Understanding Neurodiverse Social Play Between Autistic and Non-Autistic Children

3.1.1 Social Play Technologies for Neurodiverse Groups.

Some social play technologies designed explicitly for neurodiverse groups have also been shown to improve social play outcomes [38, 54]. However, they often focus on structured or semi-structured play activities rather than unstructured play scenarios. One such example is Incloodle, a tablet application designed to support collaboration between neurodiverse pairs of both neurotypical and neurodivergent children through structured picture-taking prompts to explore facial expressions [54]. Sobel et al. have identified a gap in social play technologies that are unstructured and designed for autistic and non-autistic children together [53].

The work of Frauenberger et al. has strived to contribute to this need by employing participatory design (PD) to create unstructured social play technologies with and for neurodiverse groups [21]. Several design insights from their study can be applied to designing with and for neurodiverse groups of children, e.g., balancing openness and structure in PD sessions, providing space for solitary time to regulate emotionally, and ensuring the children’s control over and complexity of the technology is appropriate to prevent overwhelm. However, the groups in their study were primarily neurodivergent or composed of children attending special educational provisions due to differences in social and cognitive styles [21]. We wish to expand upon this research further and focus on neurodiverse groups of children, with an emphasis on both autistic and non-autistic children, in mainstream educational settings.

5.4.1 T1: Differences in Communication Styles.

Participants discussed the various methods through which autistic children convey their thoughts, noting that due to the diversity of these communication approaches, it can be challenging for autistic children to express their needs effectively. They observed that autistic children’s communication might manifest through behaviors, such as hitting or poking, and that this mode of expression is unique to each child. Participants suggested that these communication disparities could hinder autistic children’s efforts to initiate play.

To address these communication differences, some participants suggested finding a common ground for communication, often utilizing signs or visual aids. P6 noted that many children at their school demonstrated an understanding of these differences and were aware that some children might communicate differently. However, two participants expressed concerns that these communication differences could pose difficulties for autistic children when trying to initiate play. Participant P4, for instance, observed that one child’s behavior of prodding other children seemed to be a way of seeking attention and expressing a desire to play together, but this was not always comprehended by other children: "For some [autistic] children, it can be something like they hit but they don’t hit because they want to be violent, they’re hitting because that is their way of communicating." - P2.

5.4.2 DE1: Following Accustomed Methods of Communication.

Non-autistic children may anticipate that others will communicate in a specific manner or have pre-established notions about how a conversation should progress based on their past encounters. These past experiences may be rooted in interactions primarily with non-autistic individuals and may not encompass those who employ different methods or modes of communication. During interviews, participants also noted instances where they observed how non-autistic children might possess preconceived notions about the meanings of certain behaviors, such as viewing hitting as negative, consistent with their prior interactions with non-autistic individuals. This, in turn, can lead to misunderstandings when neurodiverse groups interact. Imposing these pre-established, normalized communication approaches onto interactions with autistic individuals could result in a mismatch in communication:"I think from a non-disabled child’s point of view, it can get quite frustrating when they’re speaking to nonverbal Jimmy and they don’t understand why Jimmy won’t speak back to them." - P2

5.4.3 T2: Strong Desire to Play on Own Terms.

Participants noted that they observed autistic children may have specific preferences for how they like to do things, which may differ from the preferences of others. This divergence in preferences sometimes led to challenges in neurodiverse social play: "[autistic children] don’t want to sit and wait their turn, they just wanna go off and do what they wanna do." - P3. P1 noted that in neurodiverse play, the choice of topic and setting was often influenced by the autistic child, as they believed "[autistic children] find it hard to understand what others may need from a situation". Participants mentioned that conflicts could arise when a situation didn’t align exactly with the autistic child’s preferences or if they felt their opinions were not being considered. According to P6, finding compromises in such situations can be particularly challenging. Furthermore, participants observed that some autistic children may be hesitant to play with their peers, with P2 describing instances where certain children become distressed when they are in close proximity to others. To encourage interaction, participants often act as role models by engaging in activities that the child enjoys, thus maintaining their interest, and gradually inviting other children into the play space. This approach ensures that the child feels comfortable with their peers in the environment.

5.4.4 DE2: Expectation to Act as a Cohesive Group.

Similarly, non-autistic children may have limited exposure to autistic individuals and may tend to apply their understanding of non-autistic interactions to situations involving neurodiverse groups. This tendency can lead to misunderstandings regarding the needs and preferences of autistic individuals. Non-autistic children may have a specific way they prefer to engage in social play, which they assume is universally shared because other non-autistic peers often manifest similar preferences. However, within the group, there may be autistic individuals with differing notions of what constitutes social play and friendship. These divergent perspectives can give rise to misunderstandings and communication breakdowns. One example P1 discussed is how often non-autistic children in mixed group scenarios found it difficult to understand why autistic children may not follow the shared rules of a game.

5.4.5 T3: Understanding Ambiguous Rules or Norms.

Several participants indicated that play situations with unclear or undefined rules, such as the social norms governing shared games, could lead to misunderstandings between autistic and non-autistic children. Most participants noted that autistic children often excelled in well-defined settings but encountered difficulties when attempting to apply social play skills to less structured, spontaneous play scenarios: "Quite a lot of [autistic children] will want to fit in. So they’ll learn the [social] rules... but the rules only apply to a certain situation, don’t they?" - P1. One participant pointed out that autistic children tended to enforce the rules they believed to be correct rather than adhering to the actual rules. To address these differences in interpretation, one suggested method was to collaboratively establish the play rules with all the children before initiating the play, ensuring that each child’s perspective receives equal consideration.

5.4.6 DE3: Diverging from ’Correct’ Rules.

Non-autistic children might face challenges in comprehending that not everyone adheres to or shares the same concept of social norms and friendship, especially if their exposure to social interactions predominantly involves non-autistic individuals. Consequently, they may assume that their grasp of social rules and norms is the definitive one, given that the majority of people in their social circles behave in a similar manner. This can lead to misunderstandings, as autistic children may not conform to the behavioral expectations of a non-autistic individual, and vice versa.

5.4.7 T4: Emotional and Sensory Regulation.

All participants emphasized the impact of sensory processing differences on autistic children’s ability to adapt and self-regulate during social play, where numerous external stimuli originate from the play environment (e.g., hot weather) or other playmates (e.g., noise). For instance, P4 noted instances where autistic children became overwhelmed by sensory input when they struggled to regulate themselves effectively: "Their [autistic children’s] ability to regulate those emotions and to recognize those signals or to know when they’re having difficulties... they need to be able to learn regulation skills." - P4. Most participants mentioned that they closely collaborate with the children, constantly monitoring their emotional well-being and providing support, even if it interrupts social play. To address these sensory challenges, participants employ what they refer to as a ’sensory diet’, which involves regulating the sensory stimuli that autistic children encounter. Nevertheless, the majority of participants emphasized that these strategies should be tailored to align with the individual interests and requirements of the children, which are highly nuanced and unique to each child.

5.4.8 DE4: Empathizing with Sensory Perception Differences.

Non-autistic children may find it challenging to grasp the notion of hypo- or hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli, as they might not have encountered it themselves. Consequently, they may struggle to comprehend how stimuli they consider neutral or non-disruptive can be uncomfortable or distressing for others. Moreover, the actions of non-autistic children, often unintentional, can inadvertently contribute to the presence of stimuli that become uncomfortable for individuals with sensory sensitivities. This lack of awareness can lead to issues during social play, highlighting the challenge of accommodating and regulating sensory needs in a neurodiverse social setting.

6.4.1 Initiating Social Play.

We observed that all autistic children mostly used various physical actions over verbal engagements to initiate social play with others, although we did witness a few instances of participants verbally asking others to play. Physical actions used to initiate social play included throwing and hitting objects (A4, A6, A7, A8, A9), copying and imitating a peer the child wanted to play with (A2, A3, A6), showing others certain objects, running towards another child, or using the affordances of an object (A1, A2, A4, A6, A7, A8, A9) to initiate social play with that object. For instance, we observed almost all of the autistic children played with the crates. The crates had ropes tied to one of their handles, affording the crates to be pulled. Sometimes, the autistic children would sit in a crate and wait for one of their peers to approach them and drag the crate around the playground. They often switched roles with that peer afterward.

6.4.2 Sustaining Social Play.

We observed that the most successful strategy to prevent social play from dissolving was moving to be in closer proximity to a play partner and waiting for them to reengage (A1, A2, A4, A6, A7, A9). This often allowed the children to find more interesting ideas to play with by either adding those ideas to their play or switching their play to those. For example, A1 and N1 often watched other children playing and added their play ideas to the other children’s (27:34-29:35).

We also observed that changing the roles and copying others involved in the play activity helped the children sustain social play. For instance, when A6 chased A4, A4 often talked to the cameras that recorded the session about how A6 was about to ’get him.’ We noticed that later in the play session, A6 copied this behavior to gain the attention of A4, which was successful. A4 then switched roles and began chasing A6, continuing the social play episode (36:05-37:20).

Another successful strategy we noticed was repeating what initiated the social play. Initially, A7 was involved in the social play of A8 and A9 by pretending to be a sleeping princess, where A9 tried to kill her while A7 tried to save her. However, A8 and A9 frequently forgot about her and ran off to continue their play. We observed that A7 repeatedly pretended to sleep on her princess bed when she realized A8 and A9 were coming back, which re-initiated their play (09:04-09:36).

6.4.3 Dissolving Social Play.

We witnessed that the most common strategy participants used to dissolve or end social play was to walk away from their play partners. For instance, A1 decided to play with the crate instead of the ball and walked away from N1, or A9 walked away from A7 to run around and air-slash the pretend monsters with a pretend sword (27:31-27:41).

Occasionally, a social conflict happened between the children that also dissolved social play. For example, when A6 was chasing A4 with a ball, she switched to a dinosaur toy and started hitting A4 with it. A4 appeared to be hurt, and the teacher observing mediated the play. This caused the pair to stop playing together for a while (26:53-27:04). On a few occasions, we witnessed a non-autistic child getting involved in social play with a pair that included autistic children, which resulted in the pushing out of the autistic child/children from the shared play. For instance, one of the very few successful social play experiences of A3 was when he was playing a chase game with N4. After chasing N4 for a few seconds, N2 came into the play and started chasing N4, which left A3 to go back to solitary play (22:42-22:53).

On only one occasion, we observed social play being dissolved verbally when A8 threw a Frisbee with N22 and told her that she wanted to stop playing (29:24-33:12).

6.4.4 Solitary Detours.

Figure 3:

View Figure

Figure 4:

View Figure

We observed some autistic children (A1, A4, A7, A8, A9) taking time away from shared tasks during episodes of social play with others. Although these instances appeared to be solitary, we observed that the activities completed were still thematically related to the shared social play episode (Table 2).

During the first play session, we observed that A1 was involved in a pretend play game of kings and queens with N1 and N4 but often enjoyed time away from the group performing construction play to make a ‘castle’ with large building blocks (Figure 3). N1 and N4 often would wait for A1 to return to the group to continue their shared activity of building thrones. A1 would often move between his solitary detour space and the shared game space (10:13-16:15) (Figure 4).

In the second play session, A4 took an interest in the cameras we had set up to observe the play and enjoyed tapping the camera and talking to it, asking questions such as ‘Is this thing on?’ in a playful manner. After witnessing this behavior, A6 approached A4 and initiated a shared game of chase, which mostly involved A6 chasing after A4 with a ball. A4 both wanted to play with the cameras and play with A6, so he integrated the cameras into his play by taking solitary detours to report to the cameras about the game of chase with A6, making statements like ‘Did you see that?’ and ‘Oh no she’s coming.’

In the third play session, during the group fantasy play of knights and princesses (A7, A8, and A9), all members would occasionally perform solitary detours away from the main group play.

A7 enjoyed taking time away from the group to perform self-stimulation, or to ’stim,’ by interacting with the texture of the walls, spinning a fan toy, and tapping a tube (35:10-35:21).

A9 often ran off from the group to pretend to air slash ‘giants’ using another tube as a sword. Once a member had returned from their solitary detour, play resumed as before or occasionally dissolved into social play in a pair (27:31-27:41).

A8 would also often perform solitary detours, although some of these detours were caused by her play partners choosing to perform pair social play away from her for a period of time (00:00-23:42). A8 instead would often organize her ‘princess bed,’ which consisted of mats on top of a wheelie bin. She would pretend to fall asleep to indicate she had finished building the bed, and then the other members of the group would return to play with her (04:12-04:23). Later, during the play session, she enjoyed performing solitary detours to collect play materials to bring back to the group (34:42-37:53 and Figure 5). In the example seen in Figure 5, the solitary detour taken by A8 resulted in A9 swapping to pair social play with A7. However, when A8 returned, she struggled to re-enter the group play as they were too engrossed in pair play to notice her. Later in the play session, she brought more objects back to A7 and A9, who then involved her in their shared play again.

Figure 5:

View Figure

Reflecting back on these solitary detour examples, we did not observe any non-autistic children engaging in solitary detours. Therefore, we believe that solitary detours are primarily performed by autistic children. We also observed that solitary detours were thematically linked to social play episodes that they were a part of (kings and queens - building a castle, chase - reporting the chase, knights - slashing giants, knights - pretending to be a princess).

Additionally, we observed that the solitary detours almost exclusively happened between social play episodes (Figure 4). Therefore, we propose solitary detours as solitary actions that are thematically linked to social play.

6.4.5 Failed Attempts at Social Play.

During our observation sessions, we witnessed multiple instances of two autistic children (A3&A5) failing to initiate or join in social play with others.

A3 did not often engage in social play but instead spent most of the observation session either watching the other children play or attempting to engage with them. A3 mostly utilized snatching or stealing of objects to gain the attention of others, which was often perceived as a negative action by other children on the playground. During the observation session, this included taking crates and mats from N2, who would either fight for them back or go straight to the teacher to resolve the issue (21:41-22:08). Additionally, A3 attempted to engage with others by offering play equipment to others, such as balls or large building blocks, that the other participant(s) desired for their play. One example of this equipment offering was when A3 obtained mats for A1, N4, and N1 without their knowledge and then dumped them on top of their play space. The group did not acknowledge him but were happy to have received mats for their play scenario (15:30-15:50).

A3 would attempt to interact and play with other children by performing actions related to the others’ shared game, but it was often misaligned in both time and space. These actions were either performed after the rest of the group had moved on in the scenario or in an area outside of the shared play zone. A3 followed around a group of non-autistic girls, one of whom (N3) was a previously established friend of his, and mimicked their behavior to attempt to join in with their game of chase. However, this was often performed too late and physically too far away than expected during the play. This meant that the girls did not appear to understand this as a request to join their play or chose to ignore his attempts to join (01:41-01:54).

For A5, at the start of the play session, a group of girls pushed a wheelie bin around with one participant inside. Initially, A5 assisted the girls in pushing the bin and successfully engaged in social play with them. However, she wanted to include objects of her choice (a box, a mat, a ball) in the play by putting them inside the wheelie bin. The girls repeatedly pushed away the objects and stated they did not want the objects A5 wanted to include in the play. The girls repeatedly took the object used from A5 and told her, ‘Don’t do that,’ or ‘We don’t like that.’ However, A5 persisted by placing mats, balls, and boxes into the wheelie bin until she found interest in another object to play with alone (00:55-07:55).

Reflecting on these examples, we observed that the method of communication and engagement is important to be accepted in social play with other peers. A3 often snatched objects and offered them to others to communicate that he wanted to play, and A5 forced objects into others’ play. However, their behavior was mostly received negatively by others who ignored and did not involve them in their play. Based on our observations, the more successful attempts at social play happened more organically, when all play partners showed interest in social play. On the contrary, the successful methods for other autistic children, such as following and copying others, did not work for A3 and A5. This suggests that despite their importance these methods are to be treated as unique to each child and each context.

6.4.6 Social Conflict.

We often observed social conflict between A5 and her peers on the playground due to A5 demanding certain objects for her solitary play scenarios that others were already using. However, during social play instances, we witnessed two conflicts.

One social conflict arose due to A5’s repeated attempts to include certain objects into play by putting them into a wheelie bin the group of girls were playing with (as explained in section 6.4.5). A5 appeared to misunderstand the ambiguous rules of the game, and the rest of the group did not appear to want to consider her ideas for the shared play, instead wanting to continue with the game they had created.

Another social conflict arose due to a miscommunication of play space boundaries. A5 approached D1 and N9 to play in parallel with the items in her crate. A5 declared, ’This is my driveway’ while standing in a small corner of the playground, and N9 responded, "Okay, but this is where I play with my bugs’ while running to the area next to A5. N9 and D1 walked into the ’bug space,’ and A5 shouted in frustration at N9 and D1, ’Can you stop going in my driveway,’ resulting in confusion for N9 and D1 as they had expressed to A5 previously that this area was where they were playing with their bugs and they believed a different space was her driveway (41:02-41:14).

We believe these social conflicts seen during social play happened due to what appeared to be misunderstandings and miscommunication during play.

7.1.1 Solitary Detours and Playing on Own Terms in Neurodiverse Social Play.

The interview participants expressed the belief that many autistic children tend to think in black-and-white terms and may struggle to understand what others require in a given situation or insist on their own viewpoint. Additionally, participants suggested that non-autistic children may follow group dynamics rather than individual preferences during social play. They might not comprehend why play should revolve around one child’s preferences and may expect everyone to engage in the same activity. During the observation sessions, we witnessed some of the autistic children periodically engaging in different tasks from the rest of their social playgroup. These ’solitary detours’ appear similar to parallel play but differ because the overarching theme of their play remains the same as their play partners while their individual task is undertaken alone and may not be shared or made apparent to their play partners. We believe that solitary detours can be a way for autistic children, in particular, to meet both their own motivations to play on their own terms and the expectation of other children to play as part of a cohesive group. Solitary detours can support children in undertaking play activities that others in the group may not wish to engage in but, as characterized above, still allow those children to contribute to be involved in the overarching shared play scenario.

The solitary detour we witnessed expands upon Frauenberger et al. definition of solitary detours [21], which focuses on children taking space away from group play to emotionally regulate through self-stimulation (also known as ‘stimming’). Although we did witness one child (A7) taking solitary detours to perform stimming, we mostly witnessed children performing solitary detours with the apparent aim of achieving unfulfilled play motivations. However, it could be argued that the solitary detours we witnessed also allowed for emotional regulation as taking space and time alone away from others may be calming for some autistic children.

We believe that solitary detours are primarily performed by autistic children, as we did not observe any non-autistic children engaging in solitary detours. Non-autistic children usually participated in the main task of the game with others. The theme of each solitary detour was often thematically linked to the main theme of the shared play, as other children may perceive unrelated activities as wishing to dissolve social play. Due to this, the objects used by the children during solitary detours also appeared to fit these themes, potentially indicating that a related object choice for the solitary detours may be important to ensure the overarching social play does not dissolve. We argue that our understanding of solitary detours moves beyond the definitions of previous literature [21] in terms of:

We suggest neurodiverse social play technologies and research should utilize and support a more nuanced understanding of solitary detours to align individual and group motivations in neurodiverse social play. One design strategy to address this was suggested by P5, a collaborative game where "there will be multiple different scenarios and different paths you could take, so it’s not just a linear progression, but they could choose which way they want to go and they could split off into individual teams as well as just go off as one big team." We also believe solitary detours would require the support of neurodiverse social play partners while they are on their individual paths. Supporting solitary detours through the use of social play technology may aid in ensuring children can easily leave and re-enter the shared play space when required. Nonnis et al. have explored the importance of including different entry and access points within a design to ensure fluid transitions between entering and exiting interaction with a shared social play technology for autistic children [27, 43]. We argue that integrating multiple entry and access points to a social play technology could support transitions from solitary to social play, and then also between solitary detours and the main shared play scenario for neurodiverse groups.

We also argue that neurodiverse social play technologies should be designed to allow children to easily indicate to play partners their intentions to exit and also return to the shared scenario, before and after performing a solitary detour. This may also help mitigate issues with rejoining social play, such as those we saw with A8 during the play episode (see Figure 5). Additionally, allowing the neurodiverse play partners to know explicitly when autistic children are taking solitary detours and how that impacts the overall shared play scenario might support the group social play [21]. This may aid in others’ continuation of the shared play scenario during solitary detours, and thus help prevent both the remaining members from pausing social play (as seen with N1 and N4 when A1 is away) and also allow autistic children to be aware of the status of the shared play episode while they are away. Thus, technologies should help to connect play partners during solitary detours and create means for them to return to neurodiverse social play, if and when they so wish.

7.1.2 Communication in Neurodiverse Social Play.

The interviews revealed that autistic children often communicate in ways that may be perceived as ambiguous, carrying different or unclear meanings from more typical contexts, such as using hitting as a means to engage. However, non-autistic children may tend to rely on other and more familiar methods of communication, typically verbal, and may encounter difficulties in understanding divergent communication styles.

We found that in some instances the primarily physical methods of social play initiation used by autistic children (offering objects etc.) were misunderstood or ignored by the rest of the group. Additionally, the misalignment of initiation techniques, as seen in A3, in both time and space caused further difficulties as his non-autistic peers did not perceive his copying behavior as a request to join play. Mismatches of communication styles also caused misunderstandings between some non-autistic and autistic children on the playground. In most instances of social conflict that we observed, the non-autistic children often resorted to reporting what had occurred to the teacher immediately for support rather than attempting to negotiate the situation themselves first.

Therefore, we can argue that an important point of interest for neurodiverse social play technologies and research is bridging the mismatch in communication styles and supporting children in sharing emotions, play ideas, and resolving conflict, without adult intervention. The current focus in social play technologies is social skill intervention for autistic children to better match neurotypical communication styles, rather than considering the possibility in which non-autistic children are taught through technology to better understand autistic communication styles [2, 7, 39, 48]. However, we argue that this burden of deciphering interactions should not be placed on either group. Building on the double empathy problem, the shared responsibility of communication and learning the different communication styles of play partners could be addressed by neurodiverse play technologies. This could be achieved by creating a common medium of communication through the use of technology that doesn’t rely on participants themselves interpreting the behavior or language of others. Finding this common ground in a conversation between adult neurodiverse dyads has been explored by Zolyomi and Snyder and could be extended to neurodiverse play contexts [64].

Alternatively, the burden of interpretation of communicative behavior could be placed on a shared technology rather than on any one play partner. Wilson et al. have previously examined supporting self-expression for autistic children through different modalities, which could be extended for use with all children involved in neurodiverse play scenarios [59]. Future neurodiverse technologies could encourage children to express their emotions, play ideas, and intentions in a way that is unique to them through any chosen sensory modality, rather than using pre-defined language or symbols [34, 44, 58, 59]. This could then translate this representation of information shared by one child to another representation that is clear and compatible with another child’s unique communication style, through a sensory modality they prefer.

7.1.3 Rules and Sensory Differences in Neurodiverse Social Play.

The interview participants noted that shared social play rules could sometimes be misinterpreted by autistic children. However, many non-autistic children may not be aware of the struggles their autistic peers face in comprehending and adhering to these rules. We observed multiple instances of autistic children misinterpreting the social play rules, which caused them to be ignored by the non-autistic children or led to a social conflict between them. We believe this mismatch of understanding of rules could be addressed by promoting independence for all children when negotiating shared play rules. For example, P6 recommended that "getting the group together to establish the rules so everyone agrees on the rules [has] been quite fundamental in moving forward", which could be facilitated by future neurodiverse social play technologies and research.

The interviews highlighted that autistic children often have different sensory processing experiences compared to their non-autistic peers, and their emotional states can be particularly sensitive to sensory stimuli [19]. Social play frequently involves actions with high sensory output, such as shouting and touching, by non-autistic children, which may discomfort their autistic peers. However, we did not notice any obvious difficulties with sensory regulation during our observations. Some children already employed methods of sensory regulation, such as wearing ear defenders (A7) or carrying materials (A4 carrying a stick) to stim with, which may have mitigated these issues. Many current social play technologies and research strongly focus on how the technology can support regulation strategies, but this may not be a significant issue for neurodiverse social play [2, 24], particularly where children’s strategies are seamlessly integrated into the play. Nonnis et al. have explored directly integrating tools for sensory regulation into tangible social play technologies for autistic children, which may also benefit neurodiverse groups [42, 43]. Additionally, from our observations, we noticed seamless integration of regulation strategies can happen when other children accept these needs and do not try to stop those behaviors or instead work around them.