Autistic children with imaginary friends have better social skills(bps.org.uk)
bps.org.uk
Autistic children with imaginary friends have better social skills
https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/autistic-children-imaginary-friends-have-better-social-skills-just-neurotypical
54 comments
Lay abstract of the original study:
> Research on neurotypical children with imaginary friends has found that those with imaginary friends have better social skills and are more able to think about how other people’s minds work compared to children without imaginary friends. Research shows that some autistic children also create imaginary friends. This article is the first to look at whether or not autistic children with imaginary friends have stronger social skills and an improved ability to think about others’ minds than those without imaginary friends. We asked parents to report about their children aged 5 to 12. Finding almost half reported their child had an imaginary friend, a much larger number than previous research with younger children. Our findings also suggested that autistic children with imaginary friends were better able to understand others’ minds and had stronger social skills than their peers without imaginary friends. The children’s language ability did not influence this. The findings of this study add to the evidence that with respect to the creation imaginary friends and their potential benefits, the play profiles of autistic children are similar to the general population. It also provides more evidence that the understanding of others’ minds is not all or nothing in autism and gives reason for researchers to investigate whether the causes of these differences are the same or different for autistic children.
Direct link to the study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613221092...
> Research on neurotypical children with imaginary friends has found that those with imaginary friends have better social skills and are more able to think about how other people’s minds work compared to children without imaginary friends. Research shows that some autistic children also create imaginary friends. This article is the first to look at whether or not autistic children with imaginary friends have stronger social skills and an improved ability to think about others’ minds than those without imaginary friends. We asked parents to report about their children aged 5 to 12. Finding almost half reported their child had an imaginary friend, a much larger number than previous research with younger children. Our findings also suggested that autistic children with imaginary friends were better able to understand others’ minds and had stronger social skills than their peers without imaginary friends. The children’s language ability did not influence this. The findings of this study add to the evidence that with respect to the creation imaginary friends and their potential benefits, the play profiles of autistic children are similar to the general population. It also provides more evidence that the understanding of others’ minds is not all or nothing in autism and gives reason for researchers to investigate whether the causes of these differences are the same or different for autistic children.
Direct link to the study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613221092...
Is it because english isn't my first language, or is the title somewhat ambigious? Better than who, autistic children who do not have imaginary friends (it seems that the article is indicating this) or better than everyone else?
Though more I read it, I guess better could also mean that their social skills are better than they would be without an imaginary friend.
In context, one would expect “better than” to refer to autistic children without imaginary friends, simply because deficits in social skills are a defining feature of autism.
As such, the title is technically ambiguous but practically speaking, not.
As such, the title is technically ambiguous but practically speaking, not.
> Is it because english isn't my first language, or is the title somewhat ambigious?
The truncated HN headline is a little ambiguous, though the most natural reading is correct; the full source title / subtitle is not ambiguous at all:
“Autistic children with imaginary friends have better social skills, just like neurotypical children / Results suggest that pretend play provides similar social benefits to autistic children as it does to neurotypical children.”
Constraints force compromise.
The truncated HN headline is a little ambiguous, though the most natural reading is correct; the full source title / subtitle is not ambiguous at all:
“Autistic children with imaginary friends have better social skills, just like neurotypical children / Results suggest that pretend play provides similar social benefits to autistic children as it does to neurotypical children.”
Constraints force compromise.
Better than autistic children who do not have imaginary friends. It's not said explicitly, but it's obvious, and could be used in e.g. a magazine article title without the clarification. I think it might even seem a little too "spoon-fed" if they've spelled it out...
It's not just you.
- They found a higher rate ("almost half") of autistic children "creating imaginary friends" than prior research.
- A comparison is drawn between autistic children with imaginary friends versus autistic children without. Those with had "better social skills" than those without.
- Prior research has found a similar difference in the general population (non-autistic children).
- They found a higher rate ("almost half") of autistic children "creating imaginary friends" than prior research.
- A comparison is drawn between autistic children with imaginary friends versus autistic children without. Those with had "better social skills" than those without.
- Prior research has found a similar difference in the general population (non-autistic children).
As always, though, correlation != causation. It could well be the case that half of children (autistic or not) have some extra innate capacity for socialization, and that typical parenting choices don't provide those children as much social input as their brain wants at a certain stage of development, and hence they make up imaginary friends to interact with in order to satisfy their enhanced social needs. In other words, the imaginary friends could be an effect rather than a cause.
Or those who have better social skills are more likely to have imaginary friends, because they are more interested in social interactions.
Any research that treats autism as a single classifier, or even a single dimensional spectrum seems doomed to be irreproducible to me.
That was my first thought too. But that headline will make for a lot of clicks, so there’s that.
I can't take this article serious given that it conflates "social skills" and "ability to interact with allistics" (non-autistics). Recent research actually suggests autistic children are often better at interacting with other autistic children and that allistic children are worse at interacting with autistic children (and vice versa of course). This is known as the "double empathy problem": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem
Many forms of autistic "therapy" such as ABA focus on masking autistic behaviors and mimicking allistic behaviors while disregarding the needs and preferences of autistic children. Many autistic "problem behaviors" are also not the result of autism but of trauma inflicted by others. Researchers are traditionally good at insisting that autistics lack theory of mind while also completely ignoring the double empathy problem and how it may affect the researchers' ability to reason about the autistic research subjects.
This is why autistic adults in recent years have become more vocal insisting "nothing about us without us", i.e. if the researchers want to study autism, the research team should at least include autistic researchers. We generally frown upon research into women's issues conducted by all-men research teams or research into Black issues conducted by all-white research teams, so we also shouldn't accept all-allistic research teams studying autism.
Many forms of autistic "therapy" such as ABA focus on masking autistic behaviors and mimicking allistic behaviors while disregarding the needs and preferences of autistic children. Many autistic "problem behaviors" are also not the result of autism but of trauma inflicted by others. Researchers are traditionally good at insisting that autistics lack theory of mind while also completely ignoring the double empathy problem and how it may affect the researchers' ability to reason about the autistic research subjects.
This is why autistic adults in recent years have become more vocal insisting "nothing about us without us", i.e. if the researchers want to study autism, the research team should at least include autistic researchers. We generally frown upon research into women's issues conducted by all-men research teams or research into Black issues conducted by all-white research teams, so we also shouldn't accept all-allistic research teams studying autism.
Psychology, as an establishment, by and large, is about putting a veneer of scientific legitimacy over forceful enforcement of societal norms. Within living memory homosexuality was a diagnosis in the DSM. There is no truth, only power. Kids have no power, so its always "on the autism spectrum." But when they grow up and have prestigious coding jobs with money (and the associated power), all of a sudden they're "neuro-diverse" or "a bit eccentric".
What's the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and an Aspergers diagnosis? A billion dollars.
What's the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and an Aspergers diagnosis? A billion dollars.
Glad to see genuine anti-pschiatry advocated here without the other anti-scientific bullshit that is posted along with it.
Most forms of "therapy" don't work either, especially CBT.
Also, don't even get me started on the fact that this group is STILL obsessed with Freud, psychoanalysis, and people who believe that humans have Oedipus and Electra complexes.
Most forms of "therapy" don't work either, especially CBT.
Also, don't even get me started on the fact that this group is STILL obsessed with Freud, psychoanalysis, and people who believe that humans have Oedipus and Electra complexes.
> This is why autistic adults in recent years have become more vocal insisting "nothing about us without us", i.e. if the researchers want to study autism, the research team should at least include autistic researchers.
There are many people out there who probably could get an ASD diagnosis if they wanted to, but (at least for now) they’ve decided they don’t want to go down that path. There are other people who have actually been formally given that diagnosis at some point, but have decided to reject it. Do they potentially count as “autistic researchers”?
Personally, I am rather convinced by the criticisms of the scientific validity of the concept of ASD made by authors such as Lynn Waterhouse, Laurent Mottron and Sami Timimi. I think the demeaning of research by “all-allistic” researchers is harmful because people who build an identity for themselves on a label are likely to be unsympathetic towards scientific criticisms of it; and it ignores the fact that “autistic”-vs-not is a continuum divided by a socially constructed boundary. And I say all this as someone who has a significant degree of autistic traits.
There are many people out there who probably could get an ASD diagnosis if they wanted to, but (at least for now) they’ve decided they don’t want to go down that path. There are other people who have actually been formally given that diagnosis at some point, but have decided to reject it. Do they potentially count as “autistic researchers”?
Personally, I am rather convinced by the criticisms of the scientific validity of the concept of ASD made by authors such as Lynn Waterhouse, Laurent Mottron and Sami Timimi. I think the demeaning of research by “all-allistic” researchers is harmful because people who build an identity for themselves on a label are likely to be unsympathetic towards scientific criticisms of it; and it ignores the fact that “autistic”-vs-not is a continuum divided by a socially constructed boundary. And I say all this as someone who has a significant degree of autistic traits.
I feel autism as a concept needs to be broken up into thousands of disorders before any study can be taken seriously. Anything from delayed development to genetic disorders is considered autism and everything is treated the same way. The science really needs to step up on this
That's why they call it autistic spectrum, and yes some investigators don't know shit and throw the autistic tag willy-nilly
Now, solve for causality's arrow:
has imaginary friend -> better social skills
better social skills -> has imaginary friend
Judea Pearl UCI CS Seminar: The Science of Cause and Effect: From Deep Learning to Deep Understanding, Video [0], Slides PDF [1]
0. https://uci.zoom.us/rec/play/2Fsh79DsG4CCQHQ-bdbN1N5zOByLAao...
1. https://web.cs.ucla.edu/~kaoru/irvine-feb2022.pdf
Judea Pearl UCI CS Seminar: The Science of Cause and Effect: From Deep Learning to Deep Understanding, Video [0], Slides PDF [1]
0. https://uci.zoom.us/rec/play/2Fsh79DsG4CCQHQ-bdbN1N5zOByLAao...
1. https://web.cs.ucla.edu/~kaoru/irvine-feb2022.pdf
The title on HN (at the moment anyway) is truncated -- the full title is "Autistic children with imaginary friends have better social skills, just like neurotypical children" which has a bit of a different ring to it.
Not sure if I'm missing something, but the claim seems to be ~ kids that speak (to "imaginary friends") tend to speak more than the ones that don't. This doesn't seem particularly ground-breaking... So what did this research involve? They asked parents of autistic children some questions over the internet.
Finally I just want to mention that the researchers are not necessarily the people drawing conclusions from the research (let alone writing the headlines/articles about it).
Not sure if I'm missing something, but the claim seems to be ~ kids that speak (to "imaginary friends") tend to speak more than the ones that don't. This doesn't seem particularly ground-breaking... So what did this research involve? They asked parents of autistic children some questions over the internet.
Finally I just want to mention that the researchers are not necessarily the people drawing conclusions from the research (let alone writing the headlines/articles about it).
I'm not fond of these takes. Because it assumes we'd never get counter-intuitive results.
I think we also kind of backfit our expectations to the results. I think if you write this headline either way, you'd have people who would say "yeah, that makes sense". Because if you told us that autistic children with imaginary friends have worse social skills, you'd have people saying "Yeah, that makes sense, imaginary friends don't respond like real people, they're just reinforcing bad habits."
But we should be testing our assumptions far more than we do. Otherwise, we're just cutting off the ends of the roast.
I think we also kind of backfit our expectations to the results. I think if you write this headline either way, you'd have people who would say "yeah, that makes sense". Because if you told us that autistic children with imaginary friends have worse social skills, you'd have people saying "Yeah, that makes sense, imaginary friends don't respond like real people, they're just reinforcing bad habits."
But we should be testing our assumptions far more than we do. Otherwise, we're just cutting off the ends of the roast.
This just in, research has shown that shit stinks. How can we know if "science" doesn't tell us?
> So what did this research involve? They asked parents of autistic children some questions over the internet
That's just as meaningful as a twitter poll!
That's just as meaningful as a twitter poll!
This doesn't seem particularly ground-breaking...
Right. Talking to an imaginary friend isn't the same as a real friend but tossing a baseball into the air isn't like playing baseball, yet if you told me "kids who spend an hour a day tossing and catching a baseball are better at playing baseball" I'd say "well, duh".
Right. Talking to an imaginary friend isn't the same as a real friend but tossing a baseball into the air isn't like playing baseball, yet if you told me "kids who spend an hour a day tossing and catching a baseball are better at playing baseball" I'd say "well, duh".
Back in the late 90's I was working as a forklift operator at a manufacturing plant during my summer off from college.
I will never forget walking into the breakroom and on the television was an anchor reporting that studies had shown heterosexual couples were more likely to have children than homosexual couples. Everyone in that break room was laughing.
Someone got paid to do that study.
And when I mention this, someone will inevitably come in and say we can't know until we verify. Sure we can, but more importantly, why the hell was money put towards _THAT_ question, of all questions we could be investigating? At what point are researchers just trying to look busy rather than actually be busy?
I will never forget walking into the breakroom and on the television was an anchor reporting that studies had shown heterosexual couples were more likely to have children than homosexual couples. Everyone in that break room was laughing.
Someone got paid to do that study.
And when I mention this, someone will inevitably come in and say we can't know until we verify. Sure we can, but more importantly, why the hell was money put towards _THAT_ question, of all questions we could be investigating? At what point are researchers just trying to look busy rather than actually be busy?
> Sure we can, but more importantly, why the hell was money put towards _THAT_ question
At a complete guess: because there's money in it. The study may have been quantifying the increased likelihood that homosexual couples are TWINKy (two incomes no kids). A demographic that is well known (in marketing circles) to have more disposable income than average. In the UK the phenomenon was known as the pink pound [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money
At a complete guess: because there's money in it. The study may have been quantifying the increased likelihood that homosexual couples are TWINKy (two incomes no kids). A demographic that is well known (in marketing circles) to have more disposable income than average. In the UK the phenomenon was known as the pink pound [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money
Without a reference to the specific study, it’s impossible to answer. You may just have witnessed (the 90s TV equivalent of) a clickbait style piece. Misrepresenting research, whether due to misunderstanding or deliberately, happens all the time.
It sounds like you didn’t personally look into the research in question, but you’re repeating a claim about it as though it were fact. That’s why this kind of misinformation is so prevalent.
It sounds like you didn’t personally look into the research in question, but you’re repeating a claim about it as though it were fact. That’s why this kind of misinformation is so prevalent.
> I will never forget walking into the breakroom and on the television was an anchor reporting that studies had shown heterosexual couples were more likely to have children than homosexual couples.
No reasonable person is going to read that and conclude I'm repeating a claim other than telling an anecdote.
But having said that, yes it's obviously true in the same sense that "It smells when you poo" is obviously true.
No reasonable person is going to read that and conclude I'm repeating a claim other than telling an anecdote.
But having said that, yes it's obviously true in the same sense that "It smells when you poo" is obviously true.
What you're missing is, someone applied for and received a grant to perform this 'research.' Now they get to publish this paper, and that comes with whatever other benefits.
Just because something is “obvious” doesn’t mean research has no value. There have been plenty of “obvious” physical and psychological treatment done to humans which turned out to be harmful.
Is it common for children to have imaginary friends in general?
I'm autistic and never had imaginary friends but nobody I ever knew in my life (including classmates in school) had imaginary friends. I mostly learned about the concept as a horror movie trope in my teenage years. My grandmother insisted on vividly remembering an imaginary childhood friend she would later reinterpret as a ghost.
I'm not yet fully convinced it's a part of "healthy play" and not a coping mechanism for early childhood trauma (especially given how widely accepted and common a lot of trauma-inducing behavior still is in modern parenting, not to mention how socially isolating the modern family structure can be).
I'm not yet fully convinced it's a part of "healthy play" and not a coping mechanism for early childhood trauma (especially given how widely accepted and common a lot of trauma-inducing behavior still is in modern parenting, not to mention how socially isolating the modern family structure can be).
Hi, not everybody talks about having an imaginary friend.
A friend of mine not only has an imaginary friend but a complete paracosm since early childhood. The paracosm is still maintained through imagination and writing and a very personal matter, furthermore the person has an internal dialogue going to discuss issues. I sometimes overhear my friend talking (not to the imaginary friend, but to a copy of himself); appearently it's helpful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/smarter-living/benefits-o...
As far as I can tell it's not trauma induced, the person is neurodivergent though, intelligent, a good parent, counselor and has a healthy and developed ego. We sometimes speculate about the parallels with a religious outlook as it's a personally experienced living and breathing reality (I'm a bit jealous of), there is no claim to an objective reality apart from our consensus reality.
About paracosm: "The creator of a paracosm has a complex and deeply felt relationship with this subjective universe, which may incorporate real-world or imaginary characters and conventions. Commonly having its own geography, history, and language, it is an experience that is often developed during childhood and continues over a long period of time, months or even years, as a sophisticated reality that can last into adulthood.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracosm
As far as I can tell it's not trauma induced, the person is neurodivergent though, intelligent, a good parent, counselor and has a healthy and developed ego. We sometimes speculate about the parallels with a religious outlook as it's a personally experienced living and breathing reality (I'm a bit jealous of), there is no claim to an objective reality apart from our consensus reality.
About paracosm: "The creator of a paracosm has a complex and deeply felt relationship with this subjective universe, which may incorporate real-world or imaginary characters and conventions. Commonly having its own geography, history, and language, it is an experience that is often developed during childhood and continues over a long period of time, months or even years, as a sophisticated reality that can last into adulthood.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracosm
I am not autistic and had an imaginary friend when I was little, maybe around 5 years old. I don't know if any of my classmates had imaginary friends, it's not exactly water-cooler conversation for toddlers, but more importantly my friends wouldn't know this about me. So, your anecdote and belief of relation to trauma doesn't align with my experience. I'm not yet fully convinced there is anything unhealthy about imaginary friends or that trauma plays a role at all.
First off, love your user name.
When you had an imaginary friend, did you know that they were imaginary? I had toys that I talked to and played out scenarios with so I am wondering if they are equivalent.
When you had an imaginary friend, did you know that they were imaginary? I had toys that I talked to and played out scenarios with so I am wondering if they are equivalent.
> Is it common for children to have imaginary friends in general?
A quick Google seems to suggest it's in the 50-65% range for 7 year olds. The article states that it's less prevalent for autistic children.
A quick Google seems to suggest it's in the 50-65% range for 7 year olds. The article states that it's less prevalent for autistic children.
PSA: Please don't take this as an instruction to 'encourage' your kid to have an imaginary friend.
How do such terrible studies get funded, let alone published, let alone written up as articles? What a huge waste of everyones (including reads') time.
[deleted]
Isn't this reverse causation? Selecting for a set of autistic children with imaginary friends selects for individuals with the set of conditions on the spectrum which affect social skills the least. Junk study?
The article specifically points out that the study establishes neither a causal direction nor whether or not there is a confounding factor.
The study has a small sample size and is based on self reporting, so by no means definitive, but I see no reason to believe it's junk.
The study has a small sample size and is based on self reporting, so by no means definitive, but I see no reason to believe it's junk.
[deleted]
That doesn't mean it's junk. But I think the selection effects you mention is a very intriguing idea. It could certainly be the case, but we don't know yet.
I guess.
After all, your imaginary friends never argue or dissent. They never bully you. And they always agree with your opinion.
You’ll be really nice.
On the other hand you’ll fold the moment real life nudges you.
Just a lifting weights help to grow muscles, a little trauma makes a strong rounded person.
After all, your imaginary friends never argue or dissent. They never bully you. And they always agree with your opinion.
You’ll be really nice.
On the other hand you’ll fold the moment real life nudges you.
Just a lifting weights help to grow muscles, a little trauma makes a strong rounded person.
I don't know where does one get the idea that imaginary friends or similar (headmasters, etc.) are always in agreement with the one who imagines them.
> a little trauma makes a strong rounded person.
It's sick and extremely maladaptive to say outright that everyone should be traumatized for their own good.
It's sick and extremely maladaptive to say outright that everyone should be traumatized for their own good.
I think OP meant life will lead to adversities that destroy some people, others overcome it which builds a robust character.
Or it's simply survivorship bias. Airplanes with red dots didnt grow up to be strong.
The problem with this is that "little trauma" is an oxymoron, trauma is severe by definition.
The word is another victim of the hyperbolic tendency in, specifically, the Californian dialect of American English. You will see people talking about various small insults as 'trauma', and brand-new constructions like "trauma dumping" which is, often as not, telling a friend about a bad week when she wasn't in the mood to hear it.
Don't fall for it. Trauma fucks you up, that's how you know it's trauma.
The word is another victim of the hyperbolic tendency in, specifically, the Californian dialect of American English. You will see people talking about various small insults as 'trauma', and brand-new constructions like "trauma dumping" which is, often as not, telling a friend about a bad week when she wasn't in the mood to hear it.
Don't fall for it. Trauma fucks you up, that's how you know it's trauma.
"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger!" — F. Nietzsche
"Or disabled" — reality
"Or disabled" — reality
I'll drop that line at the next party, the whole room will crack up.
(I'm the party host. All my imaginary friends will be there.)