Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience?
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.
Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Justin B
JB
Leaf
Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Alyne
A
Kassardjian
Behavior Therapy and Learning Center, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Misty L
ML
Oppenheim-Leaf
Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Joseph H
JH
Cihon
Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Mitchell
M
Taubman
Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Ronald
R
Leaf
Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
John
J
McEachin
Applied behavior analysis; Autism; Evidence based; Social behavior; Social thinking