Imitation of intentional and accidental actions by children with autism.
Kids with autism may copy both your planned moves and your slips unless you flag the difference.
01Research in Context
What this study did
D'Entremont et al. (2007) watched children copy two kinds of adult moves. Some moves looked on purpose. Others looked like slips.
All kids had autism. A second group had general delays. A third group was typical. Each child saw both kinds of moves and was told, "Now you do it."
What they found
Typical kids and delay kids copied the "on purpose" moves more. They mostly skipped the slips.
Kids with autism copied both kinds equally. They did not filter out the accidents.
How this fits with other research
Whitehouse et al. (2014) seems to disagree. They gave kids tasks that pulled attention to object movement, not actor intent. In that setup kids with autism copied just fine. The clash shows the task, not the kids, drives the result.
Vanvuchelen et al. (2013) knit both views together. Their review says autism brings two problems: picking what to copy and matching how to move. When the goal is obvious, copying looks normal. When the goal hides inside intent cues, copying breaks.
Jiménez et al. (2014) add another layer. High-functioning students with autism skip low-value or silly steps. If a step looks pointless, they drop it. Intent and value together guide their filter.
Why it matters
When you model a skill, make the key step stand out. Say it, point to it, exaggerate it. Do not trust that learners will ignore your slips. If you fumble, stop and redo the step so it looks planned. Clear cues beat mind reading.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before each demo, tell the learner, "Watch this important part," and add a visual cue like a colored dot on the key object.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
To determine whether children with autism (CWA) would selectively imitate intentional, as opposed to accidental actions, an experimenter demonstrated either an "intentional" and an "accidental" action or two "intentional" actions on the same toy [Carpenter, Akhtar, & Tomasello (1998a) Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 315-330]. CWA tended to imitate the experimenter exactly. Children with developmental delay and older typically developing children (TD) reproduced only the intentional action as often as they imitated the experimenter exactly. Younger TD mostly produced only the intentional action. It is concluded that, contrary to comparison groups, the CWA did not show an appreciation of the model's intentions. Results are discussed in terms of theories of social cognition.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2007 · doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0291-y