Abstract
Twenty children with autism (mean age, 5 years) were recruited for the study from a school for children with autism. The children were randomly assigned to an imitation (n = 10) or contingently responsive (n = 10) interaction group based on a stratification table for gender and developmental and chronological age. The sessions consisted of four phases, with each phase lasting 3 minutes. In the first phase, the child walked into a room that was furnished with a sofa, a table, chairs, and two sets of identical toys. An adult was in the room sitting very still like a statue (first still-face condition). In the second phase, the adult either imitated the child or was contingently responsive to the child. In the third phase, the adult sat still again (second still-face condition), and in the fourth phase, the adult engaged in a spontaneous interaction. During the third phase (the second still-face condition), the children in the imitation group spent less time in gross motor activity and more time touching the adult, as if attempting to initiate an interaction. The contingency condition appeared to be a more effective way to facilitate a distal social behavior (attention), whereas the imitative condition was a more effective way to facilitate a proximal social behavior (touching).
REFERENCES
Baranek, G. T. (1999). Sensory-motor symptoms of autism: Home movies at 9 –12 months of age.Poster symposium presented at SRCD.
Bayley, N. (1969). Barmy Scales of Infant Development: birth to two years. SanAntonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision forscaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.
Dawson, G., & Adams, A. (1984).Imitation and social responsiveness in autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 209–226.
Dawson, G., & Galpert, L. (1990). Mother's use of imitative play for facilitating social responsiveness and toy play in young autistic children. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 151–162.
Field, T. (1977). Effects of early separation,interactive deficits and experimental manipulations on infant-mother face-to-face interaction. Child Development, 48, 763–771.
Hobson, P. (1993). Autism and the development of mind. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Hollingshead, A. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Kervella, C., & Nadel, J. (1999). Analyse de donnees observationnelles: Panad. Enfance, 51, 191–197.
Lubin, L., & Field T. (1981). Imitation during preschool peer interaction. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, 443–453.
Nadel, J., Croue, S., Kervella, C., Mattlinger, M. J., Canet, P., Hudelot, C., Lecuyer, C., & Martini, M. (2000).Do autistic children have ontological expectancies concerning human behavior? Autism, 133–145.
Nadel, J., & Peze, A. (1993). What makes immediate imitation communicative in toddlers and autistic children? In J. Nadel & L. Camaioni (Eds.), New perspectives in early communicative development. London, NY: Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1951). Playdreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Tiegerman, E., & Primavera, L. (1981). Object manipulation:An interactional strategy with autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 427–438.
Tiegerman, E., & Primavera, L. (1984). Imitating the autistic child: Facilitating communicative gaze behavior. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders, 14, 27–38.
Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T.(1978). The infant's response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17, 1–13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Escalona, A., Field, T., Nadel, J. et al. Brief Report: Imitation Effects on Children with Autism. J Autism Dev Disord 32, 141–144 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014896707002
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014896707002