Abstract
Jackson, L. K., & Atance, C. M. (2008). Future thinking in children with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 14, 40–45.
Background
Future thinking is an important aspect of human cognition. Similar to episodic memory, which allows an individual to reexperience an event, episodic future thinking allows an individual to pre-experience an event (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Episodic future thinking (or mental time travel) encompasses more than simply imagining oneself in the future; it involves developing a plan that takes into account one’s specific situation. Episodic future thinking skills emerge around 4 years of age (Atance & O’Neill, 2005; Suddendorf & Busby, 2005). This episodic awareness supports the formulation of future-oriented goals, and supports the implementation of the behavioral guidance system necessary to achieve them.
The ability to mentally project oneself into the future (episodic future thinking) is related to theory of mind (ToM) and, specifically, to the understanding that others can have different perspectives from one’s own (Atance & O’Neill, 2005). When projecting oneself into the future, the individual must adopt the perspective of a future self, rather than that of another person. It is reasonable to conclude that individuals who have deficits in ToM abilities—as is the case with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)—may also show similar deficits in episodic future thinking or, simply put, in projecting the self into the future.
Deficits in future thinking may explain some of the repetitive and stereotyped behaviors and lack the behavioral flexibility seen in persons with ASD. It is plausible that such inflexibility stems from underlying difficulties with planning and future thinking (Suddendorf & Corballis, 1997).
Previous studies have found that persons with ASD have significant deficits in episodic memory, another form of “mental time travel” that is similar to episodic future thinking (Powell & Jordan, 1993). These episodic memory deficits may be due to the inability to form a relationship between one’s past and present self, and to dissociate from one’s own current state. As persons with ASD show deficits in ToM skills and episodic memory, then one might also expect them to show deficits in episodic future thinking. Persons with ASD may be less impaired on tasks that require them to make predictions about the physical world, which presumably does not rely on the capacity to envision the self in the future. Therefore, future thinking tasks, which require predicting a physical, or mechanical, end state, rather than a psychological, or “personal,” may also be easier for these children.
The Study
There were 12 children, with ASD, between the ages of 4.8 to 13.1 years (verbal mental ages ranged from 4.1 to 8.4 years). The performance of the ASD group was also compared with a group of typically developing children (TDC; 11 males, 1 female).
Twelve TDC were matched on the basis of sex and verbal mental ages. The ages of the TDC ranged from 3.6 to 5.10 years, with verbal mental ages ranging from 4.3 to 8.5.
The researchers administered two self-based and two mechanical-based future thinking tasks. Each task entailed the child making a choice between two courses of action, with only one leading to task success. Success on the self-based tasks was hypothesized to require children to project themselves into the future to pre-experience an event, whereas success on the mechanical-based tasks was hypothesized to rely on the capacity to predict the outcome of a physical transformation.
Psychological or Self-Based Tasks
Ernie’s doggies
Three black binders were placed on the table and children opened each binder to reveal a different animal photograph (puppies, kittens, and ducklings). The experimenter told children that Ernie, from “Sesame Street,” was coming to visit. She explained that Ernie was very afraid of puppies. Children were then asked whether there was anything they should do to prepare for Ernie’s visit. Children received a score of 1 if they hid the photograph of the puppies (by closing the binder), thus demonstrating that they had anticipated themselves in a future situation in which Ernie would be afraid.
Ant costume
Two pieces of an “ant” costume were placed on the table: A child-sized blue t-shirt with six straws affixed to the front comprised the “ant body,” while a blue hat with two long antennae, made of three straws taped together, comprised the “ant head.” Children were asked to pretend that they would be putting on the costume, and were then asked which part they should put on first. Children received a score of 1 if they chose to put the ant body on first, thus demonstrating that they had anticipated that the ant body would not fit over the antennae on the ant head.
Physical or Mechanical-Based Tasks
Balls and tubes
A wooden ramp and two detachable tubes—one wide, one narrow—were placed on the table. Children were shown that a small ball could roll down both the wide and narrow tubes and knock down a domino, whereas a large ball could only roll down the wide tube. On the test trial, the narrow tube was placed below the wide tube. Children were then asked which ball they needed to choose (the small or the large) to knock over the domino. Children received a score of 1 if they chose the small ball, thus demonstrating that they had anticipated that the large ball would get stuck at the opening of the narrow tube.
Tapioca
A large container of small, white, tapioca beads, a small empty container, a large slotted spoon, and a small box without a lid were placed on the table. Children were instructed that they were to transfer tapioca beads from the large container to the smaller empty container. They were then asked which tool (the slotted spoon or the small box) they needed to use to accomplish this goal. Children received a score of 1 if they chose the small box, thus demonstrating that they had anticipated that the tapioca beads would slip through the “slots” of the spoon.
Results/Discussion
The TDC children did not show a difference in performance on the two types of tasks, but the children with ASD performed significantly better on the mechanical tasks that on the self tasks.
The results of this study suggest that children with ASD have more difficulty on tasks that require them to make predictions about the future self than on tasks that require them to make predictions about the outcome of physical transformations. The fact that the TDC performed similarly across both types of tasks makes it unlikely that children with ASD performed worse on the self tasks because these were more difficult than the mechanical tasks.
A deficit in future thinking skills in autism may help to explain the autistic symptoms that are not readily explained by a ToM account alone. The ToM account offers a plausible explanation for only two of the main autistic deficits—deficient social interaction and deficient communication skills. It does not fully explain the third symptom set: insistence upon regularity. However, a deficit in episodic future thinking skills might help explain this third set of symptoms. Without the capacity to redirect our thinking away from the present and toward the future, we would be unable to delay gratification, plan ahead, or anticipate future events. As such, our behavior in the present would be unusually restricted, inflexible, and seemingly irrational. A deficit in future thinking skills in autism is not at odds with the ToM account, but rather, it helps to explain the third, unaccounted for, symptom set: insistence upon regularity.
The finding of a deficit in future thinking also implies the need for a different focus in intervention. By viewing these stereotyped, repetitive, and inflexible behaviors as indications episodic memory difficulties instead of behavioral or sensory disorders, SLPs can implement strategies to promote development of episodic memory. Such strategies can include the following:
Discussion of past experiences with a focus on one’s emotional and evaluative response to the experience; this builds episodic memory for past events.
When discussing past experiences, make use of mental state (e.g., think, know, remember, forget) and emotional words.
Use memories for past experiences to build predictions for future experiences.
Develop use of counterfactual language, that is, “if . . . then.” The future is not rigid; it is not one possible outcome. Rather, future experiences can vary depending on choices one makes. This requires understanding of counterfactuals. “If I do . . . then . . . may happen; but if I do . . . then . . . may happen.”