Samson Et Al-2015-Autism Research
Samson Et Al-2015-Autism Research
Samson Et Al-2015-Autism Research
Introduction
Problematic emotional responses, such as tantrums and
anger outbursts, are surprisingly common in individuals
with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Indeed, clinical
reports and a few initial empirical studies provide evidence of severe impairments in emotional functioning
among individuals with ASD [e.g. Laurent & Rubin, 2004;
Mazefsky, Pelphrey, & Dahl, 2012; Mazefsky et al., 2013;
Myles, 2003]. Interestingly, such dysfunctional emotional
responses are not part of the formal definition or core
features of ASD, which include deficits in social communication and interaction, as well as restricted and repetitive behaviors [American Psychiatric Association, 2013].
To better understand emotional problems in ASD, the
present study was designed to examine the use and
effectiveness of cognitive reappraisal, a generally adaptive
emotion regulation strategy, in high-functioning chil-
From the Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California (A.C.S., R.W.P., J.J.G.); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,
Stanford University, Stanford, California (A.Y.H., J.M.P.)
Received April 01, 2013; accepted for publication March 27, 2014
Address for correspondence and reprints: Andrea Samson, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 420, Stanford, CA
94305. E-mail: [email protected]
Authors Notes: Grant sponsor Swiss National Science Foundation; Grant number: PA00P1_136380 (to A.S.) and Mosbacher Family Fund for Autism
Research.
Conflict of interest: None.
Ethics: The work with human subjects complies with the guiding policies and principles for experimental procedures endorsed by the NIH.
23 Wiley
May 2014
in Wiley
Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
Published online in
Online
LibraryOnline
(wileyonlinelibrary.com)
DOI: 10.1002/aur.1387
2014 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
INSAR
INSAR
AutismResearch
Research:
8: ,
918, 2015
Autism
2014
19
2
10
Samson, Huber, and Grosss [2012] recent study suggesting that adults with ASD use cognitive reappraisal less
frequently than their TD counterparts, but use more
expressive suppression, which is considered maladaptive
in the long term if it is the only available regulatory
strategy. This pattern persisted even when controlling for
differences in emotional reactivity and labeling.
The Present Study
The goal of the present study was to gain a better understanding of emotion regulation in children and adolescents with ASD. While initial findings from a self-report
study provided evidence suggesting that adults with ASD
use cognitive reappraisal less frequently than TD adults
[Samson et al., 2012], little is known about the use and
efficacy of cognitive reappraisal in children and adolescents with ASD. Late childhood and adolescence are both
critical phases for the development of emotion regulation
skills. During these stages, individuals acquire a broad
repertoire of emotion regulation strategies, including
adaptive strategies such as problem solving and cognitive
reappraisal. As development continues through these
stages, the strategies acquired may be used more flexibly
and may be tailored to situational requirements [Compas,
Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001;
Gross, 1999; McRae et al., 2012; Silvers et al., 2012].
Using the Reactivity and Regulation Situation Task
[Carthy, Horesh, Apter, Edge, & Gross, 2010], we examined spontaneous and cued cognitive reappraisal in highfunctioning children and adolescents with ASD and TD
controls. We also measured the extent to which reappraising a potentially threatening situation yielded a
reduction in levels of experienced negative emotion
(reappraisal efficacy). By utilizing stimuli that resemble
real-life situations in childhood and adolescence, we were
able to elicit real-time emotional activation in order to
provide quantitative and qualitative assessments of individual differences in emotional reactivity and regulation.
We hypothesized that compared with TD participants, (a)
individuals with ASD would be equally affected by the
emotional stimuli. We also anticipated that participants
with ASD would exhibit a different emotion regulation
profile. Specifically, we predicted that relative to TD participants, individuals with ASD would (b) make less spontaneous use of cognitive reappraisal; (c) be less able to use
cognitive reappraisal when prompted; and (d) be less
effective at downregulating their negative emotions using
cognitive reappraisal.
Method
Participants
Only participants able to complete the experimental procedures were included (one ASD participant was not
INSAR
INSAR
Table 1.
Sample Characteristics
N
Male/female
Age
FSIQ
ASD
TD
M (SD)
M (SD)
Statistics
21
18/3
12.71 (3.62)
103.33 (15.33)
22
16/6
13.00 (2.99)
112.59 (11.54)
ns.a
t(41) = 0.28, ns.
t(41) = 2.24, P < 0.05
INSAR
INSAR
for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for SchoolAged Children (K-SADS) is a semi-structured diagnostic
interview designed to assess current and past episodes of
psychopathology in adolescents according to Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-III-R (DSMIII-R) and DSM-IV criteria. Exclusion of control subjects
was also based on medical and psychiatric history.
Participants with a FSIQ < 70 were excluded from the
study. Cognitive functioning was assessed using the
StanfordBinet, 5th edition [SB5; Roid, 2003]. This study
was approved by Stanford Universitys Institutional
Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained
from parents, and assent was obtained from all participants.
Reactivity and Regulation Situation Task
To assess emotional reactivity and regulation in children
and adolescents with and without ASD, we adapted the
Reactivity and Regulation Situation Task [Carthy et al.,
2010]. In this task, participants are asked to consider 16
ambiguous scenarios designed to elicit negative emotional reactions experienced in daily life. Scenarios are
presented on the computer, and each scenario is one or
two sentences long and written in the second person
singular (you). Topics include family situations (e.g.
Your parents tell you they want to talk to you about
something important), social relationships and interactions (e.g. You see a bunch of your classmates hanging
out and you want to join them; when you come closer
you hear them laughing), academic performance (e.g.
Your teacher asks to see you after class), or feeling
physically uncomfortable (e.g. You are walking down
the street and a stranger approaches you). We adapted
the original taskwhich was developed under the
supervision of one of the co-authorsin two ways. First,
the task was translated from Hebrew to English by a
PhD level experimenter who was bilingual and fully
familiar with details of the procedures. Second, because
the task was originally designed for children, a small
number of scenarios were adapted for adolescents (see
Appendix). This adaptation was made after some adolescents received the child version of the task (see limitation section).
The task consisted of two blocks. The first block began
with two practice trials, followed by 16 real trials. For
each trial, participants were instructed to read out loud a
sentence and to think about the situation as though it
were happening at that very moment. They were then
instructed to [d]escribe the first thought that comes into
your mind. The experimenter recorded participants
initial responses. Participants were then asked to rate [t]o
what extent to you feel tense/worried? A 1 = not at all to
5 = very much scale was used, with circles of increasing
size and redness, such that 5 was represented as a large,
3
11
4
12
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Analyses of gender, age, and FSIQ revealed that these
factors did not interact with group, except for a
group gender effect for not codeable (F(1, 40) = 5.77,
P < 0.05), and a group FSIQ effect on the use of spontaneous reappraisal (F(1, 40) = 6.42, P < 0.05). Because we
found few effects for gender and age, only FSIQ was
included as a covariate in primary analyses given the
INSAR
INSAR
Figure 1. Intensity of emotional reactivity and frequency of scenarios with >1 intensity ratings in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and
typically developing (TD) participants. Average emotional reactivity based on negativity ratings (from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much).
Average frequency in percent of being affected = ratings >1 out of 16 scenarios.
observed group effect for this variable. The two orders
and versions of the task did not have an effect on the
reactivity and regulation variables. The age of the children that were presented the child version (n = 30) was
on average 11.87 (standard deviations (SD) = 2.98). The
age of participants that were presented the the adolescent
version (n = 13) was on average 15.15 (SD = 2.82). None
of the variables (except age: F(1, 42) = 11.38, P < 0.01)
differed across the two versions.
In order to assess whether the use of language was
different in the two groups, verbosity was analyzed. Word
frequency for the first and second block of the experiment was taken into account for group comparisons. In
the first block, individuals with ASD used 176.48
(SD = 67.05) words on average, while TD participants
used 189.90 (SD = 40.00) words. The groups did not differ
significantly (F(1,42) = .64, P = 0.43). In the second block,
individuals with ASD used significantly less words (M =
89.62, SD = 46.68) than TD participants (M = 126.91,
SD = 49.60, F(1,42) = 6.41, P = 0.015). However, after correcting for the number of scenarios in which the participants were affected, the groups did not differ anymore
because the participants were instructed to reappraise
only when he or she was affected at the first exposure to
the scenario (MASD = 10.21, SD = 5.92, MTD = 9.98, SD =
2.70, F(1,42) = .03, P = 0.87).
Group Differences in Emotional Reactivity
Average ratings over the 16 scenarios were computed, as
well as how frequently the participants indicated that
they were affected by rating the scenarios higher than
1. Using FSIQ as a covariate, individuals with ASD
(M = 2.38, SD = 0.79) did not differ in the average nega-
INSAR
INSAR
5
13
Figure 2. Spontaneous use of emotion regulation for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and typically developing (TD) participants (in
percent). *P < 0.05.
Figure 3. Use and efficacy of cued cognitive reappraisal in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and typically developing (TD) participants.
Use = percentage of times participants were able to generate cognitive reappraisals for scenarios that were rated >1 during first exposure.
Efficacy = percent reduction of negative emotions after participants were able to use cued reappraisal (difference scores between first and
second exposure for scenarios in which participants were affected, i.e. that were rated >1). **P < 0.01.
Additional analyses revealed that these effects were
evident even if emotional reactivity was included as an
additional covariate. The interaction of group strategy
(F(7,273) = 2.28, P < 0.05), and group differences in reappraisal (F(3,42) = 4.75, P < 0.01) suppression (F(3,42) =
3.37, P < 0.05) as well as the noncodeable responses
(F(3,42) = 6.04, P < 0.01) were still significant even controlling for emotional reactivity in block 1.
Group Differences in the Use and Efficacy of
Cued Reappraisal
ASD participants were able to come up with a reappraisal
strategy in fewer of the scenarios than TD participants,
as revealed by an ANCOVA with FSIQ as a covariate
6
14
Discussion
In this study, we found significant differences in the spontaneous emotion regulation profile of high-functioning
INSAR
INSAR
INSAR
INSAR
7
15
First, the present study used written hypothetical scenarios to induce negative emotions. Although this is a
well validated set of stimuli previously used in clinical
contexts [Carthy et al., 2010], this task has certain limitations. Because this task involves reading and language,
as well as perspective taking abilities, it might be difficult
for some individuals with ASD to picture themselves in
the situations described in the scenarios. Additionally,
some reports suggest that individuals with ASD tend to
think in pictures rather than in words [e.g. Grandin,
1995], which may have impacted the accessibility of the
written scenarios. While verbosity did not differ by
group, future studies should use material that can be
processed via other sensory channels, such as visual
material. Additionally, future studies should focus on
emotion regulation strategies that require fewer language
abilities. Using language-independent stimuli and regulation strategies may also allow researchers to examine
emotion regulation in lower-functioning individuals
with ASD. In general, the conclusions drawn from this
study may not be generalizable to lower-functioning children and adolescents with ASD.
A second important limitation is that the dependent
measures were all self-report measures. It is true that these
measures were obtained in the content of an engaging
emotion-eliciting task. However, future studies on
emotion dysregulation should include more objective
measures, such as autonomic and brain measures. This
could be done using autonomic psychophysiology or
functional magnetic resonance imaging.
A third limitation is the absence of a control task. This
limits our ability to draw strong conclusions as to
whether the deficits we observed in ASD participants were
specific to emotion regulation per se. In future studies, it
might be helpful to include a control task that is comparable in difficulty with cognitive reappraisal, but not
related to emotions. A control condition also might help
assess effects of habituation (e.g. a condition in which
participants would not have been instructed to reappraise
but just rate emotional stimuli during a second exposure).
Because most of our participants were able to reappraise
during a second exposure to the stimulus, we were not
able to address the impactif anyof habituation.
A fourth limitation is that we introduced the adolescent version of the taskwhich differs from the child
version only in three scenariosonly after we had
already run some adolescents with the child version.
Although on average, the two groups differ in their age;
in both groups, the age range is 820 years.
A fifth limitation is that although we controlled for
cognitive functioning (FSIQ), the present study did not
link difficulties in emotion regulation to core features of
autism, such as social and communication difficulties,
repetitive behaviors, or sensory sensitivities. Previous
research has provided some evidence for a link between
8
16
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Meredith Harvey, Mona
Neysari, Samantha Ludin, and Shweta Shah for their help
conducting this study, and Gal Sheppes for his help in
translating the scenarios.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC:
Author.
Berthoz, S., & Hill, E.L. (2005). The validity of using self-reports
to assess emotion regulation abilities in adults with autism
spectrum disorder. European Psychiatry: The Journal of the
Association of European Psychiatrists, 20, 291298. doi:10.
1016/j.eurpsy.2004.06.013
Bower, J.E., Meyerowith, B.E., Desmond, K.A., Bernaards, C.A.,
Rowland, J.H., & Ganz, P.A. (2005). Perceptions of positive
meaning and vulnerability following breast cancer: Predictors
and outcomes among long-term breast cancer survivors.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 236245. doi:10.1111/
j.1541-0420.2011.01736.x
Capps, L., Kasari, C., Yirmiya, N., & Sigman, M. (1993). Parental
perception of emotional expressiveness in children with
autism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61,
475484. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9167-8
Capps, L., Yirmiya, N., & Sigman, M. (1992). Understanding of
simple and complex emotions in non-retarded children with
autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and
Allied Disciplines, 33, 11691182.
Carthy, T., Horesh, N., Apter, A., & Gross, J.J. (2010). Emotional
reactivity and cognitive regulation in children with Anxiety
disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 2336. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9167-8
INSAR
INSAR
INSAR
INSAR
9
17
10
18
Appendix
Scenarios
Items that were adapted for adolescents are in parentheses.
1. Your mom tells you that she needs to go to the doctor
for a checkup.
2. On the way to school, your stomach starts to feel
weird.
3. You are walking in the street and a car slows down
next to you.
4. Your parents are about to go out to an event in the
city. (You are about to go study abroad for 6 months).
5. You see a bunch of your classmates playing and you
want to join them. When you come closer, you hear
them laughing.
6. Your mom was supposed to be home, but she is late.
(Your boyfriend/girlfriend was supposed to call you
but he/she did not).
7. Your teacher asks to see you after class.
8. You enter a store and the employee stares at you.
9. Your father tells you unexpectedly that he has to
travel out of the country tomorrow.
10. You hear a knock on the door and when you open it,
you see a person you do not know.
11. You are in a group. People are introducing themselves, and now it is your turn to introduce yourself.
12. Your teacher returns a test and says that your score
was surprising.
13. Your parents tell you they want to talk to you about
something important.
14. You just got a test and you start reading the
questions.
15. You wake up at night and hear a noise in the hallway.
16. You are about to go out somewhere with a lot of
people. (You are about to go out somewhere with a
lot of people you just met).
INSAR
INSAR