social stories™: a possible theoretical rationale
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries]On: 21 December 2014, At: 12:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Special NeedsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20
Social Stories™: a possible theoreticalrationaleGeorgina Reynhout a & Mark Carter aa Special Education Centre, Macquarie University , Sydney,AustraliaPublished online: 26 Aug 2011.
To cite this article: Georgina Reynhout & Mark Carter (2011) Social Stories™: a possibletheoretical rationale, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26:3, 367-378, DOI:10.1080/08856257.2011.595172
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.595172
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Social Stories™: a possible theoretical rationale
Georgina Reynhout* and Mark Carter
Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
(Received 21 July 2010; final version received 1 November 2010)
Social Stories™ are an intervention widely used with individuals with autismspectrum disorders (ASD). This paper discusses a possible theoretical rationalethat might account for the purported efficacy of Social Stories™. Attributes ofindividuals with ASD in relation to Social Story intervention including difficul-ties with theory of mind (involving perspective taking and emotion perception),weak central coherence, visual learning style, intellectual ability and comprehen-sion, and stimulus overselectivity are considered. In addition, behavioural expla-nations are explored. Probably the most parsimonious explanation is that SocialStories may be viewed as loose contingency contracts, which highlight naturalreinforcers. It is noted however, that the possible underlying mechanisms remainspeculative and that there may be many factors involved.
Keywords: Social Stories™; autism spectrum disorders; special education
Characteristics associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) include impairmentsin social interaction, social communication and a lack of flexibility in thinking andbehaviour (American Psychological Association 2001). Those diagnosed as beingon the autism spectrum show enormous variation in relation to a number of attri-butes: theory of mind (involving perspective taking and emotion perception), centralcoherence, stimulus selectivity, executive functioning and joint attention; intellectualability, comprehension, communication, language-related ability; and sensory pro-cesses (Bogdashina 2006). A wide range of interventions have been developed toaddress the needs of individuals with ASD including applications of generic strate-gies (e.g. applied behaviour analysis) and strategies developed with a specific focuson ASD (e.g. Social StoriesTM).
Social Stories are an intervention that is widely used by those working withindividuals with autism spectrum disorders (Carbo 2005; Demiri 2004; Okada,Ohtake and Yanagihara 2008). First described by Gray and Garand (1993) and sub-sequently trademarked, the intervention has been modified over time. The currentdefinition is: ‘A Social Story™ describes a situation, skill, or concept in terms ofrelevant social cues, perspectives, and common responses in a specifically defined
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
European Journal of Special Needs EducationAquatic InsectsVol. 26, No. 3, August 2011, 367–378
ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online� 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/08856257.2011.595172http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
style and format’ (Gray 2003, 2). Gray (2003) provides criteria and guidelines forthe writing of Social Stories that include descriptions of sentence types to be used:
� Descriptive sentences provide the factual information in relation to, for exam-ple, the ‘where’ of the situation.
� Perspective sentences provide information about the thoughts and feelings ofthe first or third persons.
� Cooperative sentences identify ‘who’ can assist the individual in a situation.� Directive sentences provide instruction on ‘what’ the individual is to do.� Affirmative sentences can be used to reassure the individual.� Control sentences use analogies to explain situations.
Gray (2003) recommends that Social Stories describe more than they direct.Thus, the number of sentences that describe are more than, or equal to, twice thenumber of sentences that direct.
Social Stories may be highly prescriptive in format but they were not developedfrom a strong theoretical model (Carbo 2005) or empirical foundation (Kuoch andMirenda 2003). In an early description of Social Stories, Gray and Garand (1993)provided the general comment that ‘the rationale behind social stories is based onthe growing understanding of social cognition in autism, and a belief that this under-standing should be reflected in how social behaviour is taught to students with thisdisorder’ (2). Somewhat later, well after the introduction and popularisation of SocialStories, Gray (1998) makes limited reference to lack of theory of mind and issueswith central coherence, describing them as accounting for the difficulties experiencedby these individuals in ‘reading’ social situations, thus providing a rational for SocialStories. Gray (1998) states that ‘most people are privy to a “secret code”: a systemof unspoken communication that carries essential information; a system that eludesand frustrates individuals with HFA/AS’ (169). Gray (1998) argues that Social Sto-ries translate this secret code into practical, tangible social information for studentswith high functioning autism (HFA) or Asperger’s syndrome (AS), thereby assistingwith the teaching of social skills. Brief reference to a possible theoretical rationalefor Social Story intervention has been made in some intervention studies (Carbo2005; Demiri 2004; Kokina and Kern 2010; Reynhout and Carter 2006), but existingdiscussion of theoretical underpinnings can only be described as cursory.
Noting the absence of a clear theoretical rationale for the development of SocialStories, it is of interest to explore possible mechanisms that may account for theireffects. Thus the aim of this article is to consider a possible theoretical rationale toaccount for the efficacy of Social Story intervention. To achieve this, the purportedattributes of individuals with ASD are considered in regard to possible explanationsfor the effects of Social Stories. In addition, the features of Social Stories are ana-lysed from a behavioural standpoint.
Attributes of individuals with ASD
Theory of mind
Individuals with ASD have been identified as having problems related to theory ofmind. Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith (1985) defined theory of mind as the ability toimpute mental states (e.g. beliefs, desires, intentions or emotions) to oneself andothers. Thus, persons unable to conceptualise mental states are unable to make
368 G. Reynhout and M. Carter
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
inferences about what others believe and hence predict another’s behaviour.Recently it has been suggested that individuals with ASD may not employ their the-ory of mind in the same way as neurotypical individuals, or that their theory ofmind may be quite different from that of neurotypical individuals (Bogdashina2006; Russell, Saltmarsh and Hill 1999).
Whether or not theory of mind is viewed as a cognitive deficit or a cognitivestyle (Happé 1999), individuals with ASD nevertheless experience many difficultiesin relation to perspective taking and emotion perception (Bogdashina 2006; Cumine,Leach and Stephenson 2000; Gray 1998). Perspective taking is the ability to seethings from a point of view other than one’s own (Gray and Garand 1993) andemotion perception is the ability ‘to differentiate features and aspects of a stimulus,experience, or situation’ (Bader 2006, 2). The ability to read emotions in the facesof others is an important non-verbal processing skill that enhances the ability to per-ceive another’s mental state and facilitates appropriate social interactions (Bader2006). Individuals on the autism spectrum often have difficulty understanding emo-tions – both their own and those of others – which may lead to a lack of empathy(Cumine, Leach and Stephenson 2000).
Social Stories are comprised, in part, of perspective sentences that provide infor-mation about the thoughts and feelings of the first or third persons. In describingthe feelings of others, perspective sentences provide information about the emo-tional state of the third persons assisting with emotion recognition, an issue relatedto theory of mind. In recommending that a Social Story should be written from afirst or third person perspective, Gray (2003) addresses another issue related to the-ory of mind, that of perspective taking. Perspective sentences are ‘statements thatrefer to, or describe, a person’s internal state, their knowledge/thoughts, feelings,beliefs, opinions, motivation or physical condition/health’ (Gray 2003, 7). Thus, ina child with ASD whose atypical functioning or limited theory of mind may inhibittheir ability to adopt the perspective of others, the perspective sentences providethem with the information they need to accurately perceive ‘where the other personis at’ in relation to themselves and the shared social situation.
Gray (2003) states: ‘We may be prone to making mistakes when guessing achild’s perspective of a situation or motivation. For this reason, perspective sen-tences are rarely used to describe the internal status of the child with ASD’ (7). Itis interesting, however, to note that Gray’s (2003) suggestion that perspective sen-tences should only occasionally be written from the viewpoint of the person withautism has not been adhered to by those who use Social Story intervention, or bythose conducting research to determine its efficacy. For example, in a survey ofteachers who use Social Stories conducted by Reynhout and Carter (2009), 81 sam-ple Social Stories were obtained from 45 participants. In contrast with Gray’s(2003) recommendation that perspective sentences should only occasionally be writ-ten from the viewpoint of the person with autism, over half (54%) of the samplestories were written from the point of view of the person with autism for whom thestory was written, just over a third (38%) were written from the viewpoint ofanother person, and a small number (8%) were written from the viewpoint of bothpersons. Further, a small number (n = 26) of Social Stories were reviewed in ameta-analysis conducted by Reynhout and Carter (2006), and nearly half (47%) ofperspective sentences were written from the viewpoint of the person with autism,the same number (47%) were written from the viewpoint of others and a smallnumber (6%) were written from both perspectives. Analysis revealed only limited
European Journal of Special Needs Education 369
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
evidence that the number of perspective sentences in stories was related to out-comes (Reynhout and Carter 2006).
Okada, Ohtake and Yanagihara (2008) conducted a study investigating the effectsof perspective sentences on improving the adaptive behaviours of students with ASDand other related disabilities. With one participant an ‘ABC’ research design wasemployed. During phase A (baseline), no instructions related to Social Stories wereprovided to the participant. In phase B (intervention 1), a Social Story without perspec-tive sentences was read, and in phase C (intervention 2) perspective sentences wereadded to the story used in intervention 1. With another participant, an ‘ABCA’ researchdesign was used. In this instance, following phases A, B and C, a return to baseline (noSocial Story) was made. The results suggested that Social Stories were effective inreducing inappropriate behaviour whether or not perspective sentences were used.
In a later pilot study, using an ‘ABCDE’ design, Okada, Ohtake and Yanagihara(2010) further investigated the effects of perspective sentences on the table manners(posture when eating i.e. head position and elbow position) of a boy with autismand mild intellectual disability. During baseline (phase A), no instructions related toSocial Stories were provided to the participant. In phase B, a Social Story withoutperspective sentences was read, in phase C a Social Story with sentences of per-spectives held by unknown persons was read, in phase D a Social Story with sen-tences of perspectives held by familiar persons was read, and in phase E a SocialStory with sentences of perspectives held by a most preferred person was read.Results indicated the effectiveness of the Social Story did not seem to depend onwhose perspectives the story used and that overall the intervention was ineffective.Thus, while it is possible that perspective sentences embedded within Social Storiesmay assist in addressing theory of mind problems in individuals with ASD, there iscurrently limited evidence relevant to this issue.
Central coherence
Central coherence can be defined as ‘pulling information together for higher levelmeaning’ (Happé 1999, 216). Individuals with ASD have been identified as havingweak central coherence; thus they may experience difficulty understanding situa-tions and events and may be unable to integrate information at different levels intocontexts, wholes, gestalt, gist and meaning (Demiri 2004). In addition to this inabil-ity to synthesise fragments of information into a greater part, Frith (2003) postulatesthat in the neurotypical cognitive system there is a ‘built in propensity to formcoherence over as wide a range of stimuli as possible, and to generalise over aswide a range of contexts as possible’ (159–160). So, weak central coherence maynot only explain why individuals with ASD have difficulty ‘seeing the whole pic-ture’ in a social situation, but can also explain why individuals on the autism spec-trum may have difficulty generalising newly learned skills to new contexts(Bogdashina 2006). The theory of weak central coherence clearly goes some waytowards providing a plausible explanation for the concomitant aspect of atypicalcognition in individuals in ASD (Gray 1998). Happé and Frith (2006) however,propose that this apparent deficit in central processing may actually be:
(a) an outcome of superiority in local processing,(b) a processing bias rather than a deficit, and(c) occurring in parallel to, rather than explaining deficits in social cognition.
370 G. Reynhout and M. Carter
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Thus, the exact role central coherence plays in autism remains unclear (Chiangand Carter 2008; Happé and Frith 2006).
A Social Story answers ‘wh’ questions (Gray 2003), providing the ‘who,what, when, where and why’ information of social situations. Thus a SocialStory could potentially assist in the assimilation of diverse pieces of essentialinformation into a coherent whole, providing the individual with ASD with aglobal picture of the circumstance and a plan of action. Descriptive sentencesidentify the antecedents to the behaviour and directive sentences stipulate thebehaviour to be performed. Consequence sentences provide possible outcomes ofthe behaviour and perspective sentences provide information in relation to thethoughts and feelings of others. Thus, diverse pieces of information pertaining tothe social situation are presented to the individual with ASD as a coherent andintegrated whole in the Social Story. Access to this information prior to the situ-ation may assist the individual to prepare and plan to respond appropriately inthe circumstance.
Some authors involved in Social Story research with individuals with ASD haveidentified weak central coherence as a deficit addressed by Social Story intervention(Carbo 2005; Kokina and Kern 2010). Carbo (2005) describes central coherence as‘the ability to read environmental cues, process these cues together and summarisewhat is taking place and acting appropriately in a given situation’ (26), thus, inorder to facilitate social functioning of individuals with ASD, the relevant skillsmust be strengthened through the use of strategies such as Social Stories. Kokinaand Kern (2010) notes that in some situations, individuals with ASD may pay atten-tion to irrelevant details and fail to understand the meaning of those situations.Written to explain the meaning of problematic situations and emphasising the rele-vant details, Social Stories address individuals’ difficulties stemming from weakcentral coherence.
Nevertheless, the preceding explanations remain speculative, and Demiri (2004)has argued that cognitive theory has not fully explained the functional relationshipof a story’s effectiveness on social behaviour. Thus the proposition that weak cen-tral coherence is a deficit addressed by Social Story intervention remains speculativeand detail of the possible mechanisms remains unclear.
Executive functioning
Executive functions are mental control processes including inhibition, workingmemory, cognitive flexibility, planning and verbal fluency that are controlled by theprefrontal cortex and provide the self-control prerequisite for the achievement of afuture goal (Russell et al. 1999; Verté et al. 2006). Russell (1999) has argued thatan executive task has two components: ‘First, the participant has to suppress a pro-ponent but incorrect response; second, he or she must retain action-relevant infor-mation in working memory while doing so’ (859). Impaired executive functioningin individuals with ASD results in difficulty in planning and organisation, self-mon-itoring, inhibiting automatic reactions and holding information on-line in workingmemory, and may account for the repetitive and restrictive behaviours seen in aut-ism (Bogdashina 2006; Happé 1999).
Social Stories teach individuals with ASD the appropriate responses to performin specific situations. Commonly read in advance of the targeted situation, therebyincreasing predictability and explicitly stating what is to be done, Social Stories
European Journal of Special Needs Education 371
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
may assist with planning and organisation. In providing appropriate responses forparticular situations, Social Stories may assist in suppressing automatic incorrectresponses. Concrete, easily referred to and consistent, Social Stories would seem tohave the potential to both reduce the need to hold information on-line in workingmemory and facilitate self-monitoring. Social Stories are usually comprised, in part,of directive sentences even though Gray (1998) states that they may not always benecessary. According to Gray’s (2003) formula, directive sentences should, if used,comprise a smaller proportion of the sentence types used. Inconsistent with Gray’ssuggestion, teachers who use Social Stories not only tend to use more directive sen-tences than recommended, but they also tend to perceive those with a higher pro-portion of directive sentences as more effective (Reynhout and Carter 2009).Reynhout and Carter (2006) found that studies of Social Stories with a higher pro-portion of directive sentences were associated with greater efficacy. Social Storiesprovide direct, explicit instruction. In relation to the performance of executive tasks,Social Stories may assist the individual in suppressing a proponent but incorrectresponse and remove the need to retain action-relevant information in workingmemory, thus compensating for problems with executive function.
Visual learning style
It is well documented in the literature that visual supports can assist individualswith ASD with communication, social interaction, organisation and the managementof challenging behaviours (Quill 1995). Some individuals with ASD argue that theyhave a predominantly visual style of learning (Bogdashina 2006). Kokina and Kern(2010) identify that elements of Social Stories that address some areas of relativestrength and need in ASD include a preference for visually cued instruction.
Visually cued instruction involves the use of pictographic and written languageas instructional supports in both structured and natural learning contexts (Quill1995). Quill (1995) argues that written and pictographic cues support children’sunderstanding of verbal and social cues, thus making it easier for them to learn,communicate, interact and develop self-control. Visual presentation has advantagesin that it is non-transient and allows for extended inspection by the learners if thisis necessary. Social Stories, being generally textual in nature and visual in presenta-tion (Demiri 2004), have the potential to provide support of this nature.
In relation to the use of visual supports, Gray and Garand (1993) originallyadvised against the use of illustrations, describing them as distracting and liable tomake the student misinterpret the situation. This recommendation has subsequentlybeen revised and Gray (2003) now recommends that in constructing Social Stories,individually tailored illustrations such as photos that enhance the meaning of thetext be used. Most researchers and practitioners constructing Social Stories do fol-low this guideline. In their review, Reynhout and Carter (2006) ascertained thatresearchers used visual symbols in 11 out of 16 (69%) of the studies examined. Intheir survey of teachers, they found that teachers had used visual supports in almostall (95%) of the 81 sample Social Stories provided (Reynhout and Carter 2009).Kokina and Kern (2010) found that the majority (70%) of the studies they reviewedused Social stories that were written with illustrations (e.g. drawings or actual pho-tographs). All authors (Kokina and Kern 2010; Reynhout and Carter 2006; 2009)concluded that Social Stories that used illustrations appeared to be more effectivethan those that used text only. Social Stories may well address the ‘visual learning
372 G. Reynhout and M. Carter
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
style’ of individuals with ASD, and this may go some way towards explaining theirefficacy, but at this point there is no research experimentally examining the contri-bution of visual supports.
Language comprehension
Other than for those diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, language problemscomprise one of the core deficits in ASD (American Psychological Association2001), irrespective of the intellectual ability of the individual. Those individualshaving both intellectual impairment and language comprehension difficulties arelikely to be further compromised in terms of their potential to understand informa-tion that is provided via spoken language. While the long-held general belief thata majority of children with autism have concomitant intellectual disability hasbeen challenged, (Edelson 2006), there is no doubt, however, that a substantialproportion of individuals with autism do have intellectual deficits (Chiang andCarter 2008) and therefore are likely to have difficulty with languagecomprehension.
There are a number of ways in which Social Stories might support comprehen-sion. For example, providing information pertaining to the ‘who, what, when, whereand why’ of social situations, they highlight the most critical information in a sali-ent format. That is, they tend to be short, and clearly and simply expressed. Consis-tently and repetitively presented in the same format, they tend to be designed tosupplement oral exposition. Social Stories are sometimes left on display, providinga non-transient reminder to the learner. In addition, they may assist in providingexplicit direct instruction as to what to do in a specific circumstance via directivesentences. They provide illustrations that complement the information provided inthe text and are often used in conjunction with comprehension checks. There is alsosome evidence that the inclusion of comprehension checks in Social Stories maymodestly enhance efficacy (Kokina and Kern 2010; Reynhout and Carter 2006).Thus, Social Stories have the potential to support those with intellectual impairmentand/or language comprehension issues.
Stimulus overselectivity
Gersten (1980) defined stimulus overselectivity as a tendency to ‘arbitrarily attendto only one component of a stimulus situation rather than scanning the entire fieldand selecting the most salient, or pertinent component’ (49). Social stimuli are typi-cally multi-component and present in a background milieu of irrelevant stimuli(Chiang and Carter 2008). The individual with ASD may have difficulty in bothattending to the multiple components that typically comprise social stimuli andidentifying the most salient stimuli (Ploog 2010). It seems plausible that Social Sto-ries might explicitly identify multiple conceptual features of social stimuli, allowingthese to be identified more readily.
An inability to make complex social judgements is seen as a core social deficitin ASD (Loveland et al. 2001); the social judgement capacities necessary forcomplex social problem solving would clearly be compromised by stimulus overse-lectivity. Ploog (2010) describes a number of methodologies for the remediation,reduction and treatment of stimulus overselectivity including training with asufficient number of exemplars, fading and ‘attentional shaping’, conditional
European Journal of Special Needs Education 373
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
discrimination tasks, overtraining and schedule of reinforcement and increase ofobserving behaviour. Of these, explicit training to increase observing behaviourswould seem to be the most pertinent to Social Story intervention. Further, Ploog(2010) suggests that the most obvious mechanism for reducing overselectivity intraining to increase observing responses is to direct the individual’s attentiontowards relevant stimuli. As the role of Social Stories is to assist the individual inidentifying salient cues in a social situation (Gray 2003), this would seem to offer apossible explanation for the mechanism of the intervention. Specifically, descriptivesentences provide a clear account of the pertinent features of the social situationand potentially reduce the impact of irrelevant stimuli.
Explicitly teaching the individual with ASD to identify relevant social stim-uli in a social situation, Social Stories may have the potential to address stimu-lus overselectivity. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that describing suchsocial stimuli and identifying them in real social interactions may be quite dif-ferent tasks. In a recent meta-analysis of evidence-based social skills interven-tions for children with autism, Wang and Spillane (2009) noted that whilstSocial Stories and peer-mediated and video-modelling interventions all met thecriteria for being evidence-based, only video modelling demonstrated high effec-tiveness as an intervention strategy. One possible advantage of the use of videoover text is that many social cues may be seen in relatively realistic contexts,as opposed to being described. Comparison on the relative efficacy of thesemodes of presenting information of social situations may be a promising areaof future research.
Behavioural explanations
Demiri (2004) suggests that cognitive theories such as those involving theory ofmind, central coherence, stimulus overselectivity and executive function do not ade-quately explain the functional relations between Social Stories and target behaviour.Demiri (2004) proposes that when viewed from a behavioural perspective, SocialStories can be understood as complex stimuli that may be discriminative and/orfunction altering in relation to the target behaviours.
Two types of behaviour have been described in the literature: contingency-shaped behaviour and rule-governed behaviour. Contingency-shaped behaviourresults from repeated exposure to consequences of given behaviour (Place 1988).Thus, contingency-shaped behaviour is behaviour fashioned by its consequences(Cerruti 1989). In contrast, rule-governed behaviour is behaviour under the stimuluscontrol of a verbal formula that specifies the relevant contingency (Place 1988).Rule-governed behaviour typically takes the form of verbal statements that specifythe outcome of an action (a contingency) without that outcome being present (e.g.‘If I take turns with my friends, they will play with me more.’). Demiri (2004)states that Social Story intervention may rely on the use of rule-governed behaviour.Social Stories provide explicit information to the individual with ASD on exactlywhat to do in a particular situation and often specify the resulting outcome of thisbehaviour (Sanosti 2005) and can be described as rule-governed. Rule-governedbehaviour ‘escapes from the restriction of behavioural propensities shaped by thepast experience of the individual by virtue of being governed or controlled by averbal formula or sentence’ (Place 1988). For the individual with ASD, the Socialstory specifies:
374 G. Reynhout and M. Carter
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
the contingency with which he or she is confronted and to which he or she is able toadapt his or her behaviour without having either an innate capacity to deal with situa-tions of that kind or a capacity to do so shaped by previous experience of dealing withsimilar contingencies in the past (Place 1988, 229).
Thus, the individual with ASD learns to consistently respond appropriately in agiven situation without having experienced the natural consequences of such behav-iour.
Sanosti (2005) observed that children with high functioning autism and Asper-ger’s syndrome might hold unique perceptions of people and events and respondaccording to their own rule-based cognitions. This may well explain some sociallyidiosyncratic and, in some cases, socially unacceptable behaviour seen in individu-als with ASD. In addition, it may well explain why such unacceptable behavioursmay persist, even in the presence of natural contingencies that would presumablynot support them (i.e. they are rule-governed, rather than contingency shaped).Social Stories may well establish an alternative set of rule-based cognitions thathave the potential to mediate behaviour change in individuals with ASD. In relationto this, Reynhout and Carter (2006) frequently use consequence sentences in SocialStories, although consequence sentences have not been included in Gray’s descrip-tion of story components (Gray 1998; 2003).
Consequence sentences provide information relating to the subsequent actions,thoughts and feelings of the individual with ASD and for others that are possibleoutcomes following a specific behaviour. Thus, consequence sentences build on theinformation provided by perspective sentences. Preliminary analysis of stories usedby researchers and practitioners has suggested that Social Stories containing ahigher proportion of consequence sentences are associated with a modestly higherpercentage of non-overlapping data (PND) (Reynhout and Carter 2006) and arerated as more efficacious by teachers (Reynhout and Carter 2009). Thus, the pres-ence of consequence statements may well be important to the purported efficacy ofSocial Stories.
Social Stories are also designed to make antecedent (behaviour-preceding) stim-uli salient (Gray 2003; Gray and Garand 1993). They explicitly teach the desiredbehaviour in a given situation and also make natural consequences explicit (Sanosti2005). Sanosti (2005) claims that Social Stories are a more powerful interventionthan traditional social skills interventions because they explicitly provide the childwith the norms for behaviour in the context of the story, the perspective(s) of oth-ers in the social situation, the specific behaviours required in the circumstance andchoices for the individual to make to participate successfully in the social situation.Thus, Social Stories may be viewed as loose contingency contracts that highlightthe appropriate antecedent events that signal that a particular behaviour is neces-sary, indicate how the individual is expected to respond and specify the naturalreinforcers that will result. There are tentative suggestions that Social Stories maybe more effective when they contain a higher proportion of directive sentences thanrecommended by Gray and a high proportion of consequence sentences (Reynhoutand Carter 2006; 2009). In any case, there is a lack of evidence that conformitywith Gray’s strict guidelines has any positive impact on Social Story efficacy(Kokina and Kern 2010; Reynhout and Carter 2006; 2009). One possible way totest the hypothesis that a Social Story is effectively a loosely structured contin-gency contract specifically identifying natural reinforcers would be to compare
European Journal of Special Needs Education 375
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
more conventional behavioural contingency contracts with Social Stories. If thespecific structure of Social Stories does make a material contribution to efficacy, itwould be expected that such stories would be more effective than standard contin-gency contracts.
General discussion
The Social Story intervention has changed over time but it is apparent that itsdevelopment has apparently occurred ostensibly in a theoretical vacuum. Complexmulti-component interventions, Social Stories are widely used by teachers, otherprofessionals, parents and carers (Carbo 2005; Demiri 2004; Kokina and Kern2010). Since their inception, there has been a growth in the research evidence-base relating to the effectiveness of the intervention, but there have been fewstudies that have attempted to identify the relative contributions of various com-ponents and this hinders out understanding of possible mechanism underlyingtheir purported efficacy. Social Stories are multi-component interventions withsome unique features (such as prescriptive sentence ratios) and it remains uncer-tain as to whether these features contribute to their purported efficacy and towhat extent.
Several possible perceptual and cognitive characteristics associated with ASDoffer plausible explanations for some of the purported effects of Social Stories.These include difficulties with theory of mind (involving perspective taking andemotion perception), weak central coherence, visual learning style, comprehensionand stimulus overselectivity. While there is peripheral and indirect evidence relevantto the possible contribution of some of these characteristics, to the effects of SocialStories, there appear to be no current research studies that directly test these hypoth-eses and these mechanisms remain highly speculative.
In the absence of such evidence, it could be argued that behavioural explana-tions may currently offer the most parsimonious explanation for any effects ofSocial Stories on individuals with ASD. Social Stories would seem to resembleloose contingency contracts in several ways: they describe the antecedent eventsthat signal that a particular behaviour is appropriate, direct how the individual isexpected to respond and often specify the consequence of the behaviour, althoughthis is typically a natural rather than artificial reinforcer. In this context, it is impor-tant to note that consequences described by Social Stories may include effects onthe individual with ASD as well as others involved in the social context (throughthird person perspective sentences).
Conclusion
This paper explored the possible theoretical rationale to account for the putativeeffects of Social Story intervention. Attributes of individuals with ASD and behav-ioural explanations were both considered. At this point, possible underlying mecha-nisms remain speculative and there may be many contributing factors. Nevertheless,the suggestion that they may be viewed as loose contingency contracts, which high-light natural reinforcers, would seem to be an attractively parsimonious explanation.The conduct of further research into the ‘modus operandi’ of Social Stories remainsan open question for researchers.
376 G. Reynhout and M. Carter
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
ReferencesAmerican Psychological Association. 2001. Publication manual of the American Psychologi-
cal Association. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Bader, R. 2006. Using social stories to increase emotional recognition and labeling in
school-age children with autism. PhD diss., Alliant International University, San Diego.Baron-Cohen, S., A.M. Leslie, and U. Frith. 1985. Does the autistic child have ‘theory of
mind?’ Cognition 2: 37–46.Bogdashina, O. 2006. Theory of mind and the triad of perspectives on autism and Asperger
syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley.Carbo, B. 2005. The use of social stories with individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
PhD diss., University of Delaware, Delaware.Cerruti, D. 1989. Discrimination theory of rule-governed behaviour. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior 51: 259–76.Chiang, H.S., and M. Carter. 2008. Spontaneity of communication in individuals with aut-
ism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders 38: 693–705.Cumine, V., J. Leach, and G. Stephenson. 2000. Autism in the early years: A practical
guide. London: David Fulton Publishers.Demiri, V. 2004. Teaching social skills to children with autism using social stories: An
empirical study. PhD diss., Hofstra University, New York.Edelson, M.G. 2006. Are the majority of children with autism mentally retarded? A system-
atic evaluation of the data. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 21,no. 2: 66–83.
Frith, U. 2003. Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Gersten, R.M. 1980. In search of the cognitive deficit in autism: Beyond the stimulus over-
selectivity model. Journal of Special Education 14: 47–65.Gray, C. 1998. Social stories and comic strip conversations with students with Asperger syn-
drome and high-functioning autism. In Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism?Current issues in autism, ed. E. Schopler, and G. Mesibov et al., 167–98. New York:Plenum Publishing.
Gray, C. 2003. Social Stories™ 10.0. Jenison Autism Journal 15, no. 4: 2–22.Gray, C., and J.D. Garand. 1993. Social stories: Improving responses of students with autism
with accurate social information. Focus on Autistic Behavior 8: 1–10.Happé, F. 1999. Autism: Cognitive deficit or cognitive style? Trends in Cognitive Sciences
3, no. 6: 216–22.Happé, F., and U. Frith. 2006. The weak coherence account: Detail-focused cognitive style
in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders 36: 5–25.Kokina, A., Kern, L., 2010. Social Story™ interventions for students with autism spectrum
disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders. 40: 812–26.Kuoch, H., and P. Mirenda. 2003. Social story interventions for young children with autism
spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 18: 219–27.Loveland, K.A., D.A. Pearson, B. Tunali-Kotoski, J. Ortegon, and M. Cullen Gibbs. 2001.
Judgments of social appropriateness by children and adolescents with autism. Journal ofAutism & Developmental Disorders 31, no. 4: 367–76.
Okada, S., Y. Ohtake, and M. Yanagihara. 2008. Effects of perspective sentences in SocialStories™ on improving the adaptive behaviors of students with autism spectrum disor-ders and related disabilities. Education & Training in Developmental Disabilities 43, no.1: 46–60.
Okada, S., Y. Ohtake, and M. Yanagihara. 2010. Improving the manners of a student withautism: The effects of manipulating perspective holders in Social Stories™ A pilot study.International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 57, no. 2: 207–19.
Place, U. 1988. Skinner’s distinction between rule-governed and contingency-shaped behav-iour. Philosophical Psychology 1: 225–34.
Ploog, B.O. 2010. Stimulus overselectivity four decades later: A review of the literature andits implications for current research in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism &Developmental Disorders 40, no. 11: 1332–49.
Quill, K.A. 1995. Visually cued instruction for children with autism and pervasive develop-mental disorders. Focus on Autistic Behavior 10, no. 3: 10–20.
European Journal of Special Needs Education 377
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Reynhout, G., and M. Carter. 2006. Social Stories™ for children with disabilities. Journal ofAutism & Developmental Disorders 36, no. 4: 445–69.
Reynhout, G., and M. Carter. 2009. The use of Social Stories™ by teachers and their per-ceived efficacy. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3: 232–51.
Russell, J., R. Saltmarsh, and E. Hill. 1999. What do executive tasks contribute to the failureon false belief tasks by children with autism? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-try and Allied Disciplines 40, no. 6: 859–68.
Sanosti, F. 2005. Using video modeled social stories to increase the social communicationskills of children with high functioning autism/Asperger’s syndrome. PhD diss., Univer-sity of South Florida, Florida, USA.
Verté, S., H.M. Geurts, H. Roeyers, J. Oosterlaan, and J.A. Sergeant. 2006. Excecutive func-tioning in children with an autism spectrum disorder: Can we differentiate within thespectrum? Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders 36, no. 3: 351–72.
Wang, P., and A. Spillane. 2009. Evidence-based social skills interventions for children withautism: A meta-analysis. Education & Training in Developmental Disabilities 44, no. 3:318–42.
378 G. Reynhout and M. Carter
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
43 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014