In their words: Understanding social motivation in Autistic adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Traditionally, Autism research has been dictated by a neurotypical understanding and theorization of normality and functioning, following the medical model of disability. This model views Autistics, who function differently from non-autistics, as inherently abnormal or inadequate (Olkin, 1999; Retief & Letšosa, 2018). The way researchers have conceptual-ized Autistic Social Motivation (SM), or the mechanisms that drive individuals to orient to and participate in the social world, reflects this view. Based on findings from studies in which Autistics manifested fewer (neurotypical) SM behaviors (social orienting, seeking and liking, and social maintaining) than their neurotypical peers, Chevalier et al. (2012) con-cluded that Autistics have reduced SM compared to neurotypicals. Bottini (2018), following her systematic review of studies on social reward processes in Autistics, argued that SM might manifest differently in Autistics, but that it is still present. Jaswal and Akhtar (2018) further argued that neurotypical indicators of SM may not be suitable indicators of SM in Autistics. Instead, they offered explanations unrelated to SM that prevent Autistics’ SM from manifesting in expected ways. Due, for example, to eye gaze avoidance resulting from processing overload. The accounts of some Autistics illustrate that they do seek to engage with the social world: “The way people see autistic folks is that they don't want to be around other people. That’s wrong. The truth about autistic people is that we want what everyone else wants, but we are sometimes misguided and don't know how to connect with other peo-ple.” (Suskind, 2014, p. 366 in Jaswal & Akhtar, 2018).No research has, to my knowledge, explicitly asked how Autistic adults, of any gen-der, would characterize their SM. To do so, I, an Autistic autism researcher, interviewed Autistics about their social motivation and the meanings assigned to their social experiences. Specifically, how they think, feel, and behave in relation to their SM. The Interview Proto-col was organized around eight a priori SM themes (Social Opportunities, Social Interest, Meaning of Relationships, Value of Social Support, Perception of Self in the Social World, Social Initiative Taking, Social Flexibility, and Motivation to Conform Socially) that were elaborated based on a review of measures on SM and social functioning in typical, Autistic, and other clinical populations (Constantino & Gruber, 2012; Elias & White, 2020; Gong et al., 2018; Hurley et al., 2006; Leary et al., 2013; Llerena et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2019; Raine, 1991; Richard & Schneider, 2005; Yager & Iarocci, 2013). The Protocol was also informed by feedback from four participants (Castillo-Montoya, 2016). A total of 12 Autistic adults without Intellectual Disabilities living in Canada were interviewed, in French or Eng-lish, virtually or in person. On average, interviews lasted 1.5 hours. Following Braun and Clarke's (2006) Reflexive Thematic Analysis guidelines, we developed nine themes sur-rounding the factors contributing to and hindering SM in our sample of Autistic adults. These findings provide a novel, lived-experience-informed understanding of SM in Autis-tics, making the Interview Protocol a resource for Autistic self-understanding and a tool to be used and improved by researchers. Additionally, these insights offer others knowledge into engaging Autistics in more motivating and affirming ways
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».