Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience?
Social Thinking® has no research legs—take it off your therapy shelf now.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Leaf and colleagues wrote a position paper. They looked at Social Thinking® lessons for kids with autism.
They asked: Does any real data show this works? They checked for studies with control groups and measured outcomes.
What they found
They found zero strong studies. No experiments proved Social Thinking® helps kids talk or play better.
The authors call the program pseudoscience. They say we should stop using it.
How this fits with other research
Singh et al. (2009) did the same job for weighted vests. They also found no proof and told us to drop the tool.
Both papers match: popular does not mean effective. Each warns against cozy-sounding tricks that lack data.
Russell (1975) adds a warning about quick workshops. Together the three papers say: check the proof before you teach or buy any package.
Why it matters
If you write IEP goals or pick curriculums, drop Social Thinking® today. Replace it with scripts, peer modeling, or social stories that have real studies behind them. Tell teachers and parents why you made the switch so they learn to ask for evidence too.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Audit your client’s goals—swap any Social Thinking® objective for a peer-mediated intervention with data sheets ready.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Today, there are several interventions that can be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they are widely implemented in home, school, university, and community settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudoscience, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to implement and recommend only those procedures that would be considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evidence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, especially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet the standard of evidence science.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2016 · doi:10.1007/s40617-016-0108-1