Autistic spectrum behaviours Flashcards
Describe the characteristics of Autistic Spectrum Behaviours
- Using communication for social interaction; this concerns the difficulties people with ASD have in using communication.
- Social- emotional reciprocity. Reciprocity refers to the normal back-and-forth of everyday communication. If we start a conversation with someone, we usually expect an appropriate response. But this reciprocation lacks in individuals with ASD, so someone with the disorder doesn’t use communication to share their interests/emotions. They don’t imitate social interactions or respond to others attempts. They can’t maintain the normal flow of a conversation. Interaction= one sided.
- Non-verbal communication. Facial expressions and body posture are usually crucial in maintaining social interactions, but someone with ASD uses eye contact and ‘social smiling’ very little. Their facial expressions generally are limited or sometimes exaggerated. Gestures such as pointing and nodded are used wrong. There may be a poor match between tone of voice and facial expressions.
- Problems developing and maintaining relationships. ‘Lack of mind theory’- don’t understand other people have minds, so they have trouble seeing the world from someone else’s perspective. It is hard for them to change their own behaviour to suit the social context. So they are unaware of the ‘rules’ or conventions that apply in social situations. They may express emotions inappropriately. eg, laughing at the wrong time. - Repetitive behaviours.
-Repetitive behaviour patterns. People with ASD may use language unusually. They might repeat what they have just heard, from individuals words to longer passages of speech. Language can be formal. Movements also highly repetitive. eg, hand gestures.
- Routines, rituals and resistance to change. People withASD stick inflexibly to routines, carrying out a behaviour in a step-to-step sequence with no variation. They may over react in verbal rituals, such as demanding that other people use words in a ‘set’ way.
- Restricted and fixed interests. A common feature of ASD is an intense preoccupation with a very narrow interest or topic.
- Unusual interactions to sensory input. Preoccupied with touch, usually aversively. They may have an obsessive interest in the movement of objects, eg. opening and closing of doors. Their first response to an object may be to lick or sniff it. May also become distressed to stimuli they’re not used to.
What is the biological explanation of ‘Amygdala Dysfunction in Autism?’
- Structure and function of the Amygdala.
- The amygdala is a cluster of 13 nuclei in the medical temporal lobe of hte brain. There are 2 of them. One oin each brain hemisphere. It is one of the brains most highly worked structures, with neural connections to the hypothalamus, the prefrontal cortext, the hippocampus ect.. The functioning of the amygdala has a powerful influence on the activity f the brain as a whole and ultimatley o behaviours, particulary those associated with motivation, emotion ad social interactionm.
- Amggdala development in ASD.
- The amygdala develops in differnt ways in children with and without ASD. from 2 years of age, there is a lrger than normal growth in amygdala volume in children with ASD, by about 6% to 9%. In normal chidren amygdala volume increases with age but only when children are older. Meaning, that by the time they reach late addolesence and adulthood, there is essentially no difference in amygdala volume between people with and withou ASD.
- Amygdala dysfunction theory of ASD.
- The amydgala is part of what Leslie brothers (1990) call the ‘social brain; in humans because of its central role in influencing social behaviour. Simon Baron-Cohen and colleagues (2000) applied this behaviour to ASD. They suggested because the amygdala has many neural connections to the frontal cortext, abnormal development of the amygdala in childhood is a major cause of the main social and behavioural defecits found in ASD. One specific instance of impaired social processing in ASD is the diminsihed ability to understand the expressions of emotions in people.
o
Evaluate Amygdala dysfunction as a biological explanation for ASD behaviours
- Support from clinical studies.
- Studys investigating ppl w ASD but have experienced damage to one or both of their amygdala. Daniel kennedy and his co-workers (2009) studied the famous case of the women known as S.M. She lost the functioning of both her amygdala due to a genetic disorder. Researchers found that her preffered ‘personal space’ distance for social interaction was half that for mactyhed control pp. Also rater herself ‘perfectly comftarble’ with very close distances. That were voted by controls as ‘ very uncomftrble’. Which supports the amygdala dysfunction theory.
- Inconsistent findings. Studies into the link between amydala volume and the severity of ASD symptoms providing differing outcomes. In adults, some studies showed an increased volume in ASD pp, but others showed decreased. In children, contrary to the findings of Nordhel et al, Martha Herbet et al (2003) reported smaller amygdla volume in pp with ASD compared to controls. Research findings from different age groups= conflicting. The precise role of the amygdala in ASD is unclear. SO= doubles on the validity of amygdala dysfunction theory.
- -Indirect ratger than direct effects. The amygdala is known to play a crucial role in fear and anxiety related behaviours eg, flight/fight. People w a dysfunctional amygdala cannot process fear and anxiety= influences social functioning. Ollendick et al (2009) pointed out anxiety is a commonly reported feature of ASD. Suggesting an indirect link between amygdala function and social behaviour impairments by abnormal processing of anxiety.
- Danger of oversmiplification,
Apply the biological explanation of ‘Amygdala Dysfunction’ to a method of modifying behaviour, using oxytocin.
Oxytocin is a hormone known to be involved in human social bonding. It appears to increase trust, generosity and intimacy and reduce anxiety. It also has an important role in regulating a behaviour commonly impaired in ASD- eye contact.
-Bonnie Auyeng et al, 2015. Tested 32 males with ASD. With a control of 34 male pp.
- Researchers used eye-tracking technology to measure eye-movements of pp during a semi-structured interview. PP were randomly selected to receive an intranasal dose of either oxytocin or a placebo.
- Findings confirmed previous studies in showing that pp with ASD looked significantly less often at the interviews eyes and for less time, than the control. However, pp who were given oxytocin, significantly increased the number of eye contacts and time spent making them compared to the placebo.
What is the biological explanation of ‘Genetic Predisposition’ In ASD?’
-Family studies. There is considerable evidence that clinically diagnosed ASD runs in families. Peter Szatman (1999) combined the data from several family studies to calculate the overall sibling risk. Indicating the proportion of siblings of people diagnosed with ASD who also meet the criteria for ASD. In other words, it is the risk of an individual developing ASD if a sibling has it. In this study the risk was 2.2%. No siblings = 0.11% So if you have siblings with ASD you have 20 times greater risk of developing it yourself.
- Twin studies. Antony Bailey et al (1995) analysed data from the British twin society. The researchers selected pairs of twins where 1 individual from each pair of twins met the diagnostic criteria for ASD. The concordance rate for MZ twins was 60% but 0% for DZ twins. The researchers then looked at a wider definition of ‘autism’ to include social and cognitive impairments that would not necessarily be part of a diagnosis of autism. They found a remarkable 92% concordance rate for MZ twins and 10% for DZ.
- Simplex and multiplex ASD. Researchers noticed that families affected by ASD differ in one significant way. In some only 1 family member has ASD. These ‘one of’ cases are known as simplex ASD. On the other hand, in multiplex families more than 1 member of family has a diagnosis ofASD or several members may have autistic traits; not diagnoses as ASD. An important distinction as it is thought that the mechanism of genetic causation differs. In multiplex families, ASD is likely to be caused by genetic variations that are inherited. Genetic causes of simplex ASD = ‘de novo’ - new genetic mutations that occur when others sequences of DNA are deterred or duplicated as an egg is fertilised by a spurm- mutation.
- Syndromic and non-syndromic ASD. Syndromic is where ASD accompanies another condition which is the main disease
Evaluate Genetic Predisposition as a biological explanation for behaviour in Addiction.
- Research support. Colvet et al (2015) selected twins from the ‘Twins Early Development Study (TEDS)’ Which includes all twins born between 1994 and 1996. Several measures of autistic traits to assess 6000+ twins, 8 and over. Includes questionnaires + interviews. Concordance rates for MZ twins = 0.77-0.99. DZ twins = 0.22-0.65. Researchers are able to calculate estimates of heritability of ASD, ranging from 56% to 95% depending on the measure used.
- Incomplete Evaluation./
Twin studies cannot rule out environmental factors as MZ/DZ twins are usually raised in the same families. The Diathesis Stress model proposes that ASD is covered by genetic preopidisons iand early damaging insult to the brain (stress). Handrigan 2010- ‘Environmental trigers’ Highlights many important triggers, eg, the various toxic chemicals that the developing brain may be exposed to in early pregnancy. In conclusion, genes don’t often complete explanation. More useful to focus on envirometal; factors as we can reduce counteract effects.
What is the individual differences explanation of ‘Theory of Mind’ in ASD?
-what is theory of mind?
Theory of mind is that much social interaction and communicative behaviour requires us to e aware that other people have their own ways of representing the world in their minds, By understanding other peoples internal mental states we can interpret and predict their behaviourr. Possessing this =- TOM.
Simon Baden Cohen (1995) argues that this understanding is impaired in ASD. So people with ASD do not have full functioning ToM. They have reduced or delayed ability to recognise and understand the internal mental states of others.
-Preeuroors to a ToM. A ToM emerges out of skills that usually appear early in development,. These include the ability to follow another persons gaze. A key skill= Ability to establish joint attention. Micheal Scaife and Jerome Bruner (1975) found that typically developing children can do this by 14 months. But, it is impaired or delayed in child with ASD.
- Baren Cohen ‘2 foundation of ToM:’.
- Mental vs Physical; a child is told a story including 2 characters 1 is holding a glass of pop (physical). other is thinking about a glass of pop ( mental). Child responds to various questions about what the characters can do (who drinks the pop?). Correctawnser indicates that the child understands the difference. easy no ASD/Diff w ASD.
- Appearance vs Reality. Typically developing children from about 4 years of age can usually understand that object are not all they seem. eg, bath bomb looks like a cake is not a cake. Children w ASD find this overwhelming.
Evaluatet as an Theory of mind’ Individual Differences explanation for behaviour in ASD.
- Research Support, Baren-Cohen et al (2001) used the eyetask to assess ToM defecits. PP included 15 adults with ASD and a control group of 239 without. PP with ASD performmed significantly worse on this task than the controls. A finding that indicates an impaired ability to understnd another persons internal mental state, supporting the validity of ToM indicates a feature of ASD. However, ‘Higgers et al’ March,2024 questions the validity. Construct validity. There is little validity evidence, which suggests it is deeply flawed. images are not actually an image of a mental state.
- An incomplete wxplanantion. Hele-Tager Flushing (2007) accepts ToM but it does not explain the non-social influyences of the discorder. This is particuallry true to the repetitive behaviours and obsessive interests that form part of the diagnosis in DSM-V. Neither can the explanantion account for the cognitive strengths of some people with ASD. Uta Frith andf Happe (1994) highlight the 20% of ASD children who actually passed the false belief test. ToM defecits cannot explain these feelings.
- Real world applications; Psychologists and educationsits have found a way for people with ASD to be helped ‘mind read’ eg, to understand thoughts and feelings. Carol grey used social stories, which is based around short stories and highlights social cues. These stories are used as teaching aids to help the individual with ASD understand the unwritte rules of interpersonal interaction. Especially the thoughtd and feelings of various charachters in the stoires. The elemts of this is based on ToM.
What is the Individual explanation of ‘Weak Coherence theory’ in ASD?
Frith (1989) developed a theory to address the wekness of theory of mind explanation, eg, non-social aspects and superior abilities of ASD individuals.
- Central coherence theory; global vs local processing. Local processing is analysing fine details, the differnt elemts that make up a task. Global processing is appreciating how details fit together to form a ‘bigger’ picture. According to the Uta Frith (1989). Central coherence refers to our ability to integrate fine details into an overall pattern and find how they come otgether in a meaningful way. Someome with a strong central coherence is able to identify the most relevant parts of a conversation. This is a universal feature of normal information processing.
- Weak central coherence and ASD. Central coherence is weak in those iwth ASD. Meaning they are less likely to pay attention to the broader context of a task, conversation, object or event. They tend to focus on isolted etails instead. This is well captured by a phrase ‘cant see the wood for the trees’. This can be an advantage, by focusing and picking out details in sucy depth that others cnnot.
- Central coherence as a continiuum. According to Francessca Happe and uta Frith (2006). Central coherence is a cognitive style, or a preference for one form of processingnover another. So, it exists on a continuum, form weak to strong. And is distributied in the general population. Meaning that a small proportion of people have very weak central coherence, including most with ASD. But equally small have strong central cohernece, Majority of popultion is between these two extremes.
Evaluate Weak Coherence Theory as an individual explanation for behaviour in ASD
- Lack of Validity, weak central cohernece uses findings to explain how people with ASD consistently prefer local processing of details. However, does not explain how this prefrence is determined. It is unclear which parts of the brsain could be involved. It is believed that it is due to abnormalities in the right hemisphere (Gallce et al 2008). Research is ongoing, according to Happe and Frith, there is a major limitation of the theory and one which seriously reduces its construct validity.
- Positive explanations of ASD. There are 2 ways in which CCT points a posotive and optimistic picture of ASD. Firstly, unlike the ToM it does not explicitly claim that a damaging cognitive defecit is the primary inpairment of ASD becuase it recognises that people with ASD have superior abliliotues in loca processing. Rather than a impairment. Ppl with ASD are capale of understanding the meaning of a conversation by making an effort to remember the gist of it. Which helps ot lesso the sigma around the disorder.
- Supporting evidence. Shah and Frith (1993) carried out an experiment testing weak central coherence theory. Shown a 2 dimensional pattern and had to construct the same pattern using smaller blocks, People with ASD performed better than other groups, suggesting prefernece for local processing, an advantage when details are important.
What is the Social Psychological explanation of ‘Emphasising-systemisng theory’ in ASD?’
ES is considered a social explanatio of ASD as it focuses on the impact cognitive biases (attendancy ti perceive events in certain ways i.e systemsiing brain) can have on social interactions with others. This is therefore a socio-cognitive theory of ASD. Thus theory proproses that an impaired ability to emphasize with others has significant social impacts and reduces the oppurtunities of those with ASD to practice social interactions further impacting their social skills.
- Sex differences in empthasising and systemising. Applying thids dtheory to people in general, Baron Cohen (2009) argues that females are better empthsisers than males. Eg, he argues theyvare more sesnsitive to facial expressions and emotions and moe person focused with a instict of how people fealk. Mlaes are better systemisers than females, they can analyse systems and work out the rules better = more likely to be engineers, physicists and mathmtetitons.
- Emphasising + Systemising in ASD: In terms of these 2 abilities. PPl with ASD have under developed empathy, explains their difficulties with social interaction and communication. E-S theory also suggests that people with ASD may also have hyper developed abilities in systemising. Skills like these are at least ‘average and often superior to those in typically developing individuals. The enhanced drive to analyse systems explains both the strengths and weaknesses of ASD. It is the mismath between empathy (below average) and systemising (average/superior) that is a characyeristic of ASD.
- 2 components of empahty, Rachel grove et a (2013). Suggest there are 2 important components of empathy. 1 is the cognitive elemts= recognising and understanding ppls mental states= ToM account. Other - affective empathy/the ability to respond to toher persons state of mind appropriatlet, eg, reaching w similar emotions, personal distress. This is general true w ppl w ASD. In fact, often greater. Also efffective empathy= empathathetic concern. Preference sympthy and consideration for the other person is impaired in ASD. Lower empathy in ASD= higher person distressed and impaired emphatic concern.
Evaluate ‘Emphasising Systemising theory’ as a social psychological explanation for ASD
- Research support (2024) Ryali et al found that there are sex specific biomakers and relevent sex differences between how the brain functios in males and females. An analysis revealed that brain features associated with the default mode network, siatum and limbic network consistently echibitied significant sex diff which support sex diff for ES. Lawson et al (2004) said femalex performed better on the empthasising task than males with ASD. males without ASD performed beter tna males w ASD. Females performed worst on symthesising test males did not differ, Which supports the view that ASD is an extreme form of the male brian.
- Cross culture consistenct. Akio Wakabaysji et al used 1500 japansese pps. Ppl w ASD,ppl from gen pop and 1250 uni students, Both empathy quotient (ES) and systemising quotient (QS) were assessed. In line with ES theory pp with ASD scored lower than other 2 groups on EQbut higher on SQ. Which supports E-S theory and sex differneces. Howver, conducted in collectiivist culture, very differnet from individualist western cultures (uk) where most research is conducted. But despite thus the outcomes are similar suggesting that es theory may be a universal valid explanation of asd.
- Valifity Issues. Nettle (2007)There are doubts that EQ and SQ scales are accurate. Non-hetrosexual women score higher on the SQ scale thn hetrosexual women. But no explanation to account for this differnece. We must consider the males who dont score as high on SQ than the females who score low on EQ which opposses the theory. Could be a greater bias inherent in ASD research, edreing about Autsm as an extreme male brain could mean it is more undiagnosed in females. Autisim in females may not ne represented in thwe way reeseachrs look for.
What is the Social Psychological Explanataion of ‘The refrigerator mother’ in ASD?
- Emotional refrigerators, Leo Kanner (1945) studied 11 chidlren who represented classic symptoms of ASD. He also observed the childs paretns he said in the the whole group there are very few really warm hearted fathers and mothers. Kanner later described chidlren withASD to have been brought up in emotional refrigerators,. referring to cold, distant parent. ‘just happening to defrost long enough to produce a child.’
- Psychdynamic explanation. Kanners views had their origins in the psychodynamic approach of sigmuend freuds roots of psychological disorder= childhood experiences,. Vey popular in 1940s, natural to look for causes of disoerders in early relationships.
- Battelheim and the empty forstress. Battelheim brought kennes theory into mainstream media. He said ASD is an emotional disorder caused by psychological damage inflicted on young children by cold detached mothers. He compared children with ASD to prisoners of Nazi concentration camps to lack of maternal care experienced by chidlren with ASD. Refrigerator mother educes relationships to something mechanical. For ASD; when a child faces difficulty with the relationship with their parents the refrigerator mother responds with rejection and the child withdraws further. The cycle continues= ASD.
Evaluate the ‘Refrigerator Mother’ as a social psychological explanation for ASD.
-Lack of evidence. Rimland (1964) ‘Dismanding the psychogenic myth;’., The majority of parents with ASDF children dont match the description of the refrigerator mother. Most refrigerator mothers dont have a child woth ASD Combell et al, 2006., 93% of people with ASD have siblings without the disorder. So paerenting does not lead to ASD, Symptoms similar to brain damge=biological.
- Confusion of cause and effect. Mothers of children with ASD are often overwhelmed with stress and depression. Supporters state this causes AASD in the child, But equally, having a child with ASD is the cause of stress and depression. DSo misinterprets the direction of causality.
- Alternative explanations. Folstein and Rutter 1977. ‘Twin SStudies’ studied the incidence of ASD in wins. In 36% of MZ twins, both children have ASD. DZ= 0%, so strong evience of the role of genes in ASD. This alterative theory is more valid. Making the beginning of widespread acceptance that ASD is biological not psychogenic.
Evaluate the method of modifying behaviour ‘PECS’ in terms of Effectiveness, Ethical and social implications.
-Effectiveness; Supporting evidence, Majorie Charlop-Christy et al (2002), investigated the effects of PECS rogramme on 3 ASD non-verbal boys. In 2x15 min sessions a week. All 3 made more spontaneous utterances after PECS. 1 child imporoved by 21% TO 100% and mainted it after 12 months. Eye contact and joint attention also improved singinficantly and redution in tantrums. So, to conclude it is effective in improving ASD spontaneous speech, can be learned quickly and easily, acquired communication skills can be generalised. To reduce problems in behaviour. however, there is no control gorup and such small sample sizes, so it is unclear whether all children with ASD owuld benefit.
- Ease of use. Charlop-christy et al 2002. This study indicated progression through training was rapid. The mean time was 170 mins for all 6stages. Flippin et al 2010 attributed the widespread popularity of PECS in the USA due to its ease of use. Unlike other therpaires, children dont need to aquire skills such as eye contact before trianing.
- Limited support from meta analysis. 8 experemints and 3 group studies, only limited support. Fairly effective eith small moderate gains however there is no evidence it is maintined over time. In some cases speech was delayed by PECS, qulity of researcg evidence no better adequate eg a control gorup
- Ethical Implications.
- PECS has potential ethical benefits. The pre programme preperations that invlves finding the childs motivations increases the chances of PECS being successful. So it offers the familiies of children with ASD the prospect of achieving improvrmts which they have not seen from other training programmes. PECS allows the child to feel better about themselves as they are less likely to experience failures.
- Baron-Cohen (2009) argues that any tretament that relies on the application of external rewards is poor. Ethical questions arise over eg, stage 1, which involves the teacher withholding a much-coverted and enjoyed object until the child exchnages a picture. But it is argued the child should be allowed to play freely with the object and perhaps use intrinsic rewards instead.
- Social implications.
- Pyramid educaitional consukltants produce PECS material such as high-quality picture cards and a mobile app. The organisation insits that PECS practisioners hould be trained and qualified in a programme that only they are eligible to provide. Which is very expensive.
- However, the costs have to be balanced against alternative treatments which may be less effective.
What is the method of modifying behaviour ‘Relationship Development Intervention’ in ASD?
Gustein and Sheely take the view that childre with ASD have missed important development skills that children usually reach without social intervention. The kind of skills a child learns through trpically developing children interacting with hteir parents eg, sharing jokes/feelings. So, the relatinship beyween parent and child has to be recosntructed to fix the social interaction impairments in ASD.
- Dynmic intelligance,. RDI is based on Gusteins 2009 concept of dynamic intelligence. This is the ability to think flexibly and to consider events from differnt points of view. RDI offers a second chance at parent child interactions by training caregivers to change patterns of interction in daily activirys.
- Objectives of RDI.
- 1. Emotional refrecing: Improving the childs verbal and non verbal communication skills to help them underdtand how other people feel.
- 2. Social coordination: Controlling ones own behaviour to fit other peoples emotions, eg, the ability to deliberitly put a ‘happy face’ on tp help someone feel better.
- 3. Declaritive language. Developing the type of verbal and non-verbal communication that allows the child to show interest, invite social interaction share emotions and coordinative behaviour. This is differentto impreitive language,
- 4. Flexible thinking. Also called set shifting- ability to adapt quickly, smoothly and calmly to changing situations
- 5. Relational information processing: Putting patterns into a wider context abd solving rhem. Even when they di not have a obvious right or wrong awnser.
- 6. Foresight and Hindsight: Foresight is anticipating what may happen as a result of your behaviour. Hindsight allows you to recall on what actually happened,. putting the 2 together = allows child to predict future outcomes.
-The RDIBprocess. A trained, qualified and approved RDI consultant works closley with the fmaily, meeting once ot twice a week, Establish aims, plans and activities and evaluate progress. parents sometimes video. Workshops later point and paired w another child and eventually a small group. The childs progress is monitered, family interactions are reaccessed evry 6-12 months.
What is the method of modifying behaviour ‘Picture Exchange Communication System’ in ASD?
The PECS system replaces words with pictures. It is based on applied behavioual analysis- uses behaviourist principles eg, reinforcemnt, shaping and modelling to improve social behaviour, including communication. PECS, especially designed to help ‘learners’ make the first move in conversatioj.
- The PECS protocol. Proposed by Frost and Brody (2002)
- Pre programme preperation : Before the programme begins the first sep is to find out which objects the child is interested in, There are used as reinforcers of the childs communication behaviour, Picture cords are made of each other.
- Stage 1: Physicalk exchnage. 3 ppl are involved at the beginning. The learner, teacher and facilitator. Training begins with the teacher showing the child one of their motivating objects. Typically, the child will reach for the object, So, facilitator encourages them to pic up the pictures of the object instead. Facilitator helps child hand pic over to adult= ‘picture exchange’. Important the teacher does not say anything. Teacher responds ‘you want the ____’ and gives the object to the child,. getting the object= rewarding. Process is repeated, diff objects, locations and adults.
- Stage 2: Increasing independence. The pshysical distance between the teacher and child is increased. Requiring more effort from the child. So, child learns values of persistance (getting reward eventually not immediately). Pictures are also arranged in a book and moved around.
- Stage 3: Learning to discriminate. The range of pictures in the childs book is increased., So child has to choose between similar pictures they really weant.
- Stage 4: Sentance structre. Chjild starts to build sentances by creating ‘sentance strips’ i want —– [’ i want the ball’
- Stage 5. Awnsering direct questions. Childs use of phrases become automatic. Ask ‘what do you want’ so they can respond.
- Stage 6. Commenting, The range of questions is expanded to give a child the oppurtunity ti comment on their expereinces ‘what do you have and what do you hear’ simple requests =- constructing complex questions.
Evaluate the method of modifying behaviour ‘Relationship Development Intervention’ for addictive behaviours in terms of Effectiveness, Ethical and social implications.
-Ethical Implictions.
Ethical beneifts of RDI, many caregivers have tried and the results have been lifesaving. It reduces pressure on familys and increases the self-esteem and happiness of clients recieving treatment, However there are ethical limitations, such as it promotes a costly programme which has litte eviednece. This is ethically and morlaly unaccaptable. There is. a blurring of boundaries bwtween conducting research and marketing a profitable product eg, Gustein 2007.
- Social implications include financial and social costs of RDI for individuals. RDI is an expensive treatmet, non for profit. Major finacial commitment for familys and wider costs for society- ‘oppurtunity cost’ as money is spent on ineffective treatment and waste which could be spent on better treatments that have more evidence for its effectivnes.,.
- Is RDI ‘fad’ treatment. ‘Tom and Zane (2008). Yes. A hige increase in no. of ASD diagnoses has accompanied by a corrosponding rise in the number of treatments developed to treat the disorder. Its a waste of money and resources and beneficial treatments supported by evidence are ignored. Which is damaging for society.
