Understanding goals and intentions in low-functioning autism.
Low-functioning nonverbal kids with autism copy what they see, not what you mean—so model only the key goal.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team watched 15 low-functioning, nonverbal kids with autism.
Each child copied an adult who did odd things with toys.
Sometimes the adult meant to turn on a light. Other times the adult just fumbled.
The kids simply copied the exact move, even when the adult clearly slipped.
What they found
The children copied every strange action, mistake or not.
They noticed the goal (light on) but missed the adult's real intent.
In plain words: they saw what happened, not why it happened.
How this fits with other research
Falcomata et al. (2012) saw the same thing one year earlier. Their kids with autism also clung to goal cues.
Faso et al. (2016) looked at older adults with autism. These adults did better when they chose what to watch. This seems to clash with Eszter's negative result, but the adults could talk and plan. The kids could not.
Burrows et al. (2018) pooled many studies and found people with autism make fewer and shorter facial expressions. This wider view includes the imitation gaps Eszter found.
Celani (2002) showed these same kids prefer objects to people. Less interest in people may explain why they ignore intent.
Why it matters
When you model a skill, strip it to the clear goal. Skip extra flair. Show the end result first, then the exact steps. Check that the learner sees the goal, not just your hands.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before each demo, point to the end goal (e.g., lit lamp) and keep hand motions simple and exact.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We investigated ability to understand goals and attribute intentions in the context of two imitation studies in low-functioning, nonverbal children with autism (L-F CWA), a population that is rarely targeted by research in the domain. Down syndrome children (DSC) and typically developing children (TDC) were recruited to form matched comparison groups. In the two sets of simple action demonstrations only contextual indicators of the model's intentions were manipulated. In the Head touch experiment the model activated a button on a toy by pushing it with the forehead, whereas in the Hidden box experiment the model used a ball with a magnet to lift a box out of its container. Both actions were unusual and non-affordant with regards to the objects involved, none of the children in the baseline condition produced them. L-F CWA imitated the experimenter exactly, regardless of the model's intention. TDC showed appreciation of the model's intention by imitating her actions selectively. DSC reproduced only the intentional action as often as they imitated the experimenter exactly. It is concluded that L-F CWA attributed goals to the observed model, but did not show an appreciation of the model's intentions even in these simplified, nonverbal contexts.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.039