Participants' Characteristics

Case Number

Case 1Case 2Case 3Case 4Case 5Case 6

Youth with ASDs

Pseudonyms Age (Years: Months)

AdamBrentCalvinDaleEricFrank

10: 713: 014: 213: 1110: 410: 5

Youth

Pseudonyms

AlanBruceCharlesDennisEvanFloyd

without ASDs

Age (Years: Months)

11: 013: 214: 813:010: 910: 6


physical activity videogame (a product ofPlayStation®, Sony Computer EntertainmentInc.). The DDR® was chosen because it in-volves both video-technology and physical ac-tivity, and is extremely popular among youthculture (Tran, 2000). The game has also beenused as social skills intervention modality foryouth with ASD (Brobst, 2002; Thomas,2003). The game displays four directive signs(front, back, right, and left) in sequences on atelevision screen in conjunction with popularmusic. Players compete against the machine oranother player by matching these signs whilestepping in the corresponding directions on afloor dance pad. Players receive scores accord-ing to how well they match the dance steps ina certain time. Advanced levels of perfor-mance involve more complex dance steps,rhythms, and timeframes. There are both anarcade and home version of the game, and thehome version was used in this study.

Participants with HFASDs were trained touse the DDR® twice a week for three to sixweeks, depending on participant progress andscheduling. All sessions were conducted in anopen space (17 X 10 ft.) of a university officeafter school. A TV-VCR set and PlayStation®(Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.) consolewere placed in a cart and two dance pads wereon the floor in the room. There was sufficientroom to be active during the game. Threestandardized lessons were developed by thesoftware manufacturer. Each lesson consistedof 8 sections, which included seven 1.5-minutesections and one 2-minute review section.Players had to pass the first seven sections tobe able to take the final review section, whichincluded movements of the previous sevensections.

When players completed three review sec-tions (one for each standardized lesson), theycompleted the whole lesson sequence. Theprogram evaluated player performances andgave "crown" icons in front of the section title,indicating that the players had passed or"checkmark" icons, indicating that the playershad played the section, but had not passed.When players passed these lessons, they could

usually pass games in beginner mode and alsosome games in normal mode. Each lessonrequired approximately 10 to 15 minutes tocomplete without mistakes. All three lessonscould be completed in 30-45 minutes, pro-vided there were no mistakes. After complet-ing the three lessons, participants were taughtto operate the software (e.g., select the maingame, couple mode, music, and difficulty lev-els) and install dance pads. Training sessionswere ended when participants were able tooperate the game in dual mode and play with aresearcher. All training sessions were con-ducted by the first author who provided addi-tional cues and instructions as needed.

After passing the software default traininglessons, participants practiced teaching thegame to the first author. Once they demon-strated sufficient teaching skills, each partici-pant identified a peer to participate in theintervention. The peer and his parents werecontacted and provided verification that he hadnever played or had very limited skills inDDR®. Once this was established the peer wasinvited to play the game. During peer interac-tion sessions, youth with ASDs took the leadand taught peers without ASDs to play thevideogame, using the skills they had gainedduring the training protocol. Additional assis-tance from a researcher was provided asneeded and field notes were kept during thesesessions. Peer interaction sessions were con-ducted twice a week for two weeks and tookapproximately 30 minutes to complete.

Quantitative MeasureFriendship Quality. Friendship quality was

assessed pre- and post-intervention using theFriendship Qualities Scale (FQS) (Bukowski,Hoza & Boivin, 1994). The FQS is a standard-ized self-report that contains 23 items rated ona 5-point scale from "not true at all" (1) to"very true" (5). These questions reflect fivefriendship quality categories: companionship(4 items), security-intimacy and trust (5items), closeness (5 items), help (5 items), andconflict (4 items). The internal reliability is


between a = .71—.86 for all subscales, but novalidity scores have been reported (Bukowskiet al., 1994). The instrument was originallydesigned to assess feelings toward a "best"friend, but since study participants did notnecessarily view one another as "best" friends,the FQS language was slightly revised so that"my friend" referred to study participants.This approach was necessary to evaluate re-ciprocal friendship quality in the study dyads.

Verbal assistance was provided to facilitateparticipant understanding of the instrumentduring the pre- and post-intervention surveyadministration, as needed. Participants withand without HFASDs completed the FQS be-fore and immediately after the peer interactionpart of the intervention.

Qualitative AssessmentsAll interviews were conducted by one re-

searcher. Trust was established with partici-pants with HFASDs and their mothersthrough: (a) one-on-one instruction during thetraining sessions; and (b) spending extendedtime with participants outside the intervention(e.g., local youth basketball games, local au-tism parent support group, community activi-ties). This level of rapport between partici-pants and the researcher allowed comfort insharing feelings and providing feedback.

Interviews. Interviews were only con-ducted with mothers, who self-identified asprimary care givers. Semi-structuted inter-views were gathered pre- and post-interven-tion and continued for approximately 30-60minutes. Pre-intervention questions related tothe child's social behaviors, friendships, otherpeer relationship, and demographics. Post-in-tervention questions focused on feedback andobservations regarding the effectiveness of theintervention. Parent interviews were con-ducted in public settings identified as comfort-able to them, such as bookstores or schooloffices. Interviews typically started with icebreakers such as "does your child like video-games?" and developed into other generalquestions such as "tell me about your child's

friends." These broad "tour" questions gener-ated responses from which to prompt and withwhich to generate further questions concerningthe social experiences of youth with HFASDs.

All youth were asked to complete informalpre- and post-intervention interviews afterquestionnaires were completed. Questionsprobed reciprocal relationships, self-percep-tions, and how they felt about answers tocertain survey questions (e.g., I have nobodyto talk to in class). Since youth with HFASDswere often not able to sit and directly conversefor more than 10 minutes, questions andprobes regarding social perceptions were con-ducted during the training sessions and otherinteraction periods. These interactions wererecorded in field notes, which supplementedthe youth participant formal interviews. Allinterviews were audio-taped and transcribedfor subsequent analysis.

Observation and Informal Conversations.Observational data (e.g., participant perfor-mance, interactions, and behaviors) and infor-mal conversations (e.g., parent conversation,peer communications) that occurred betweenthe first author, youth, and parents, and be-tween youth with and without HFASDs werecollected via written documentation beforeand after each intervention session. Memberchecks and peer debriefing were used to sup-port trustworthiness of the data.

Data AnalysisQualitative information was processed us-

ing the QSR N6 (QSR International, Mel-bourne, Australia), a code-and-retrieve com-puter software program, which assisted withthe processes of constant comparison, such ascoding, sorting, organizing, and comparingdata (Froggatt, 2001b; Strauss & Corbin,1990). The process of coding generated majorthemes and subsequent meanings associatedwith each emergent theme. Descriptive statis-tics (i.e., means and SD) were used to examinethe dependent measures. Unpaired and paireddata from the questionnaires were analyzedusing Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed


ranks tests, respectively. Data were analyzedusing SPSS (Statistical Package for the SocialSciences, Inc., Chicago) and significance wasset at p < .05.

ResultsYouth with HFASDs reported significant

improvements in companionship (z = —1.90,p = .03) and help (z = -2.02, p = .02)subscales. Peers without HFASDs demon-strated improvements in both companionship(z = -2.04, p = .02) and closeness (n =—2.23, p = .01) following the intervention(Tables 2-3). There were no statistically sig-nificant differences in FQS scores betweengroups pre- or post-intervention except per-ception of security (z = —1.77, p = .04) inpre-test. Youth without HFASDs rated higherlevel of security during the pre-test.

Results from the FQS were supported byparent and participant interviews, informalconversations, and observations. Several spe-cific themes emerged: (a) improved compan-ionship, (b) improved peer recognitionthrough physical competence, and (c) im-proved social and physical expectations.

Improved companionship. Perceptions ofcompanionship in friendship improved in bothgroups following intervention. Several youthwithout HFASDs (i.e., Alan, Bruce, Charles,and Floyd) went over to the houses of theirmatched peers with HFASDs following theintervention. These were child initiated inter-actions. According to parents' reports, Daleand Dennis went out together on weekendsfollowing the intervention and shared theirexperiences and interests in other areas(videogames, martial arts, and other games).

Table 2.

A Summary of Between Group Tests for the Dependent Measures

Variables

Mean and SD

Youth withASDs Group

(N = 6)

Youth withoutASDs Group

(N = 6)

Mann-Whiney

z values

Friendship QualityCompanionship

Pre-testPost-test

ConflictPre-testPost-test

HelpPre-testPost-test

SecurityPre-testPost-test

ClosenessPre-testPost-test

2.92 ± .803.46 ± .58

1.71 ± 1.142.04 ± .70

3.06 ± 1.184.22 ± .88

2.69 ± .572.96 ± .45

3.81 ± .924.06 ± .44

2.79 ± .753.21 ± .77

2.04 ± .702.17 ± .61

3.60 ± .843.79 ± .85

3.25 ± .453.43 ± .72

3.90 ± .604.19 ± .69

- .32- .57

1.30- .49

- .80- .80

1.76- .96

- .40- .48

.41

.29

.12

.35

.25

.25

.04

.18

.35

.35

' Significant at .05 level.


Table 3.

A Summary of Within Group Tests for the Dependent Measures

Variables

Mean and SD

Pre-test(N = 6)

Post-test(N = 6)

Mann-Whiney

z values

Friendship QualityCompanionship

Youth with ASDs 2.92 ± .80 3.46 ± .58Youth without ASDs 2.79 ± .75 3.21 ± .77

ConflictYouth with ASDs 1.71 ± 1.14 2.04 ± .70Youth without ASDs 2.04 ± .70 2.17 ± .61

HelpYouth with ASDs 3.06 ± 1.18 4.22 ± .88Youth without ASDs 3.60 ± .84 3.79 ± .85

SecurityYouth with ASDs 2.69 ± .57 2.96 ± .45Youth without ASDs 3.25 ± .45 3.43 ± .72

ClosenessYouth with ASDs 3.81 ± .92 4.06 ± .44Youth without ASDs 3.90 ± .60 4.19 ± .69

* Significant at .05 level (one tailed).

1.902.04

-1.22- .55

•2.02

•1.24

•1.47- .95

-.210•2.23

.03

.02

.11

.29

.02

.11

.07

.17

.41

.01

Through these additional experiences, peersknew more about youth with HFASDs in thisstudy and became more willing to spend freetime with them. Peers without HFASDs alsobegan to appreciate the talents of those withHFASDs. For example, Alan said, "He[Adam] taught me how to pass several [video]games. He is awesome! We had a good time."Also, Dennis and Dale described their experi-ence after playing other videogames in thelocal arcade. Dennis was very excited andsaid, "Oh, man. I wish you [the first author]could be there. That was so fun!" and Dalesaid, "Yes, you [researcher] should have beenthere!"

Observations indicated that SMSR inter-vention improved processing and responses tosocial cues in youth with HFASDs to someextent. Two specific examples were observedduring the interaction phase. First, in the be-

ginning of the interaction phase youth withHFASDs guided their peers to complete thelessons. During this time, they did not respondwell to their peers' requests (e.g., level selec-tion) and always chose what they wanted to do(e.g., "No, you cannot skip this lesson"). How-ever, because of their high competence in thegame, they were in "legitimate" positions toexpect peers to follow their instructions, sothis was viewed as an appropriate response.Most instructors expect learners to follow les-sons as planned. Peers could have acceptedthese responses for two reasons: (a) they re-spected the high level of physical competenceand expertise of youth with HFASDs in theDDR® or (b) they were being polite. WhenEric was teaching Evan, Evan requested thatthey play a different game than Eric hadplanned. Eric rejected the request with noexplanation and Evan said, "Okay, you are the


boss." If Evan did not respect Eric's authorityin teaching the game, he may have been reluc-tant to continue playing or he may have beenunwilling to engage Eric in an argument infront of the researcher.

Second, after peers completed lessons,youth with HFASDs provided options forpeers to choose games at the end of the inter-action phase where they received and re-sponded to social cues (e.g., I would like toplay this game/song, I want to select thischaracter) properly by complying with peerrequests. Accommodation of peer choices wasnot simply a scripted behavior and youth withHFASDs were able to understand peers' pref-erences. For example, Dale wrote the firstauthor a thank-you card following completionof the study. He wrote, "I have learned how tobe a good teacher and know what studentswant." This response could be interpreted twoways: (a) Dale became more aware of themechanics of being a teacher or mentor, ratherthan an equal peer, or (b) he actually learned toacknowledge what others want, which is aprecursor for developing friendship reciproc-ity. Both interpretations suggest that he be-came more cognizant of the wants and needsof other individuals.

Improved peer recognition through physi-cal competence. Data from interviews sug-gested that SMSR improved the self- and ex-ternal perceptions of competence in youth withHFASDs in this study. Evan, said, "I did notknow he [Eric who has ASD] is that coordi-nated! If the kids see it at school, they wouldlose their jaws like this [opening his mouseand acting shocked], and spend two hours toput them back!" In addition, several weeksafter the intervention Adam's mother reportedthat he had recently started to play basketballwith his peers during recess. This was a sig-nificant development for two reasons: (a) hispeers were including him in the game andchoosing him as a team member; and (b) hewas engaging in activities during a time periodthat he previously dreaded. Observation alsoindicated another surprising outcome in that hedisplayed his dance abilities for several peers

and adults at a camp fire night. She said,"When I asked him how he did it, he told methat he just did the dance steps in DDR®!"

Improved social and physical expectations.Parents reported higher expectations of theirchildren's abilities following the SMSR expe-rience. Calvin's mother said, "Through theexperience with DDR®, I learned that Calvin iscapable of several things that I didn't realize."Frank's mother also stated, "I feel more con-fident in myself to have Frank invite otherboys over to play. . . . I felt uneasy beforeDDR® because I thought Frank might fail inmaking and keeping friends."

Peers developed higher physical expecta-tions toward youth with HFASDs followingthe intervention. Charles, who was also a peerhelper for Calvin in local martial arts club,said, ". . . now I know he [Calvin] is capable tomore things . . . he can be more precise and dothese kicks and stuff. . . because I know he iscapable of it." Youth with HFASDs also ap-peared to have higher self-expectations ofphysical competence, even though it was notdirectly expressed. Youth with HFASDs oftenavoid physical activities because of clumsinessand low success rates in this area (Weimer,Schatz, Lincoln, Ballantyne, & Trauner,2001), but participants in this study had astrong desire to teach their peers and weremotivated to excel in the game, as evidencedby the zero attrition rate. Two parents evenpurchased a DDR® after the intervention be-cause it was one of the few physical activitiesin which their children experienced both con-fidence and enjoyment.

DiscussionThe hypothesis that an SMSR based inter-

vention would improve perceptions of friend-ship qualities in youth with HFASDs waspartially supported. Data from the FQS dem-onstrated positive changes in the companion-ship and help, and companionship and close-ness subscales among youth with and withoutHFASDs, respectively. Findings from thequalitative analysis further revealed improved


friendship quality as demonstrated by im-proved companionship, peer recognition andsocial expectations between youth with andwithout HFASDs.

Bauminger and Kasari (2000) reported thatyouth with HFASDs had poorer ratings ofcompanionship and help friendship qualitiesthan peers. This was not observed in the cur-rent study. In fact, there were no group differ-ences on all five subscales pre-intervention orpost intervention. It was interesting to notethat both youth with and without HFASDsimproved perceptions of companionship to-ward each other after the intervention. TheSMSR provided a structure for these changesto occur, but Duck (1994) explains the possi-ble mechanism of improved companionshipamong participants. He pointed out that thereare four necessary processes to developingmeaningful relationships: (a) commonality ofexperience, (b) mutuality, (c) equivalence ofevaluation, and (d) sharing of meaning. Youthwith and without HFASDs should already pos-sess some commonality of experience (e.g.,school projects, games) and mutuality (e.g.,interaction in classes or neighborhoods) intheir past experiences. However, they mightnot have an opportunity to reach equivalenceof evaluation because of their existing segre-gated social ranks. The SMSR created an op-portunity to access equivalence of evaluationbecause peers without HFASDs did not ob-serve what was likely expected, specifically atraditional lower rank physical performance byyouth with HFASDs. Youth with and withoutHFASDs were allowed to engage in a moreequivalent experience in the DDR® that couldbe similarly evaluated. Consequently, partici-pants began to share meaning in other topics,events, and experiences surrounding thisSMSR intervention, such as video games andsports (Duck, 1994). With continued sharedexperiences, youth with and without HFASDscould be expected to develop meaningfulfriendships (Duck). This was reinforced byfollow up reports from parents that three dyadsinitiated socialization following the inter-vention.

Improvements in friendship quality percep-tions could also be attributed to changes insocial attractiveness and social rank in youthwith HFASDs. Allan and Gilbert (1995)pointed out that social attractiveness is relatedto social rank. Youth with HFASDs were pro-vided individual training to develop compe-tence in a culturally relevant game that alsorequired physical skill. Their peers viewed thispositively because it involved a level of ath-letic ability, which is highly valued by maleyouth (Goldberg & Chandler, 1992). As aresult, youth with HFASDs may have en-hanced their social rank because they obtaineda level of social attractiveness, which conse-quently improved perceptions of certainfriendship qualities among participants.Heightened social expectation from parentsalso suggests improved social ranks in youthwith HFASDs. Individuals with disabilities areoften viewed and labeled as worthless, bad,inadequate and useless by their peers (Sloman,et al., 1994). Prior to the intervention, parentsin this study expressed low social expectationsfor their children. During the SMSR interven-tion, parents observed that their children coulddevelop competency in an activity valued byyouth culture and engage in peer relationshipsas "givers" rather than "takers." Following theintervention, parents expressed higher socialexpectations for their children, particularly forthose who interacted outside the structuredsetting. Neither social rank nor social attrac-tiveness were specifically measured in thisstudy, so definitive conclusions regardingthese constructs cannot be made. However,these findings suggest that social rank andyouth culture are important factors that mustbe considered when designing social interven-tions.

Traditional social interventions to improvefriendship quality in youth with HFASDs havebeen peer-mediated (McConnell, 2002; Rog-ers, 2000) and focused on social skills training(Siegel et al., 1996). These efforts have typi-cally not resulted in improved friendship qual-ity in these individuals (Bauminger & Kasari,2000). This may be because interventions have


been designed without consideration of inher-ent double-standards based on social rank thatexist in youth culture. For example, unaccept-able behaviors are often acceptable if exhib-ited by someone who is "cool" and unaccept-able behaviors are always unacceptable ifexhibited by someone who is not "cool"(Adler & Adler, 1996; Cairns & Cairns, 1994).Therefore, it may be less important that youthwith HFASDs become proficient at readingand responding to social cues, because theywill never be recognized as legitimate friendsby peers as long as they are void of talents orskills valued by peers.

Perceptions of friendship were not specifi-cally examined in the current study, but this isan important factor that may have affectedfindings. Carrington, Templeton, and Papinc-zak (2003) found that adolescents with As-perger's syndrome did not understand whatconstituted a friendship and had difficulty de-scribing this construct. Youth with ASD wereasked to identify a friend to participate. Inmost cases these friends were neighbors orschool acquaintances who were kind to theparticipant with ASD. When asked to identifypotential friends to participate in the interven-tion, mothers mentioned that their childrenonly had a few or no friends and actuallyworried that the inability to identify a friendwithout ASDs who would agree to be involvedwould prohibit participation in the study. As aresult, participants and their peers may nothave been engaged in a mutually perceivedfriendship prior to intervention and thechanges observed in friendship constructswere indicative of an evolving, rather thanimproving relationship.

Attempts to modify social rank in thisstudy demonstrated that youth with HFASDscan obtain skills valued by youth culture, andhave those skills recognized and appreciatedby peers without HFASDs. An additional out-come was that youth with HFASDs improvedsome aspects of social skills during the inter-vention. Social skills were not a target vari-able, but it was observed that youth withHFASDs became more tolerant and accommo-

dating when interacting with peers. Allowingyouth with HFASDs to become proficient inthe activity in a relatively safe environment(i.e., absence of peer expectations or ridicule)before intervention probably contributed tothis observation. However, there is evidence tosuggest that a certain levels of social skillstraining may naturally occur within an SMSRstructure.

There are several potential implications forthis research to practice. Recreational thera-pists working with this population should con-sider developing skills associated with seriousleisure (Stebbins, 1992), particularly those thatinvolve physical competence, as part of recre-ation intervention. Serious leisure is defined as"the systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobby-ist, or volunteer activity that is sufficientlysubstantial and interesting for the participantto find a career there in the acquisition andexpression of its special skills and knowledge"(Stebbins, 1992, p. 3). Through serious leisure,participants obtain sufficient skills that couldescalate their social rank. Leisure activities canserve as "commonality of experience" (Duck,1994) in constructing meaningful relation-ships. Specialized skills developed as part ofthe serious leisure activity may improve socialrank to enhance social interaction, and im-prove friendship quality.

In conjunction with serious leisure, talentdevelopment may be another considerationwhen designing interventions for youth withHFASDs. Talent is a special natural capacityfor success in mental or physical activities,which is often manifested in both childrenand adults in various areas such as science,mathematics, art, music, sport, and games(Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whallen,1993). An important motive for encouragingand emphasizing talent activities is experi-ences of enjoyment and fun (Scalan Carpenter,Lobel, & Simons, 1993; Scalan, Stein, &Ravizza, 1989), and it is reasonable to predictthat this would positively impact interventionoutcomes. Recreational therapists may want todiscover the particular talents of youth withHFASDs and foster development of these


skills, whether in computer games, sports, mu-sic, etc.

In addition to those previously mentioned,several methodological issues must be care-fully considered when interpreting these re-sults. First, the small sample size, and age andgender of participants, as well as the lack of acontrol group limit generalizability of find-ings. Second, formal follow-up data were notcollected, so conclusions regarding the main-tenance of the intervention cannot be deter-mined. Third, the laboratory setting precludestransfer of the findings to other settings.Fourth, the pre- and post-test scores may nothave been independent or could have beeninfluenced by the interviews. Fifth, friendshipperceptions were not measured in youth withASD. That is, it is not clear if youth with andwithout HFASDs in this study held similarviews of friendship, which may have impactedquestionnaire responses.

In spite of these limitations, the results arepromising and prompt the need for furtherexploration of SMSR as a method of examin-ing social dynamics of youth with HFASDs.There are a number of recommendations forfuture research such as expanding the samplesize, including other ages and females, usingother culturally valued modalities, examiningintervention maintenance, measuring socialrank, and longitudinally examining friendshippairs. Prospective studies could also assessother social variables (i.e., different social at-tributes), environments (e.g., school, recre-ation center), and multiple SMSR episodes. Inaddition, social interventions for this popula-tion should focus on highlighting the uniquecontributions of youth with ASD and accep-tance of those contributions, rather than cor-recting "deficits" in an effort toward "normal-ization."

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1996). Preadolescentclique stratification and the hierarchy of identity.Sociological Inquiry, 66, 111-142.

Allan, S., & Gilbert, P. (1995). A social com-parison scale: Psychometric properties and relation-ship to psychopathology. Personality & IndividualDifferences, 19(3), 293-299.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diag-nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(4th ed.). Washington, DC: American PsychiatricAssociation.

Austin, D. R. (1999). Therapeutic recreationprocesses and techniques (4th Ed.). Champaign, IL:Sagamore Publishing.

Bauminger, N. (2002). The facilitation of social-emotional understanding and social interaction inhigh-functioning children with autism: interventionoutcomes. Journal of Autism & Development Disor-ders, 32(4), 283-298.

Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000). Lonelinessand friendship in high-functioning children withautism. Child Development, 71(2), 447-456.

Brobst, Y. S. (2002). An alternative to interac-tive metronome for my child. Autism Network Re-sources for Physicians. Retrieved May 1, 2004 fromhttp://hom.san.rr.com/autismnet/ddr.html.

Bukowski, W. M , Hoza, B., & Boivin, M.(1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre-and early adolescence: The development and psy-chometric properties of the friendship qualitiesscale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,11(3), 471-484.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelinesand risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York:Havester Wheatsheaf.

Carrington, S., Templeton, E., & Papinczak, T.(2003). Adolescents with Asperger syndrome andperceptions of friendship. Focus on Autism andOther Developmental Disabilities, 18, 211-218.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen,S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of successand failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Denzin, N. (1970). Strategies of multiple trian-gulation. In N. Denzin. (Ed.) The research act insociology: A theoretical introduction to sociologicalmethod (pp. 297-313), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dootson, S. (1995). An in-depth study of trian-gulation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 183—187.

Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships:Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Dunn, J. K. (1993). Interpretation of positivisticresearch: Issues of validity and reliability. In M. J.


Malkin & C. Z. Howe (Eds.), Research in therapeu-tic recreation: Concepts and methods (pp. 161—179). State College, PA: Venture.

Farmer, T. W. (2000). Misconceptions of peerrejection and problem behavior: Aggression in stu-dents with mild disabilities. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 21(4), 194-208.

Froggatt, K. A. (2001b). Using computers in theanalysis of qualitative data. Palliative Medicine,15(6), 517-520.

Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution ofpowerlessness. New York: Guilford Press.

Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1998). The role of defeatand entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: Anexploration of an evolutionary view. PsychologicalMedicine, 28(3), 585-598.

Gilbert, P., Allan, S., Brough, S., Melley, S., &Miles, J. N. (2002). Relationship of anhedonia andanxiety to social rank, defeat and entrapment. Jour-nal of Affective Disorders, 71, 141—151.

Goldberg, A. D., & Chandler, T. J. L. (1992).Academics and athletics in the social world of juniorhigh school students. School Counselor, 40(1), 4 0 -46.

Haring, T. G., & Breen, C. G. (1992). A peer-mediated social network intervention to enhance thesocial integration of persons with moderate andsevere disabilities. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 25, 319-333.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction toqualitative research interviewing. Sage, London.

Macintyre, S., & West, P. (1991). Social, devel-opmental and health correlates of "attractiveness" inadolescence. Sociology of Health and Illness, 13,149-167.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educa-tional Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.

McConnell, S. R. (2002). Interventions to facil-itate social interaction for young children with au-tism: Review of available research and recommen-dations for educational intervention and futureresearch. Journal of Autism & Development Disor-ders, 32(5), 351-372.

Morrison, L., Kamps, D., Garcia, J., & Parker,D. (2001). Peer mediation and monitoring strategiesto improve initiations and social skills for studentswith autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-tions, 5(4), 237-250.

Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. NursingResearch, 40(1), 120-123.

National Information Center for Children andYouth with Disabilities. (2003, lanuary 1). Autismand pervasive developmental disorder. RetrievedMay 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fsltxt.htm

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer rela-tions and later personal adjustment. PsychologicalBulletin, 102, 357-389.

Pearl, R., Farmer, T. W., Van Acker, R., Rodkin,P., Bost, K. K., Coe, M., & Henley, W. (1998). Thesocial integration of student with mild disabilities ingeneral education classrooms: Peer group member-ship and peer-assessed social behavior. The Elemen-tary School Journal, 99, 167-186.

Rogers, S. J. (2000). Interventions that facilitatesocialization in children with autism. Journal ofAutism & Developmental Disorders, 30(5), 399-409.

Rubin, K. H. (1985). Socially withdrawn chil-dren: An "at risk" population? In B. H. Schneider,K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children'speer relations: Issues in assessment and interven-tion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Scanlan, T. K., Carpenter, P. J., Schmidt, G. W.,Simons, J. P., & Keeler, B. (1993). An introductionto the Sport Commitment Model. Journal of Sport &Exercise Psychology, 15, 1-15.

Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K.(1989). An in-depth study of former elite figureskaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport& Exercise Psychology, 11, 65-83.

Shank, J. W., Coyle, C. P., Boyd, R., & Kinney,W. B. (1996). A classification scheme for therapeu-tic recreation research grounded in the rehabilitativesciences. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30, 179-196.

Siegel, D. J., Goldstein, G., & Minshew, N. J.(1996). Designing instruction for the high-function-ing autistic individuals. Journal of Development andPsychology, 1, 1-19.

Simpson, R. L., Myles, B. S., Sasso, G. M., &Kamps, D. M. (1997). Social skills for students withautism (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Council for Excep-tional Children.

Sloman, L., Atkinson, L., Milligan, K., & Liotti,G. (2002). Attachment, social rank and affect regu-lation: Speculations on an ethological approach tofamily interaction. Family Process. 41(3), 313—327.

Sloman, L., Price, J., Gilbert, P., & Gardner, R.(1994). Adaptive function of depression: Psycho-therapeutic implications. American Journal of Psy-chotherapy, 48(3), 401-416.


Smith, A. L. (2003). Peer relationships in phys-ical activity contexts: A road less traveled in youthsport and exercise psychology research. Psychologyof Sport & Exercise, 4(1), 25-40.

Snyder, J., Horsch, E., & Childs, J. (1997). Peerrelationships of young children: Affiliative choicesand the shaping of aggressive behavior. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 26(2), 145-156.

Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Amateurs, professionals,and serious leisure. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Uni-versity Press.

Strain, P. S., & Schwartz, I. (2001). ABA and thedevelopment of meaningful social relations foryoung children with autism. Focus on Autism &Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(2), 120-128.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics ofqualitative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica-tions.

Taylor, A. R., Asher, S. R., & Williams, G. A.(1987). Social adaptation of mainstreamed mildlyretarded children. Child Development, 58, 1321-1334.

Thomas, S. (2003, July 15). Shell of autism

cracks: In Lakota: Kids have communication prob-lems; Special club, camp teach social skills. RetrievedSeptember 15, 2003 from http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/07/15/loc_wwwloc21akol5.html.

Tran, K. T. L. (2000, August 16). In the latestarcade craze, players demonstrate their fancy foot-work. Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http://www.ddrfreak.com/newpressAVall%20Street%20Journal.html.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Schumm, J. S.(1996). The effects of inclusion on the social func-tioning of students with learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 598-608.

Weimer, A. K., Schatz, A. M., Lincoln, A.,Ballantyne, A. O., & Trauner, D. A. (2001). "Motor"impairment in Asperger syndrome: Evidence for adeficit in proprioception. Journal of Developmentaland Behavioral Pediatrics, 22(2), 92-101.

Williams, D. (1994). Somebody somewhere.New York, NY: Random House, Inc.

Whitaker, P., Barratt, P., Joy, H., Potter, M., &Thomas, G. (1998). Children with autism and peergroup support: Using 'circles of friends.' BritishJournal of Special Education, 25(2), 60—64.


testing the situationally modified social rank theory on - bctra

Documents