Social perception in children with intellectual disabilities: the interpretation of benign and hostile intentions.
Kids with ID misread both friendly and hostile intentions when social cues conflict—explicitly teach them to weigh cues, not just events.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team showed short stories to the kids. Half had mild or moderate ID, half were typical peers.
Each story had a social mix-up. One kid bumps another. The bump might be an accident or on purpose.
After each story the child answered: ‘Was it mean or friendly?’ Kids with ID got it wrong more often.
What they found
Children with ID picked the wrong intent about half the time. Peers were right three-quarters of the time.
Mistakes jumped highest when the story looked bad (someone fell or spilled) but the actor meant no harm.
Kids with ID focused on the bad outcome, not the actor’s smile or apology.
How this fits with other research
Busch et al. (2010) saw the same social blind spot in adults. When ID was paired with ASD and epilepsy, social-skill scores sank even lower. The adult data extend the child finding: the problem lasts.
Hilton et al. (2010) looked at adults with Down syndrome and found a twist. On rule-based social reasoning they matched younger typical kids. Yet they still missed inappropriate moments. Together the two papers show ID groups can learn rules but still misread fast, intent-heavy cues.
Matson et al. (2009) add a warning. Adults with mild ID who keep making negative attributions often become depressed. Teaching intent-checking might protect mental health, not just social life.
Why it matters
Your learner may say ‘He hates me!’ after every bump. Stop and rehearse cue weighing. Point out faces, words, and context before deciding intent. Five extra minutes of intent drills could cut peer conflict and later depression risk.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After each social story, ask: ‘What did the face say? What did the voice say? What really happened?’ Make the learner state all three before picking intent.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A key aspect of social perception is the interpretation of others' intentions. Children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) have difficulty interpreting benign intentions when a negative event occurs. From a cognitive processing perspective, interpreting benign intentions can be challenging because it requires integration of conflicting information, as the social cues accompanying the negative event convey non-hostile intentions. The present study examined how children with ID process conflicting social information in a more diverse set of situational circumstances than was investigated previously, including situations involving hostile intentions. We hypothesised that when conflicting information in a social situation consists of mixed social cues that convey insincere benign intentions (a type of hostile intentions), children with ID would have difficulty arriving at an accurate interpretation, just as they do when a negative event is accompanied by cues that convey benign intentions. We also hypothesised that when a negative event is accompanied by cues that convey benign intentions, the presence of a highly salient negative event would pose added interpretation difficulty for these children. Methods Participants (58 children with ID and 189 children without ID in grades 2-6) viewed 13 videotaped vignettes. In each vignette, social cues that accompanied a negative event provided information about the intentions of the character that caused the event. After presenting each vignette, we asked the child questions designed to assess aspects of social perception, including his/her interpretation of intentions. Vignettes represented three types of situations that pose conflicting information: (1) a conflict between a negative event and social cues, which conveyed benign intentions (five items); (2) the presence of conflicting social cues that conveyed insincere benign intentions (four items); and (3) additional items designed to examine the effect of the salience of negative event and cues on accurate interpretation of benign intentions (four items). Teachers completed rating scales of social behaviour, enabling us to examine whether the ability to interpret intentions when conflicting information is present is related to children's social behaviour. Results Children with ID had lower interpretation accuracy than children without ID for all three social situations that presented conflicting information. Children with ID appeared to have particular difficulty interpreting benign intentions when a negative event (but not the social cue) was made salient. For children with ID, interpretation accuracy and teacher-rated social behaviour were related. Conclusions Results demonstrated that the presence of conflicting information poses cognitive processing challenges in a variety of social situations, making it difficult for children with ID to arrive at accurate interpretations. Children with ID were less likely than children without ID to interpret intentions accurately, not just when the social cues conveyed benign intentions, but also when mixed social cues conveyed hostile intentions. In addition, when social cues accompanying a negative event convey benign intentions, the relative salience of the negative event and the cues can affect interpretation accuracy for children with ID. Discussion focuses on implications for understanding the cognitive component of the social domain of adaptive behaviour, for explaining gullibility in children with ID and for instructional practices.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2010 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01240.x