Interaction between two people may be construed as a continuous process of perception and action within the dyad. A theoretical framework is proposed in this article that explains the concepts and processes which comprise the interaction process. The article explores the transactional nature of interaction, through analysis of narrative data from two dyads, each comprising a person with severe or profound intellectual and multiple disability and a service worker. The novel application of grounded theory to analyse video data of non-verbal communication data in order to develop the theoretical framework is reviewed. Previously, attuning has been identified as the key process that drives interaction. This article explores the other concepts of the theory proposed, namely, setting, being, stimulus, action, attention and engagement. The article concludes by contrasting this theory of the interaction process with other related concepts and suggests how application of the proposed framework may enhance practice.
AdlerHM (1997) Toward a multimodal communication theory of psychotherapy: the vicarious co-processing of experience. American Journal of Psychotherapy51: 54–66.
2.
BrownIBrownR (2009) Choice as an aspect of quality of life for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities6: 11–18.
3.
BrownFGothelfCGuessD. (1998) Self determination for individuals with the most severe disabilities: moving beyond chimera. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps23: 17–26.
4.
BurgoonJBonitoJRamirezAJr. (2002) Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and non verbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication52(3): 657–677.
5.
CullenC (1999) Contextualism in intellectual disability research: the case of choice behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research43: 437–444.
6.
FelceDLoweKBlackmanD (1995) Resident behaviour and staff interaction with people with intellectual disabilities and seriously challenging behaviour in residential services. Mental Handicap Research8: 272–293.
7.
FelceDReppAThomasM. (1991) The relationship of staff: client ratios, interactions ans residential placement. Research in Developmental Disabilities12: 315–331.
8.
FogelA (1993) Two principles of communication: co-regulation and framing. In: NadelJCamaioniL (eds) New Perspectives in Early Communication Development. London: Routledge, pp. 9–22.
9.
ForsterSIaconoT (2014) The nature of affect attunement used by disability support workers interacting with adults with profound intellectaul and multiple disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research58(12): 1105–1120.
10.
GeertzC (1973) Thick description: towards an interpretive theory of culture. In: GeertzC (ed) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, pp. 3–30.
GranlundMWilderJ (2006) Studying interaction between children who do not use symbols in interaction and their parents within the family system–methodological challenges. Disability and Rehabilitation28: 175–182.
13.
GriceHP (1999) Logic and conversation. In: JaworskiACopelandN (eds) The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 66–77.
14.
GriffithsCSmithM (2016) Attuning: a communication process between people with severe and profound intellectual disability and their interaction partners. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities29: 124–138. DOI:10.1111/jar.12162.
15.
HarrisJ (1994) Language, communication and personal power: a developmental perspective. In: Coup-O’KaneJSmithB (eds) Taking Control: Enabling People with Learning Difficulties. London: David Fulton Publishers, pp. 31–48.
16.
HeritageJ (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HewettDNindM (1998) Introduction: recent developments in interactive approaches. In: HewettDNindM (eds) Interaction in Action: Reflections on the Use of Intensive Interaction. London: David Fulton, pp. 1–23.
18.
HoggJReevesDRobertsJ. (2001) Consistency, context and confidence in judgements of affective communication in adults with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research45: 18–29.
19.
HostynIMaesB (2009) Interaction between persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities and their partners: a literature review. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability34: 296–312.
20.
JohnsonHDouglasJBigbyC. (2011) The challenges and benefits of using participant observation to understand the social interaction of adults with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication27(4): 267–278.
KaiserAPGoetzL (1993) Enhancing communication with persons labeled severely disabled. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped18: 137–142.
23.
McConkeyRMorrisIPurcellM (1999) Communications between staff and adults with intellectual disabilities in naturally occurring settings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research43: 194–205.
24.
NakkenHVlaskampC (2007) A need for a taxonomy for profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities4: 83–87.
25.
NindM (1996) Efficacy of intensive interaction: developing sociability and communication in people with severe and complex learning difficulties using an approach based on caregiver-infant interaction. European Journal of Special Needs Education11: 48–66.
26.
PlatonESabouretNHonidenS (2006) Overhearing and direct interactions: point of view of an active environment-preliminary study. In: WeynsDVan Dyke ParunakHMichelF (eds) Environments for Multi Agent Systems II, 3830, pp. 121–138. DOI:10.1007/11678809_8.
27.
SearleR (1983) Intentionality. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
28.
SperberDWilsonD (1986) Relevance Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
29.
SternD (1985) The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York: Basic Books.
30.
ThompsonLFineGA (1999) Socially shared cognition, affect, and behaviour: a review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review3: 278–302.
31.
WeymeyerMLBoldingN (2001) Enhanced self determination of adults with intellectual disability as an outcome of moving to community based work or living environments. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research45: 371–385.
32.
WilderJAxelsonnCGranlundM (2004) Parent-child interaction: a comparison of parents’ perceptions in three groups. Disability and Rehabilitation 26(21–22): 1313–1322.
33.
WilderJGranlundM (2003) Behaviour style and interaction between seven children with multiple disabilities and their caregivers. Child: Care, Health and Development29: 559–567.
