Comprehension of pretense in children with autism.
Autistic kids can read single pretend acts yet still need help turning them into longer play sequences.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers watched autistic and typical kids watch an adult do simple pretend acts.
The adult pretended to drink from an empty cup or sleep on a block.
Kids only had to show they knew the act was pretend. No talking or acting was needed.
What they found
Both groups understood the pretend acts equally well.
Yet even the typical kids often looked unsure, so the task itself was hard.
The authors say little because the low scores all around limit any strong claim.
How this fits with other research
Rutherford et al. (2003) seems to disagree. They saw big pretend-play delays in autistic preschoolers.
The gap closes when you notice D tested spontaneous, multi-step play, while C et al. only checked if kids grasped one pretend move.
Dall et al. (1997) extends the story: autistic kids can copy single pretend steps but fall apart when the steps must link into a story.
Shawler et al. (2021) turned the early hint into action. Five brief pretend sessions lifted imagination and feelings in 6- to 9-year-olds with autism.
Why it matters
Do not assume a child who nods at your pretend cup can also build a whole tea party.
Start with one clear pretend cue, confirm the child gets it, then slowly chain on new steps.
Use visual props and scripts to bridge from understanding one act to playing a full scene.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Show one pretend action, ask "What am I doing?", then add a second step only after the child answers correctly.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In an attempt to tap underlying competencies, the ability of children with autism to comprehend pretend acts carried out by an experimenter was compared with that shown by controls. These acts consisted of the pouring of a pretend substance from an appropriate container onto a target figure. There was no significant difference in the groups' ability to identify the pretend substance involved, to predict the pretend outcome of the actions, or to reflect on the pretend nature of the episodes. However, the performance of controls on these latter two tasks was surprisingly poor, limiting the implications that might be drawn from the observed absence of group differences in comprehension abilities.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1994 · doi:10.1007/BF02172127