An examination of the validity of social subtypes in autism.
Wing’s aloof and active-but-odd social subtypes still show up on blind ADOS and link to lower IQ and daily-living scores.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested Wing’s three social subtypes in autism.
They used blind ADOS scores so no one knew the child’s label.
IQ and daily-living scores were also collected.
What they found
Aloof and active-but-odd groups matched their labels on ADOS.
These two groups also had lower IQ and adaptive scores.
The passive group only partly fit the pattern.
How this fits with other research
Gillespie-Lynch et al. (2019) pooled 133 samples and found social-cognition links are weak.
That seems to clash, but Kristen looked at tiny lab tasks, not broad subtypes.
Hastings et al. (2001) and Happé et al. (2006) later showed weak central coherence and mixed cognitive styles.
They extend the idea that autism is not one-size-fits-all.
Why it matters
You can still use Wing’s labels as quick shorthand.
Pair them with IQ and adaptive data to pick targets.
If a child is aloof, lean into motivation first.
If active-but-odd, teach hidden-rules and timing.
The labels save time and guide first-session decisions.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Score your client’s social style with Wing’s brief checklist, then match your first play activity to that style.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The validity of a social subtyping scheme forwarded by Wing and her colleagues is examined in a sample of 53 autistic individuals. Clinical ratings of subtype (aloof, passive, active-but-odd), IQ estimates, and measures of adaptive functioning and level of autism were obtained. Subjects were individually administered the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) by the principle examiner, who was blind to subtype assignment. The general findings supported the validity of aloof and active-but-odd subtypes as predictors of behavior across language/communication, reciprocal social interaction, and stereotyped behavior/restricted interest domains and suggested that individuals assigned to these respective groups differed in a number of important ways (e.g., level of autism, IQ, adaptive behavior). Partial support for an intermediate, passive subtype was garnered. The clinical utility of social subtypes is discussed as an important implication of this work.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1994 · doi:10.1007/BF02172210