The continuum of autism Does having autistic traits influence social acting?
William van Leent ANR: 137050 Bachelor’s thesis Communication and information sciences Business communication and digital media Faculty of humanities Tilburg University, Tilburg Supervisor: Dr. M. Pollmann Second reader: Dr. M. Visser December 2013
2
First, I would like to express my thanks to the thesis supervisor, Monique Pollman, for her dedication, critical view and all the helpful feedback she provided. Second, I want to thank the members of my thesis circle, Ysanne van Praag, Marit de heer and Tim Butterbrod for the wonderful cooperation. Our joint input proved invaluable in the creation of a proper questionnaire. Special thanks go out to Marit for her assistance with putting together the final version of the questionnaire and Tim for his additions to the coding scheme. Lastly, thanks go out to my family and friends for their feedback and motivational talks that supported me throughout the process of writing this paper.
3
Abstract We examined the relationship between having autistic traits as a neurotypical adult and the effects these traits have on the use of social acting strategies. Autistic traits were measured using the Autism spectrum quotient by Baron-Cohen (2001), and social acting was measured by counting politeness utterances used in responses to scenarios containing facethreatening acts. Participants were divided over two groups, one face-to-face and one computer mediated communication group. We expected that high AQ scores would predict less use of politeness in the face-to-face group, but not in the computer mediated communication group. We did not find a significant difference between the groups nor a correlation between AQ and use of politeness strategies
Introduction Communication and sociability play vital roles in our everyday life. Since the beginning of time man has depended upon each other for their survival and still social connections are of the utmost importance. In fact so much that relationships with other people are a fundamental need (Baumeister et al., 1995). Aspects like sociability, extraversion, participation in social activities, number of peer relations and the ability to forge the latter have been found to correlate positively with subjective well-being and happiness (Argyle & Lu, 1990, Philips, 1967, Bechetti et al, 2008, Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Pishva et al., 2011). Additionally, social inclusion and appraisal of one’s own social life are negatively correlated with loneliness, which in turn is assumed to lead to diminished self-esteem, anxiety and depression (Saklofske et al., 1986; Peplau et al, 1982; Leary, 1990; Haines et al, 1993; Nangle et al. 2003). Not being able to express oneself in a satisfying way and not having the kind of social
4
relationships one would like can be serious issue and the topic of what makes some people better at acting sociably than others is an intriguing one. Recent developments in research on autism and autism-spectrum disorder (ASD), which is a disorder that is consistently linked with difficulties in communication and social behavior, could provide insight into the underlying character traits that determine how well one is able to act sociably. We touch the subject of ASD briefly then continue with an overview of theories which suggest that traits associated with the disorder are present even in normally functioning adults. Hereafter we will examine how these traits could affect social behavior. ASD is a neural development disorder characterized by impairments in language acquisition, communicative skill and social interaction. Other characteristic traits of ASD are repetitive, ritualistic or stereotyped behavior and restricted or obsessive interests and focus – but it’s the deficits in social behavior that distinguish ASD from other developmental disorders like down-syndrome for example (Rapin & Tuchman, 2008). Accounts in autism research show that people with ASD suffer from an inability to forge and maintain social connections, experience more loneliness and report lower satisfaction with their social life (Bauminger & Kaseri, 2000; Orsmond et al., 2004; Locke et al., 2010; bauminger et al. 2008; Kunz, 2009; Whitehouse et al., 2009).
Continuum of autism Although autism might conjure images of rainman-esque mentally challenged individuals, definitions of autism are not that clear cut. There have been recurring difficulties in setting boundaries for the diagnosis of ASD due to the wide array of personality traits pertaining to the disorder (Wing et al., 2011). Not every individual who holds one of these traits necessarily possesses all of them. For example some individuals with ASD do not show delays or impairments in language acquisition but do experience social difficulties. This
5
assumption has led to the belief that ASD should not be thought of as a disorder with fixed symptoms, but instead as a continuum of disabilities stretching from mental retardation to normality (Wing, 1988; Bishop, 1989). It is mentioned that a triad of social impairments lie at the core of ASD, each able to fluctuate in severity; and that only these social impairments are determinants if a child falls under the autistic continuum, regardless of the presence of other traits associated with ASD (Rutter, 1978; Wing & Gould, 1979; Wing, 1988). One theory that is in line with the autistic continuum view and is able to close the gap between ASD and normality is the extreme male brain theory of autism. This theory accounts for the phenomenon that individuals diagnosed with ASD are predominantly men; especially in cases of high function autism spectrum disorder (HFASD) men greatly outnumber women (Baron-Cohen, 1997). This suggests that there are certain gender-dependent personality traits that determine how people score on the autistic continuum. On average, woman posses more empathizing traits (e.g. sharing and turn-taking in conversation, sensitivity to facial expressions and value in relationships) and men have more systemizing traits (e.g. attention to detail, map reading, math, construction and engineering). Typical configurations show that either systemizing or empathizing is mildly dominant over the other, but individuals with ASD show extreme systemizing and greatly diminished empathizing (Baron-Cohen, 2002). Being autistic and having autistic traits is not necessarily the same thing but they both lie on the same scale. Every individual has less or more aspects of both systemizing and empathizing, and the unique combination of these traits constructs one’s personality. Furthermore, autistic traits could be present in people who are perfectly normal functioning members of society who do not experience grave impairments in social adaption or ever receive clinical diagnosis (Austin, 2005; Dawson et al., 2002).
Social acting
6
The assumptions made in the autistic continuum theory and the extreme male brain theory imply that there are traits present in the general population which are usually ascribed to autism. As diagnosed autistic individuals experience difficulties in communicating and socializing, the question arises if and how having more or less of these traits affects social behavior. One can grasp intuitively that social behavior is a very broad term, encompassing a multitude of different factors, and as such we cannot account for all of them in this paper. Instead we focus on one aspect of social communication, described in the social acting hypotheses by Baillargeon et al. (2013). Behaving sociably and managing interpersonal relationships is a complex process of adhering to social norms and conversational etiquette whilst catering to other people’s feelings, wants and needs. They mention that in social contexts it is not always possible to react honestly and say what is on one’s mind. In conversation people use certain strategies to smoothen the interaction and not antagonize the other party. Examples of these strategies are telling a white lie, feigning interest, hiding disappointment, or tactfully omitting certain pieces of information which could be interpreted as inconsiderate or hurtful. In social acting these strategies are collected under the umbrella term “politeness”.
Computer-mediated communication In our research we examine the relationship between having autistic traits and using politeness in social interactions. In our current day and age, engaging in social practice is not only reserved for actual get-togethers. Since the rise of the internet our communicative patterns have changed drastically. E-mail, instant messaging and online social networks provide us with a richer array of modes of communication than ever before, and being in the physical vicinity of someone is no longer necessary to be able to interact with others. Our initial interest in computer mediated communication (CMC) stems from reports by people
7
with HFASD in which it is noted that the internet offers them a place to engage in social interaction more easily (Davidson, 2008; Benford, 2008). The nature of these ‘new media’ helps these people avoid some of the areas in which they face difficulties. Aspects of CMC like visual anonymity, asynchronicity, flexible timing and a textual focus are beneficial to people with HFASD as they don’t have to worry about eye contact, facial expressions, and giving immediate and appropriate responses (Benford et al., 2009; Burke et al., 2010). Though online communication might provide people with HFASD (and in a similar vein: neurotypicals with a lot of autistic traits) a way to form fulfilling social connections, there are no clear records of actual improvements of social skill in autistic individuals in online communication. It is possible that CMC might not be a good communicative platform for people with ASD because they are better communicators online, but because CMC allows for less strict observance of social rules and boundaries than face-to-face communication (F2F). In this case, engaging in an online social world gives people with ASD a level playing field where their particular style of communication is more accepted or just not as noticeable in comparison to other neurotypical people’s communicative styles. The aim of the present study is to examine the extent to which normally developing adults (thus with average to high intelligence) show personality traits that indicate autistic features and how having these traits affects people’s use of politeness strategies. We will observe if this relationship exists in a F2F and in a CMC group.
Literature review Autistic traits Since Kanner (1943) published his article on autism, in which he noted that people with autism show less interest in social interaction, but are able to be triggered by mundane items or events, several strands of research in neuroscience and cognition have attempted to
8
explain the deficits in sociability in people with ASD (for an overview of different cognitive approaches, see: Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007). One early cognitive approach claims children with autism have consistently showed deficits in Theory of Mind (ToM) related areas, including failure in elicited response false belief tasks (Baron-cohen et al., 1985, Senju et al., 2009; 2010; Wimmer and Perner, 1983). In a standard false belief task an agent puts an object in spot A then leaves the scene. When the agent returns, the ball has been relocated (by the experiment leader or by another agent) to spot B. The agent does not know the object has been moved. Subsequently, the subject of the test is asked where the agent will look for the object. Inferring the agent’s mental state and accounting for the counterfactual representation of reality the agent has, the correct answer is spot A. The other possibility (the agent looking for the object in spot B) is masked by the assumption that the agent does not possess this knowledge. Additional support for the lack of ToM can be found in autistic individuals’ difficulties to understand and participate in pretend play, which requires the ability to infer counterfactual beliefs (e.g. Rutter, 1978; Wulff, 1985; Baron-Cohen, 1987). Yet in the development of other cognitive theories, studies have shown that children and adults with HFASD are able to pass certain false belief tests, but when asked to explain how they solved the test they did not always mention mental state reading as a strategy (Bowler, 1992). Furthermore some findings suggest that even though deficits in understanding mental states and attributing them to others is deemed detrimental to sociability, some people with HFASD do engage in social practice (Solomon, 2004), understand social rule violations (Zalla et al., 2009) and show signs of politeness and empathy (Sirota, 2004). Due to the heterogenic nature of autism and the varying test results of people on ‘the spectrum’, often depending upon other variables as IQ and verbal ability, universally valid predictions concerning behavior are hardpressed to make. Much of the research on this subject has involved children, and focused on discrepancies in mental development between neurotypical subjects and subjects with autism
9
(Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007). The foundations of this of research lie on the assumption that ASD is a developmental disorder which can be spotted children, as the diagnosis of severe ASD can often be done by symptoms occuring before the age of three (Landa, 2008). But, as proven by examination of individuals with HFASD, early learning impediments are not necessarily a common aspect of all people on the spectrum. With the continuum of autism view adding that autistic traits are present even in neurotypical subjects, the target group of people who might be subjugated to impairments associated with ASD is widened even further. Second, comparing subjects with clinical diagnosis of ASD and neurotypical subject has been beneficial in finding and describing the specific traits of autism, it does not explain how these traits relate to the varying degrees in severity of ASD. Currently, the amount of extensive research into behavioral aspects of having some autistic traits in adulthood is very limited and in this research we aim to expand on this particular body of knowledge.
Autism-spectrum quotient In response to the continuum view, a test has been developed for people without formal diagnosis to find out if they have autistic-like character traits, called the autismspectrum quotient (AQ). This test is a self-administered screening tool to asses if, and to what extent normal functioning individuals possess traits associated with ASD (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). The AQ is a 50 item questionnaire that measures personality traits in 5 areas: Social skill, attention switching, attention to detail, communication and imagination. An abnormal or autistic-like profile consists of low scores in social skill, communication, imagination and attention switching (the latter indicating a high level of focus of attention), but high scores in attention to detail. The construction of the item set was based on the triad of autistic deficits (Wing, 1988) and distinctively autistic cognitive abnormalities, commonly found in research. It is explicitly mentioned that the AQ is not a diagnostic tool for autism. Instead it builds upon
10
the assumption that autism is a continuum of cognitive attributes and social disabilities and its main function is to provide a quick indication of where a person is located on this spectrum. (Baron-Cohen et al al, 2001; Bishop et al, 2004).
Social acting The social acting hypotheses states that in daily interactions, people use certain strategies that help them to maintain positive relationships with their conversational partners. As the AQ enables us to determine the amount of autistic traits neurotypical adults have, we can test the relationship between these traits and the number of social acting strategies people use in conversations. As we’ve discussed social acting is a very broad term, present in a multitude of different aspects of our daily communication, in this study we narrow it down to politeness utterances. First we will look at the relevant underlying mechanisms of social acting, and after we will explain how these relate to politeness. At the core of the social acting hypotheses lies the assumption that when navigating the social world people use two reasoning systems: the psychological and the socio-moral reasoning systems (Baillargeon, 2013). The psychological reasoning system estimates other people’s thoughts and intentions and the socio-moral reasoning system interprets the interaction between people within a group. In social acting, politeness comes forth from the synergy between these two systems. The psychological reasoning system can be divided in two segments: false belief understanding and decoupling mechanisms. The first segment is very similar to the ToM approach, in which false belief tests are used to measure one’s ability to infer aspects of another person’s mental state. Decoupling mechanisms extend this by allowing for two distinct notions to be held simultaneously: one pertaining to reality and the other pertaining to an alternative version of reality, in which one can entertain non-factual beliefs (e.g. Leslie, 1987; 1994). These mechanisms deal with the attribution of counterfactual
11
mental states to others. This is vital in, for example, telling jokes or participating in pretend play. In understanding pretense one has to be able to ‘mindread’ other people and grasp that the other can intentionally hold a belief that is not congruent with reality. In other words, the ability to read the mental state of other people allows one to infer the representation of reality the other has in mind. This representation can be (intentionally) counterfactual (in the case of pretense, for example). Leslie (1987) described this process as making a representation of another person’s representation, and called it ‘metarepresentation’. Struggling with false beliefs and the correct attribution of mental states has been a hallmark in the research of autistic’s social deficits. Metarepresentations surpass false-belief in needed mindreading capabilities in that it does not only require one to be able to notice beliefs and if they are right or wrong, but also what another person might want, feel and intend. These tasks are substantially harder than false-belief tasks and we expect that having more autistic traits decreases one’s ability to understand metarepresentations. Combined with aspects of the socio-moral reasoning system we can investigate the connection between decreased mindreading and the effect it has on actual behavior. A key principle of the socio-moral reasoning system is in-group support. From early childhood people show a preference towards members of their own group. People are more willing to provide a helping hand, give more positive evaluations and allocate more resources to in-group members (Brewer, 1999; Pilavian et al., 1981). Also, negative behavior against ingroup members is viewed as strange or unexpected, and is often frowned down upon where negative behavior against out-group members is greeted with more indifference (He & Baillargeon, 2011). People seek to establish and maintain positive in-group relationships and use a variety of tactics to warrant smooth social interaction with members of the same group (De Paulo & Bell, 1996). To maintain any level of positivity it is necessary to be able to understand others’ wants. One chooses what to disclose by first thinking about the possible
12
outcomes of the utterance and making sure it will not hurt or anger the other. This is where ingroup positivity and metarepresentations come together. In summary, the psychological reasoning system enables one to make predictions about a person’s actions and motivations according to the representation that person entertains about the state of reality. When joined by the socio-moral reasoning system the ability arises to distinguish between what one might feel and think and what one chooses to disclose with others. What one communicates is determined by what one deems appropriate in the given interaction.
Politeness We have discussed how metarepresentations and in-group positivity fit in the social acting hypotheses and how the first is needed to maintain the latter. One cannot simply speak his mind at every turn. Some situations call for a more indirect approach, hiding or bending negative thoughts to avoid confrontation and account for the feelings of others by not hurting or embarrassing them. There are numerous strategies that aid in redressing negative value judgments which, when deployed, could be considered as acting polite. In autism research politeness has been ascribed to the domain of pragmatics, which deals with the functionality of different aspects of language use. In pragmatics it is stated that in social and communicative contexts people have strong tendencies to adhere to norms of appropriateness. Being appropriate in social contexts involves being sensitive to speaker’s and listener’s mental representations. Autistic individual’s deficits in mindreading are found to be detrimental in adhering to appropriateness norms (Baltaxe, 1977; Baron-Cohen, 1988; Surian, 1996). How this deficit relates to politeness exactly could be explained by examining the concept of ‘face’. This concept is the base for politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987). Its first mention in scientific literature was by Goffman (1955). He defined face as the
13
positive social value and approved social attributes individuals claim for themselves and which they wish others to acknowledge. Another definition speaks of perceived respectability or deference individuals want, based on the position they take in their social network and degree to which they functioned adequately in this role (Ho, 1975). Brown and Levinson specify two types of face: positive and negative. Positive face encompasses the want to be found desirable, or having one’s wants and opinions be found desirable by others. Negative face pertains to the desire to enjoy freedom of action and not be hindered or imposed upon by others. Both types of face can be damaged by others in what is called face-threatening acts (FTA). When engaging in a FTA, the speaker does not acknowledge the addressee’s wants and desires or does not avoid obstruction of the addressee’s freedom of action. To mitigate face damage when an FTA is imminent, people use politeness strategies. Positive politeness strategies are used to raise the other’s self esteem by making him feel good about himself, his interests or his possessions. One example of politeness could be not telling your friend that you think his or her new car looks ugly, but instead saying that you are amazed by its on road performance (omitting the negative value judgment) or using a white lie and saying that that you do like the way it looks. In both, an inference of the friend’s mental state is made (that he/she likes the car and has spent a lot of money buying it) and the response is adapted to that assumption. Since taste could be considered trivial, the benefits of speaking the truth don’t outweigh the possible bad blood it could set with the friend. Negative politeness strategies are used when the speaker feels like he is imposing on the other. (Brown & Levinson, 1987) When making a request for example, a negative politeness strategy provides the other with the possibility to say no, without losing face or damaging the other’s face. Preserving face is a basic want in social interaction, and in daily conversations participants have to cooperate in catering to each other’s face. It is not a big leap to imagine that in this cooperative effort of preserving face, a good grasp of mindreading is an important
14
factor. Recognizing face requires that one is able to identify other’s mental representations of their wants, feelings and desires.
Off- and Online communication We examine the relationship between the amount of personality traits associated with ASD one possesses and how one goes about using politeness strategies. To test this relation in more depth we chose to divide participants in two groups: a face-to-face group and a computer mediated communication group. The choice for CMC is based on the characteristics of interpersonal communication through an electronic medium. CMC offers social freedom, as one does not have to worry about immediate repercussive action of the people one interacts with. On the other hand, the lack of proximity and social judgment could compel people to act socially irresponsible. Suler (2004) postulates six factors of - online -communication that alleviate the social stress of face-to-face communication. Anonymity and invisibility effects pertain to not having to be seen or known, allowing for a less careful selection in what one chooses to disclose. The lack of immediate non-verbal feedback (i.e. a frown, shaking heads, piercing eye contact) can reduce inhibition of self-expression. Asynchronicity disrupts the continuous flow of ongoing self-disclosure and moment-by-moment interaction, due the lack of necessity for an immediate response to utterances and social cues. Solipsic introjections and dissociative imagination deal with the how one views the self and others in CMC. The context-poor nature of CMC allows for the creation of a character of one’s own design, which might not be a true representation of one’s character in relation to others in a context-rich environment. Also, status and authority are hard to recognize, as they are carried foremost in posture, use of voice and other non-verbal cues. Even when official roles or positions are stated, there is a reduced reverence for people with high status in CMC (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Tan et al., 1998). Our expectations are that due to these aspects of CMC, people using
15
an online medium are less pressed to use politeness strategies as face value is harder to observe and less restrictions in self-disclosure might lead to more honest (and perhaps harsh) self-expression.
Measuring the relation between having autistic traits and politeness use The way in which we measure politeness is by asking participants to respond to a set of politeness eliciting scenarios. The scenarios are designed to contain possible FTAs, which the participant can choose to avoid or not. We will compare the use of politeness strategies (indicating understanding of social acting) to the height of the AQ scores (and corresponding level of possessing autistic traits). We examine the scores of research participants in two groups. In one group politeness in a face-to-face (F2F) setting is measured, and in the other group politeness in a computer mediated communication (CMC) setting is measured. Our expectations are that there is a discrepancy in the use of politeness between participants with high AQ scores and low AQ score, but that this discrepancy is nullified or reduced in the CMC setting. We base this claim on the expectation that due to disinhibition effects, all participants in the CMC group will produce less politeness utterances. This would point in the direction of reduced mindreading ability in individuals who score high on the AQ, as they are less pressed in either setting to produce decoupled politeness utterances, where people with low AQ scores do use significantly more politeness in the face-to-face setting. Method Participants We collected a sample of 70 participants, 36 females and 35 males, with a mean age of 25.173 (SD= 11.935). Participants received an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire which randomly assigned them into either the F2F (N=45) or the CMC (N=26) group. A small
16
introductory paragraph informed the respondents that their responses would be processed anonymously and that they had right to not finish the questionnaire or leave any questions blank with which they did not feel comfortable answering. Scenarios The questionnaire was divided into two sections; the first section consisted of 15 scenarios (These are included in the appendix), each describing a fictional social interaction between the participant and an agent. The interactions involved asking a favor of the agent, responding to a request or giving an opinion about attributes pertaining to the agent. The participant is asked to respond to the given situation in a way that would come natural to him/her if the described or a similar situation would occur. The scenarios were designed to elicit politeness utterances in the responses. The social situations described in the scenarios all required the participants to make a potentially face-threatening remark or request. To provide an example, in one scenario the participants received a gift from a close friend, who subsequently asks if the participant likes it. It is stated that the gift is not in the participants’ taste. To elicit a natural response from a first person perspective, the scenarios are concluded with the phrase: “You say” or “you respond with”, which in this example refers to giving an answer to the friend’s inquiry about the gift he gave. How one goes about telling the friend that one does not like the gift was up to the participant. The scenarios in the F2F and CMC version were identical except for the choice of communicative channel the participant had to convey his message through. In the F2F group the scenarios invited participants to envision themselves in the vicinity of the agent. In the CMC group participants had to envision themselves talking to the agent trough a medium. In the earlier example this difference is translated to “your friend asks you what you think of the gift” in the F2F setting and “your friend sends you a message, asking what you think of the gift” in the CMC setting.
17
Scoring scenarios for politeness To measure the total politeness scores we counted all the politeness utterances per participant deployed in the scenarios (alpha = .656). In determining what utterance qualified as polite, a coding scheme was created. The full coding scheme can be found in the appendix. For the scheme we chose 16 politeness strategies that we deemed relevant to the responses we gathered. The chosen strategies originate from research on politeness conventions by Brown (1987), Brown and Levinson (1978). The coding scheme includes 14 strategies that represent politeness and mitigate face-threat. An example of a strategy that is used to save positive face is avoiding disagreement. The speaker doesn’t want to offend to other by saying something hurtful, and avoids a confrontation by omitting a negative value judgment about the other. The use of a white lie (saying you do like the gift from the friend mentioned above) is considered avoiding disagreement. An example of a negative face adhering strategy is being conventionally indirect. This strategy is applicable to a request. The speaker asks for something but shows concern for the other’s want to be free and unhindered in his action, by using a standardized question form (Could I borrow your notes from yesterday’s class). This way the speaker emphasizes that the other is not forced to grant the speaker’s request. In addition to the 14 face-threat mitigating strategies, two strategies were added to account for inappropriate responses that do not mitigate face-threat or possibly enlarge the face-threat. We applied the same ‘weight’ to each of the politeness strategies. For using a politeness strategy in its proper context participants were awarded with one point. This excluded responses which did contain a politeness strategy but could hardly be seen as polite in the given circumstances (could I exchange the gift for something else?). Also, in each scenario participants could only receive one point per used strategy. If the strategy occurred more often in the same scenario, they were still only rewarded one point for it. For instance: Saying sorry was awarded with one point but using more apologies in the same scenario did not yield any extra points. For the
18
use of inappropriate responses one point or half a point was subtracted from the score. For each scenario the sum of politeness strategies was taken. The total politeness score was established by calculating the mean of politeness utterances used in the scenario. Autistic traits In the second part of the questionnaire participants were asked to fill out the Autismspectrum quotient (alpha = .817). In the original AQ 50 items are divided in 5 areas, each area containing 10 questions in a 4 scale Likert format. In our research we used a shorter adaption of the AQ by Hoekstra et al. (2011). This abridged version holds 28 items, leaving out or combining pairs of questions with similar content or phrasing. The items are divided over five areas, similar to those of the original. The purpose of this short AQ is to provide an adequate alternative tool for assessing autistic traits when a 50 item survey is too demanding. We opted for the short AQ to decrease the length of our questionnaire in an attempt to raise response rates. The items in the AQ are short statements, formulated in first person (e.g. I enjoy social events). The statements describe a tendencies or a personality trait in one of five different areas: social skills, preference for routine, attention switching, imagination and number/patterns. Participants indicated in what way the statement is applicable to them trough a Likert scale with the following options: ‘I fully agree’, ‘I slightly agree’, ‘I slightly disagree’ and ‘I fully disagree’. For each item participants could score a maximum of 4 points, where fully agreeing yielded 1 point and fully disagreeing yielded the maximum score of 4. Not all items pointed in the same direction, depending on the question asked, fully agreeing could mean that the person possessed an autistic trait (e.g. New situations make me anxious). A total of 13 items (2, 4, 5, 7 , 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23 ,25, 26) had to be recoded to have fully agreeing yield 4 points. The mean of all scores on the items determined the total AQ score. A high score indicated that the participant had relatively much autistic traits and a low score
19
means that the participant possessed few autistic traits. For a review of all the items, the shortAQ can be found in the appendix. Results In visualizations of our dataset we discovered one outlier with an extremely high AQ score and a very low politeness score. Because of the extreme nature of the score and it being the only participant who deviated that much from the rest, we omitted this participant from our research. To test the relationship between AQ scores and politeness, we examined if the independent variables autistic traits (AQ) and Version (CMC or F2F) could predict the number of politeness utterances respondents used throughout the scenarios. Both the entries for the AQ questionnaire (KS D = .06 p = .20) and the scenarios (KS D = . 10 p = .08) were normally distributed. AQ, version and the interaction effect did not explain a significant portion of variance in politeness scores R2 = .06, F(3, 66) = 1.41, p = .25. Neither Version nor AQ scores significantly predicted use of politeness utterances, b = .74, t(66) = .71, p = .48 for version and b = -.09, t(66 )= -1.66, p = .10 for AQ. Lastly, the interaction effect, accounting for the combination of AQ and Version, also did not significantly predict politeness use b = .13, t(66)= .11, p = .25. Figure 1 illustrates the findings from the model. We expected there to be a discrepancy in height and angle for the lines pertaining respectively to Version and AQ. Both lines indicate that there is a decrease in politeness as AQ increases but the slope is very gentle, meaning that there is no significant difference in politeness use between low AQ scores and for high AQ scores. The lines being close together , thus similar in height suggests that there is no significant differentiation between the CMC and F2F group. All in all, our model does not account for the variance in politeness and should be discarded.
20
Figure 1: mean politeness scores against mean AQ scores, sorted by version. Conclusion and discussion In this paper we investigated what impact the number of autistic traits of an individual with a normal IQ and no signs of severe learning impairments has on the individual’s ability to engage in social acting practices. To assess social acting we measured the extent to which one utilizes politeness strategies in social interactions. Participants were divided in two groups, a F2F group and a CMC group. We expected that the CMC group would show lower politeness scores across the board, regardless of the number of autistic traits, and the F2F group to show a distinct negative correlation between autistic traits and politeness. We were unable to find any significant differences between the two groups, and within groups there were no significant correlations between autistic traits and politeness. These findings would suggest
21
that having autistic traits as a normally developing adult does not affect the ability to engage in social acting. Looking at research on the AQ and the continuum of autistic traits, significantly adequate to strong predictions have been found that link the AQ to ASD, which were not been found for other cognitive disorders (Hoekstra et al., 2008; Woodbury et al, 2005). With ASD invariably leading to diminished sociability, one would expect higher AQ scores to be closely correlated with deficits in social behavior. By adding the participant with the abnormally high AQ score to the research group, we found a correlation between AQ and politeness use. The interaction effect remained insignificant in either case. This result could point in the direction of there being a connection between autistic traits and social acting. Nevertheless, to make any definitive claims on the subject further research is required, exploring different aspect of social acting and/or testing it under different circumstances. In a subsequent study, a laboratory experiment could be done in which participants are asked to interact with the experiment leader, an actor or with each other. This way one could elicit spontaneous face-to-face interaction in a controlled setting, measuring the amount of politeness used in a F2F conversation and compare it to data similar to the data from our study. This could reduce interference from aspects of an online questionnaire. Participants have time to think about their answers and might not produce spontaneous responses all the way. Second, the scenarios we used were all based on informal interactions. The agents were specified as people relatively close to the participant (Friend, mother, classmate), and the low social distance could alter the amount and nature of politeness that is being used. It would be interesting to investigate how autistic traits and politeness relate in more formal social situations where hierarchy and social distance play a role in how people go about interacting with their peers. Concluding this research, we were unable to find a significant relationship between having autistic traits and using politeness strategies. For now this means that even though the AQ is a strong tool in assessing, there is no proof that a high score on this scale
22
necessarily leads to diminished social behavior. Autistic traits are widespread and present in the majority of people, and even individual with high AQ scores are able to manage themselves in the social world. For now the threshold for social dysfunction seems out of reach for neurotypical adults. References: Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and individual differences, 11(10), 1011-1017. Austin, E. J. (2005). Personality correlates of the broader autism phenotype as assessed by the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 451460. Baillargeon, R., He, Z., Setoh, P., & Scott, R. M. (2013). False-Belief Understanding and Why it Matters. Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us, 88. Baltaxe, C. A. (1977). Pragmatic deficits in the language of autistic adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2(4), 176-180. Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(6), 248-254. Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Theory of mind and autism: A review. International review of research in mental retardation, 23, 169-184. Baron-Cohen, S. (1988). Social and pragmatic deficits in autism: Cognitive or affective?. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 18(3), 379-402.
23
Baron-Cohen, S., & Hammer, J. (1997). Is autism an extreme form of the" male brain"?. Advances in Infancy Research, 11, 193-218. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?. Cognition, 21(1), 37-46. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autismspectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 31(1), 5-17. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497. Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000). Loneliness and Friendship in High‐Functioning Children with Autism. Child development, 71(2), 447-456. Bauminger, N., Solomon, M., Aviezer, A., Heung, K., Gazit, L., Brown, J., & Rogers, S. J. (2008). Children with autism and their friends: A multidimensional study of friendship in high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(2), 135-150. Becchetti, L., Pelloni, A., & Rossetti, F. (2008). Relational goods, sociability, and happiness. Kyklos, 61(3), 343-363. Benford, P. (2008). The use of internet-based communication by people with autism (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham). Benford, P., & Standen, P. (2009). The internet: a comfortable communication medium for people with Asperger syndrome (AS) and high functioning autism (HFA)?. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 3(2), 44-53.
24
Bishop, D. V. (1989). Autism, Asperger's syndrome and semantic-pragmatic disorder: where are the boundaries?. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 24(2), 107-121. Bishop, D. V., Maybery, M., Maley, A., Wong, D., Hill, W., & Hallmayer, J. (2004). Using self‐report to identify the broad phenotype in parents of children with autistic spectrum disorders: a study using the Autism‐Spectrum Quotient.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 45(8), 1431-1436. Bowler, D. M. (1992). “Theory of Mind” in Asperger's Syndrome Dermot M. Bowler. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(5), 877-893. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?. Journal of social issues, 55(3), 429-444. Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politness phenomena. Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Williams, D. (2010, February). Social use of computer-mediated communication by adults on the autism spectrum. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 425-434). Christopherson, K. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions:“On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 3038-3056.
25
Davidson, J. (2008). Autistic culture online: virtual communication and cultural expression on the spectrum. Social & cultural geography, 9(7), 791-806. Dawson, G., Webb, S., Schellenberg, G. D., Dager, S., Friedman, S., Aylward, E., & Richards, T. (2002). Defining the broader phenotype of autism: Genetic, brain, and behavioral perspectives. Development and psychopathology, 14(3), 581-611. DePaulo, B. M., & Bell, K. L. (1996). Truth and investment: lies are told to those who care. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(4), 703. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes. Haines, D. A., Scalise, J. J., & Ginter, E. J. (1993). Relationship of loneliness and its affective elements to self-esteem. Psychological reports, 73(2), 479-482. He, Z., Bolz, M., & Baillargeon, R. (2011). False‐belief understanding in 2.5‐year‐olds: evidence from violation‐of‐expectation change‐of‐location and unexpected‐contents tasks. Developmental science, 14(2), 292-305. Hoekstra, R. A., Bartels, M., Cath, D. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (2008). Factor structure, reliability and criterion validity of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): A study in Dutch population and patient groups. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 38(8), 1555-1566. Hoekstra, R. A., Vinkhuyzen, A. A., Wheelwright, S., Bartels, M., Boomsma, D. I., BaronCohen, S., ... & van der Sluis, S. (2011). The construction and validation of an abridged version of the autism-spectrum quotient (AQ-Short).Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 41(5), 589-596.
26
Kunz, Patricia Anne, "Social Experiences of Adolescents with High Functioning Autism (HFA) and/or Asperger Syndrome (AS) - Their Perceptions and Their Views of Their Caregivers: An Exploratory Study" (2009). Dissertations. Paper 237. Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eyecontact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior,28(2), 434-443. Landa, R. J. (2008). Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders in the first 3 years of life. Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, 4(3), 138-147. Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of" theory of mind.". Psychological review, 94(4), 412. Leslie, A. M. (1994). Pretending and believing: Issues in the theory of ToM .Cognition, 50(1), 211-238. Locke, J., Ishijima, E. H., Kasari, C., & London, N. (2010). Loneliness, friendship quality and the social networks of adolescents with high‐functioning autism in an inclusive school setting. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(2), 74-81. Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Newman, J. E., Mason, C. A., & Carpenter, E. M. (2003). Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children's loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(4), 546-555. Ochs, E., & Solomon, O. (2004). Introduction: Discourse and autism.Discourse Studies, 6(2), 139-146.
27
Orsmond, G. I., Krauss, M. W., & Seltzer, M. M. (2004). Peer relationships and social and recreational activities among adolescents and adults with autism.Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 34(3), 245-256. Peplau, L. A., Miceli, M., & Morasch, B. (1982). Loneliness and self-evaluation.Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy, 135-151. Phillips, D. L. (1967). Social participation and happiness. American Journal of Sociology, 479-488. Pishva, N., Ghalehban, M., Moradi, A., & Hoseini, L. (2011). Personality and happiness. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 429-432. Rapin, I., & Tuchman, R. F. (2008). Autism: definition, neurobiology, screening, diagnosis. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 55(5), 1129-1146. Rajendran, G., & Mitchell, P. (2007). Cognitive theories of autism.Developmental Review, 27(2), 224-260. Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition of childhood autism. Journal of autism and childhood schizophrenia, 8(2), 139-161. Saklofske, D. H., Yackulic, R. A., & Kelly, I. W. (1986). Personality and loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(6), 899-901. Senju, A., Southgate, V., White, S., & Frith, U. (2009). Mindblind eyes: an absence of spontaneous theory of mind in Asperger syndrome. Science,325(5942), 883-885. Sirota, K. G. (2004). Positive politeness as discourse process: politeness practices of highfunctioning children with autism and Asperger Syndrome.Discourse Studies, 6(2), 229-251.
28
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management science, 32(11), 1492-1512 Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 2(2), 184-188. Surian, L. (1996). Are children with autism deaf to gricean maxims?. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 1(1), 55-72. Tan, B. C., Wei, K. K., Watson, R. T., & Walczuch, R. M. (1998). Reducing status effects with computer-mediated communication: Evidence from two distinct national cultures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 119-142. Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53(4), 676-693. Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103-128. Wing, L., Gould, J., & Gillberg, C. (2011). Autism spectrum disorders in the DSM-V: better or worse than the DSM-IV?. Research in developmental disabilities, 32(2), 768-773. Wing, L. (1988). The continuum of autistic characteristics. Diagnosis and assessment in autism. Current issues in autism., 91-110 Whitehouse, A. J., Durkin, K., Jaquet, E., & Ziatas, K. (2009). Friendship, loneliness and depression in adolescents with Asperger's Syndrome. Journal of adolescence, 32(2), 309-322.
29
Yang, D. Y. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2013). Brief Report: Difficulty in Understanding Social Acting (But Not False Beliefs) Mediates the Link Between Autistic Traits and Ingroup Relationships. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1-8. Zalla, T., Sav, A. M., Stopin, A., Ahade, S., & Leboyer, M. (2009). Faux pas detection and intentional action in Asperger Syndrome. A replication on a French sample. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 39(2), 373-382.
30
Appendix 1. Coding scheme
Soort 1
1 Attend to hearer’s interests
2
2 Intensify interest to hearer
3
3 Use in group identity markers
omschrijving · De spreker laat blijken dat hij interesse toont in de ander door iets te zeggen over wat hem opvalt aan de ander. · De spreker merkt dat de ander iets heeft gedaan waar hij/zij zich voor zou kunnen schamen en maakt er een opmerking over om de ander zich op zijn gemak te laten voelen. De spreker betrekt de ander in een gesrek door middel van een verhaal of een vraag.
De spreker toont dat hij en de ander bij dezelfde groep horen door de ander aan te spreken met een informele vorm of koosnaam De spreker toont dat hij bij dezelfde groep hoort als de ander door het gebruik van informeel taalgebruik, zoals een lokaal dialect.
4
5
4 Be conventionally indirect
5 Avoid disagreement
De spreker maakt gebruik van een gestandaardiseerde vraagvorm, die over het algemeen wordt geassocieerd met een voorzichtig verzoek. De spreker benadrukt hiermee dat hij de ander niet wil dwingen om aan zijn verzoek te voldoen
6
6 Downtoners
De spreker verdraaid zijn uitspraak zo dat er niet uit blijkt dat hij eigenlijk een andere mening heeft, of geeft de ander gelijk maar voegt er een voorwaarde aan toe. De spreker gebruikt een wit leugentje
De spreker zet een optionele clausule in zijn zin om minder dwingend over te komen
Voorbeeld
score
Staat je heel leuk! Ik zou het zelf alleen nooit kopen denk ik.
0 of 1
Hey! Was gezellig gisteren he! Heb jij toevallig mijn schoenen nog?
0 of 1
Vriend, ik kan helaas niet komen, ik lig ziek op bed. Veel plezier vanavond!
0 of 1
Zou je nog even naar je stuk kunnen kijken? Er staan sommige stukjes in die niet echt in het geheel passen zoals ...
Dat ziet er apart uit! Ik zou het niet durven dragen hoor.
0 of 1
0 of 1
Ja hoor! Heb het nu alleen heel erg druk. Ik laat je wel weten als ik weer tijd heb.
Zou je misschien iets meer kunnen letten op het opruimen van je eigen zooi?
0 of 1
31
7
7 Pressupose speakers knowledge of hearers wants and concerns/imposition
In zijn uitspraak laat de spreker weten dat hij oog heeft voor de mogelijke kanttekeningen die de ander kan hebben.
Ik wilde even zeggen dat ik aanstaande zaterdag een feestje geef, dus ik hoop niet dat je al te veel last hebt van de herrie. Vind je het misschien leuk om ook even wat te komen drinken?
0 of 1
8
8 Offer/promise
De spreker biedt de ander een alternatieve mogelijkheid aan om te doen waar de ander om vraagt
Oma.. Kom anders lekker bij mij eten ik zal wat lekkers bestellen!
0 of 1
9
9 Include both the speaker and the hearer in the activity
De spreker zegt dat hij iets samen met de ander wil doen, wanneer hij bedoeld dat hij wil dat de ander dit doet.
Zullen we samen even deze rotzooi opruimen?
0 of 1
10
10 Give gifts to hearer
in ruil voor dat wat de spreker verzoekt geeft de spreker de ander iets waarvan hij denkt dat de ander dit wil hebben. Dit kunnen spullen zijn, maar dit kan ook symphathy, begrip.
Mag ik de aantekeningen van de eerste helft voor een blikje red bull?
0 of 1
11
11 Use of negation
De spreker zegt ipv ‘slecht’ ‘niet goed’.
Eigenlijk niet zo goed man.
0 of 1
12
12 Impersonalize
De spreker gebruikt een algemene vorm om aan te geven wat hij wil i.t.t de ander direct aan te spreken.
Er zou iets aan deze rotzooi gedaan moeten worden!
0 of -0,5
13
13 Formulaic Expressions
Formulaic expressions drukken begroetingen, vaarwel, bedankt en verontschuldigen.
Sorry, bedankt, Hoi, doei, etc.
0 of 1
14
14 Commitment
De spreker vraagt of de luisteraar zich wil toeleggen op het geven van de gevraagde informatie
Wil je misschien je spullen iets minder rond laten slingeren a.u.b.?
0 of 0,5
15
15 Obligation
De spreker verplicht de luisteraar zijn verzoek in te willigen.
Je moet me mee helpen!
0 of 1
16
16 Permission
De spreker vraagt om toestemming om iets te doen
Mag ik misschien jou aantekeningen overnemen van de eerste helft? Ik was helaas te laat.
0 of 1
2. Short-AQ Ik doe dingen liever met anderen dan alleen
32
Ik doe dingen het liefst steeds weer op dezelfde manier Als ik ergens aan denk, kan ik me makkelijk een beeld voor de geest halen Ik wordt vaak door één ding helemaal in beslag genomen Mijn aandacht wordt vaak getrokken door nummerplaten van auto's of soortgelijke getallenreeksen Als ik een verhaal lees kan ik me gemakkelijk voorstellen hoe de personages eruit zouden kunnen zien Jaartallen en data fascineren mij In een groep mensen kan ik gemakkelijk verschillende gesprekken tegelijk volgen Ik vind sociale situaties gemakkelijk Ik zou liever naar een bibliotheek gaan dan naar een feestje Ik vind het gemakkelijk om verhalen te verzinnen Ik voel me meer aangetrokken tot mensen dan tot dingen Getallen fascineren mij Als ik een verhaal lees, vind ik het moeilijk om achter de bedoelingen van de personages te komen Ik vind het moeilijk om nieuwe vrienden te maken Ik raak niet van streek als mijn dagelijkse routine wordt verstoord Ik vind het gemakkelijk om meer dan één ding tegelijk te doen Ik vind het leuk spontaan iets te ondernemen Ik vind het gemakkelijk om erachter te komen wat iemand denkt of voelt, alleen door naar zijn of haar gezicht te kijken Na een onderbreking kan ik me heel snel terugschakelen naar waar ik mee bezig was Ik vind het leuk om informatie te verzamelen over bepaalde categorieën van dingen (bijv. automerken, vogel-, trein-, plantensoorten, etc.) Ik vind het moeilijk om me voor te stellen hoe het zou zijn als ik iemand anders was Ik geniet van sociale gebeurtenissen Ik vind het moeilijk om achter de bedoelingen van anderen te komen
33
Nieuwe situaties maken me angstig Ik vind het leuk om nieuwe mensen te ontmoeten Ik vind het erg gemakkelijk om 'doen-alsof' spelletjes met kinderen te spelen
3. Scenarios
Op een avondje in de kroeg heb je een intiem moment met iemand uit je klas gedeeld. Deze persoon blijft bij je slapen en in de ochtend vertrekt zij voordat je het door hebt. Een dag later vraagt zij jou op Facebook of je nog een keer wilt afspreken. Dit zie je eigenlijk niet meer zo zitten nu je nuchter bent. Je stuurt haar een bericht terug. Je schrijft...
Na een goede avond stappen word je wakker en kom je tot de conclusie dat de schoenen die naast je bed staan, niet de jouwe zijn. Sterker nog, je kunt je schoenen nergens vinden! Ineens herinner je je dat je gisteravond in een dronken bui schoenen hebt gewisseld met een collega van werk. Gelukkig heb je het telefoonnummer nog van die persoon en besluit een sms te sturen. Je vraagt... Doordat je gisteren te laat naar bed ging, ben je te laat voor de eerste helft van het college. Je haast je om toch bij de tweede helft te zijn. Je hebt nu alleen geen aantekeningen van de eerste helft. Je besluit om een bericht via Facebook aan één van je klasgenoten te sturen om te vragen of je zijn aantekeningen mag overnemen. Je vraagt... Je huisgenoot maakt de laatste tijd veel rommel in de gezamenlijke ruimtes. Je ergert je eraan en besluit haar er op aan te spreken. Je stuurt haar een bericht op whatsapp. Je zegt... Morgen heb je een verjaardag van een vriend. Je hebt er eigenlijk helemaal geen zin in. Er komen best veel mensen die je niet kent en wilt liever thuis blijven en een filmpje kijken. Je besluit niet te gaan en af te zeggen. Je vriend zal echter heel erg teleurgesteld zijn als je afzegt om die reden. Je stuurt een sms naar je vriend om te laten weten dat je niet komt. Je zegt... Je hebt van je zus een leuk t-shirt stiekem uit haar kast gepakt en besluit het te lenen voor een dag. Echter, zij merkt dat het t-shirt weg is en sms't jou erover. Je weet dat je haar vandaag niet meer zult zien thuis en je weet dat als je zegt dat je het t-shirt hebt er een gigantische discussie gaat komen waar je absoluut geen zin in hebt. Zodra je thuis bent was je het t-shirt en legt het gauw terug. Je stuurt een smsje terug. Je zegt... Je vindt de nieuwe buurman die zojuist naast je is komen wonen echt een lekker ding. Je wilt hem beter leren kennen en besluit hem uit te nodigen voor je verjaardags feestje van komende zaterdag. Jullie zitten beide in de Facebook groep van jullie straat en besluit hem een berichtje op Facebook te sturen. Je vraagt... Je krijgt voor je verjaardag een cadeautje van een vriend thuisgestuurd met de post, maar
34
vind het eigenlijk helemaal niks. Jullie zijn altijd heel eerlijk tegen elkaar en kunnen elkaar alles vertellen. Je vriend vindt het cadeau zelf wel heel erg leuk en zal teleurgesteld zijn als je zegt dat je het niks vindt. Hij vraagt je op whatsapp wat je ervan vond. Je zegt... Je vriendin heeft een nieuw truitje gekocht wat jij spuuglelijk vindt. Zij is er overigens heel blij mee en het kostte ook 80 euro. Ze stuurt je een foto via de mail. Je reageert met.... Je moet samen met een klasgenoot een opdracht voor school maken. Hij heeft ontzettend zijn best gedaan en is erg trots op zijn deel. Jij vindt het echter waardeloos en wilt dat hij het aanpast. Tijdens een bespreking via chat laat je het hem weten. Je zegt... Je tante doet mee aan een hardloopwedstrijd. Ze heeft hard getraind en heeft er zin in. Ze rent de 10 km in langer dan een uur en jij vindt dat veel te langzaam. Een paar dagen sms't ze je met de vraag wat je ervan vond. Je stuurt een sms terug. Je zegt... Tijdens een verjaardag vraagt je oma of je bij haar komt eten. Je zegt dat je het haar komende week laat weten. Zij woont echter 1,5 uur reizen met de trein. Dit kost je een retourticket van 30 euro. Je hebt op dit moment weinig geld, maar je hebt je oma ook al lang niet gezien. Je schaamt je er voor, maar besluit toch niet te gaan vanwege het geld. Je sms't haar en zegt... Een vriend heeft vanochtend een presentatie gegeven die jouw inziens totaal in de soep liep. Je had na de presentatie geen tijd om met hem te praten, maar hij spreekt je later die dag aan op Facebook om te vragen wat jij ervan vond. Je zegt.. Je hebt gisteravond een date gehad met een collega. Hij heeft een 4 gangen diner voor je gekookt en deed ontzettend zijn best om indruk te maken op je. Je vond het heel gezellig, maar voelt je totaal niet aangetrokken tot hem. Een volgende date zie je niet zo zitten. De volgende dag stuurt hij je een whatsapp met de vraag of je nog een keer wilt afspreken. Je antwoordt... Je moeder zit er over na te denken om haar kapsel te veranderen. Op internet kun je een foto maken van jezelf en dan elk willekeurig kapsel proberen. Zo kun je van te voren al weten hoe het eindresultaat zal zijn. Ze heeft een kapsel op internet gemaakt en is er helemaal weg van. Ze stuurt je een foto via de whatsapp en vraagt om je mening. Jij vindt het echter niet zo mooi. Je stuurt haar een whatsapp terug. Je zegt...
