The social motivation theory (SMT) is an influential framework in the field of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As such, it can be challenged, and it should be challenged, by empirically testable alternatives. However, the arguments put forward by Jaswal & Akhtar (J&A) contending that the SMT is imprecise would benefit from a scientific debate to help improve the field of social motivation. In this commentary, we note several that permeate the authors’ discussion before putting forward suggestions for future research in this area.
First, J&A counter the SMT using straw man arguments that are unrelated to the tenets and predictions originally articulated in this theory. For example, they challenge the SMT for failing to acknowledge individual differences in social motivation in ASD. However, the proponents of the SMT do explicitly acknowledge the importance of considering “subgroups of ASDs that do or do not have diminished social motivation” (Chevallier et al. Reference Chevallier, Kohls, Troiani, Brodkin and Schultz2012, p. 7). Additionally, they criticize the SMT for providing a poor explanation of motor stereotypies in ASD, although the SMT was never claimed to explain such phenomena (as explicitly noted by Chevallier et al. Reference Chevallier, Kohls, Troiani, Brodkin and Schultz2012 p. 6). This is further compounded by suggestion that an article authored by contributors to this commentary (Leekam et al. Reference Leekam, Prior and Uljarević2011) proposes that motor stereotypies are caused by social withdrawal. The referenced article critically discusses different models of repetitive behaviors, including the one that the authors ascribe to us. However, this account was not the one we endorsed. Instead, the article advocates for the need to acknowledge the dimensional nature of repetitive behaviors across normative and clinical populations, and the range of adaptive functions these behaviors might serve.
Second, many arguments offered by J&A are not scientifically testable. Examples include counteracting the SMT position that a significant portion of individuals with ASD are less socially motivated than their peers with the argument that some (but not all) individuals with ASD disagree with the idea that they are less socially motivated than their peers and that they just manifest their social motivation differently. This statement might be true – just like introverted individuals might enjoy large social gatherings, although they express such enjoyment differently. However, these statements are not consistent with current empirical observations and interpretations, and given that it is not clear how the statements above should be operationalized and empirically tested, it is therefore not possible to narrow down possible explanations for the phenomena under investigation. The authors might argue that their goal has been made explicit; “we are not offering a new theory of autism …: rather, we are interrogating an influential approach” (sect. 1, last sentence). However, a scientific approach to interrogation is still called for. For example, the statements above might be used to reconsider existing taxonomies of social interest in autism (e.g., Wing & Gould, Reference Wing and Gould1979), reexamine their relevance to social motivation and offer new operational definitions and falsifiable hypotheses for testing. Importantly, the point of theories is not so much to be “true,” but to be useful. The SMT indeed does not capture the complexity and individual variations in the phenomena under investigation – in fact, no theory in social science does. The question is whether the theory produces something useful.
Consequently, early interventions informed by the SMT, such as the Early Start Denver Model (ESDM; Rogers & Dawson Reference Rogers and Dawson2010) and Pivotal Response Training (PRT; Koegel & Koegel Reference Koegel and Koegel2006), should not be considered as detrimental but should be considered as having some limitations. A balanced discussion is needed in light of the evidence suggesting the benefits from ESDM or PRT observed in several investigations with data supporting better outcomes and fewer services later in life in children who received these interventions (Cidav et al. Reference Cidav, Munson, Estes, Dawson, Rogers and Mandell2017; Ventola et al. Reference Ventola, Friedman, Anderson, Wolf, Oosting, Foss-Feig and Pelphrey2014). Of course, alternative accounts can legitimately challenge the claim of usefulness, but these need to offer testable predictions that produce empirical evidence (e.g., Mottron Reference Mottron2017).
Nevertheless, we do agree with J&A that the SMT should be challenged. Social motivation is a nebulous concept. Constructs such as social interest, affiliation motivation, extraversion, sociability, solitropic orientation, and the need to belong, to name a few, are used across different disciplines to study individual differences in the motivation to affiliate with others. However, the boundaries between these constructs are fuzzy, and consensus is needed on how to conceptualize and operationalize social motivation. It is unclear whether social motivation reflects a hard-wired, evolutionary shaped module that comes online in early development, or it emerges from the interaction between reward processing and learning. Additional open questions include the extent to which reward processes work in similar ways for social versus non-social rewards, and when do continuity and discontinuity arise in typical and atypical development. Crucially, we currently lack measures that would enable precise quantification of this multidimensional construct and measure change and potential mechanisms at work (e.g., reward). Advances in these areas are critical to gain insight into and ultimately improve the social experience of neurodiverse and neurotypical individuals.
In conclusion, the target article provides a thought-provoking reminder that prominent theories in our field such as SMT require additional research as well as consideration of the personal experience of individuals with ASD to account for the complexity of the phenomena observed in this population. A comprehensive review should have been undertaken to evaluate the scientific merits and shortcomings of the targeted theory. Proposing alternative theories is always desirable because they allow healthy discussion and are instrumental in helping the field mature and progress. For progress in the field, we must continue to challenge existing models and establish novel theoretical accounts of ASD symptoms that consider the lived experience of individuals with ASD. These, however, must be articulated around empirically testable hypotheses capable of driving scientific research and generating usable knowledge.
The social motivation theory (SMT) is an influential framework in the field of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As such, it can be challenged, and it should be challenged, by empirically testable alternatives. However, the arguments put forward by Jaswal & Akhtar (J&A) contending that the SMT is imprecise would benefit from a scientific debate to help improve the field of social motivation. In this commentary, we note several that permeate the authors’ discussion before putting forward suggestions for future research in this area.
First, J&A counter the SMT using straw man arguments that are unrelated to the tenets and predictions originally articulated in this theory. For example, they challenge the SMT for failing to acknowledge individual differences in social motivation in ASD. However, the proponents of the SMT do explicitly acknowledge the importance of considering “subgroups of ASDs that do or do not have diminished social motivation” (Chevallier et al. Reference Chevallier, Kohls, Troiani, Brodkin and Schultz2012, p. 7). Additionally, they criticize the SMT for providing a poor explanation of motor stereotypies in ASD, although the SMT was never claimed to explain such phenomena (as explicitly noted by Chevallier et al. Reference Chevallier, Kohls, Troiani, Brodkin and Schultz2012 p. 6). This is further compounded by suggestion that an article authored by contributors to this commentary (Leekam et al. Reference Leekam, Prior and Uljarević2011) proposes that motor stereotypies are caused by social withdrawal. The referenced article critically discusses different models of repetitive behaviors, including the one that the authors ascribe to us. However, this account was not the one we endorsed. Instead, the article advocates for the need to acknowledge the dimensional nature of repetitive behaviors across normative and clinical populations, and the range of adaptive functions these behaviors might serve.
Second, many arguments offered by J&A are not scientifically testable. Examples include counteracting the SMT position that a significant portion of individuals with ASD are less socially motivated than their peers with the argument that some (but not all) individuals with ASD disagree with the idea that they are less socially motivated than their peers and that they just manifest their social motivation differently. This statement might be true – just like introverted individuals might enjoy large social gatherings, although they express such enjoyment differently. However, these statements are not consistent with current empirical observations and interpretations, and given that it is not clear how the statements above should be operationalized and empirically tested, it is therefore not possible to narrow down possible explanations for the phenomena under investigation. The authors might argue that their goal has been made explicit; “we are not offering a new theory of autism …: rather, we are interrogating an influential approach” (sect. 1, last sentence). However, a scientific approach to interrogation is still called for. For example, the statements above might be used to reconsider existing taxonomies of social interest in autism (e.g., Wing & Gould, Reference Wing and Gould1979), reexamine their relevance to social motivation and offer new operational definitions and falsifiable hypotheses for testing. Importantly, the point of theories is not so much to be “true,” but to be useful. The SMT indeed does not capture the complexity and individual variations in the phenomena under investigation – in fact, no theory in social science does. The question is whether the theory produces something useful.
Consequently, early interventions informed by the SMT, such as the Early Start Denver Model (ESDM; Rogers & Dawson Reference Rogers and Dawson2010) and Pivotal Response Training (PRT; Koegel & Koegel Reference Koegel and Koegel2006), should not be considered as detrimental but should be considered as having some limitations. A balanced discussion is needed in light of the evidence suggesting the benefits from ESDM or PRT observed in several investigations with data supporting better outcomes and fewer services later in life in children who received these interventions (Cidav et al. Reference Cidav, Munson, Estes, Dawson, Rogers and Mandell2017; Ventola et al. Reference Ventola, Friedman, Anderson, Wolf, Oosting, Foss-Feig and Pelphrey2014). Of course, alternative accounts can legitimately challenge the claim of usefulness, but these need to offer testable predictions that produce empirical evidence (e.g., Mottron Reference Mottron2017).
Nevertheless, we do agree with J&A that the SMT should be challenged. Social motivation is a nebulous concept. Constructs such as social interest, affiliation motivation, extraversion, sociability, solitropic orientation, and the need to belong, to name a few, are used across different disciplines to study individual differences in the motivation to affiliate with others. However, the boundaries between these constructs are fuzzy, and consensus is needed on how to conceptualize and operationalize social motivation. It is unclear whether social motivation reflects a hard-wired, evolutionary shaped module that comes online in early development, or it emerges from the interaction between reward processing and learning. Additional open questions include the extent to which reward processes work in similar ways for social versus non-social rewards, and when do continuity and discontinuity arise in typical and atypical development. Crucially, we currently lack measures that would enable precise quantification of this multidimensional construct and measure change and potential mechanisms at work (e.g., reward). Advances in these areas are critical to gain insight into and ultimately improve the social experience of neurodiverse and neurotypical individuals.
In conclusion, the target article provides a thought-provoking reminder that prominent theories in our field such as SMT require additional research as well as consideration of the personal experience of individuals with ASD to account for the complexity of the phenomena observed in this population. A comprehensive review should have been undertaken to evaluate the scientific merits and shortcomings of the targeted theory. Proposing alternative theories is always desirable because they allow healthy discussion and are instrumental in helping the field mature and progress. For progress in the field, we must continue to challenge existing models and establish novel theoretical accounts of ASD symptoms that consider the lived experience of individuals with ASD. These, however, must be articulated around empirically testable hypotheses capable of driving scientific research and generating usable knowledge.