The Social Information processing model & neurodivergent social processing
The Social Information Processing (SIP) Model (Crick & Dodge, 1994), is a theoretical model for understanding neurotypical social cognitive processing. This is a neurotypical framework of social processing and might be useful to identify social processing differences that operate for neurodivergent individuals however, a neurodivergent SIP model is not currently available. I hope someone is inspired to have a go at a model soon!
For now, come along for the ride if you're keen. This blog will describe how social cognitive processing has been understood historically, and where that positions us today. Hang in there, it’s a long story because it’s been developed over 30 decades and I’ve added my own interpretation of it, in an effort to integrate a neuroaffirming perspective.
The schematic nature of the SIP model has facilitated extensive empirical analysis of each SIP step over three decades, helping to confirm the model as a whole. Knowledge generated from SIP model research has informed the focus of many social learning programs for children. The simplicity of the SIP model as described in this chapter, and strong evidence base provide the rationale for use of the SIP model as the basis for Social Stencil.
The SIP Model was first proposed by Kenneth Dodge in 1986 to explain aggressive behaviour in childhood (Dodge, 1986). The model was later reformulated by Crick and Dodge (1994) to address the social information processing skills involved in all social interactions for children. This model defines a sequence of six cognitive skills involved in neurotypical social information processing, which are described sequentially but may operate automatically and simultaneously. The model also allows for feedback loops within the sequence of processing.
Crick and Dodge (1994) proposed that when a child is presented with a social situation, six social information processing skills are initiated. The skills consist of (1) encoding of cues, with attention directed towards internal and external cues that are primed by pre-existing social knowledge; (2) interpretation of cues, including attributing reasons to understand the motives behind someone’s behaviour; (3) clarification of goals; (4) response construction using long-term memory; (5) response decision, establishing the acceptability of response constructions, and finally; (6) behavioural enactment. Each processing skill is informed by social knowledge and memories stored within a child’s database. Emotions experienced by an individual during social interactions also influence their social information processing (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Individual differences in any one of the six skills of the SIP model can lead to social differences in social exchanges.
The following hypothetical vignette will demonstrate the operation of the SIP model as it might occur for a neurotypical student at school. The hypothetical vignette is momentary and unremarkable in many ways but serves to demonstrate the social information processing steps in play for the main character, Joanne.
While walking through the busy school corridor Joanne sees her friend walking from the other direction. Joanne tries to capture her friend’s attention by looking at her eyes and smiling. When her friend notices Joanne smiling at her, she smiles back. Joanne waves, reciprocating the greeting.
In the brief moment described above, each of the six social information processing skills played a role in Joanne’s neurotypical social behaviour.
In this scenario, Joanne is initiating the social interaction. The vignette begins with Joanne perceiving the corridor full of students (SIP skill 1) and interpreting the cues around her (SIP skill 2), to see a student walking towards her is her friend. In that moment Joanne clarifies a goal (SIP skill 3) to capture her friend’s attention, informed by her database. Joanne’s past experiences and social knowledge of friendship, stored within her Database informed Joanne’s response construction, that is, how to capture her friend’s attention from the crowd (SIP skill 4). Also informed by her Database of knowledge and experiences, Joanne constructs a number of possible responses (SIP skill 4) and decides that a wave would be most appropriate (SIP skill 5), enacting a wave (SIP skill 6). Joanne then encodes (SIP skill 1) Paula’s recognition and interprets this to mean that she was pleased to see her friend too (SIP skill 2).
What we’re learning about neurodivergent social behaviour is that the scenario described above could look different if one or both of the students are neurodivergent. What’s important here, and the shift from traditional interpretations of social behaviour is that differences need not be viewed as lesser or necessary to unlearn. Instead, we can support neurodivergent individuals by understanding their social behaviour and accept their differences as part of their authentic social information processing.
A little more history about the SIP model
The SIP model has been subject to extensive research following Dodge’s (1986) initial experiments designed to understand the social information processing skills that might be different in aggressive boys. This early research was specifically pursued to help inform targeted intervention programs. Dodge (1986) hypothesized that all boys would respond with aggression to an intentionally hostile act. However, differences would become evident between aggressive and non-aggressive boys when the intention behind a peer’s behaviour was ambiguous. He suggested that in those instances, overly aggressive children (as nominated by their teachers) would attribute hostile intentions to peers, and this would be a point of difference to boys described by their teachers as non- aggressive.
To explore this hypothesis Dodge (1986) exposed aggressive and non- aggressive boys to a frustrating social situation, filmed their reactions and examined their reactions for evidence of hostile attributions leading to aggressive behaviour. By way of illustrating early SIP model research and its influence on modern day SIP studies, this study will be described in detail.
A participant was in a room alone and asked to work at a puzzle to win a prize. They were informed that another child in an adjoining room was also completing the task, though not directly competing. The participant was also led to believe that they could communicate with the boy in the adjoining room via a microphone and loud speaker. The child in the other room was in fact fictitious, with a technician controlling a tape-recording of scripted comments that could be chosen and played into the loud speaker in the participant’s room. The participant was required to complete a puzzle quickly in order to win a prize. Once part of the puzzle was completed, the child was asked to stop for a break and during the break they viewed the fictitious child’s puzzle in the other room. Once the participant left their room, they could hear a tape recording of the fictitious boy viewing their puzzle, followed by the sound of puzzle pieces crashing to the floor. This was accompanied by one of three pre-recordings; the fictitious boy suggesting hostile intention, the fictitious boy suggesting that he was trying to help complete the puzzle followed by an accidental crash, or, no indication of intent prior to the crashing sound. The participant was then provided with both puzzles; their puzzle disassembled and the fictitious child’s puzzle completed. The instructor asked the participant to view both puzzles then left the room for three minutes. During this time, the child was filmed and their voice recorded. The instructor then returned to the room and provided a prize for participation. The participant’s words and actions were subsequently coded as physical hostility, verbal hostility, helping behaviour, or positive verbal behaviour. The results of this experiment demonstrated clear differences in the way aggressive and non-aggressive boys managed this experience. Both aggressive and non-aggressive boys (as rated by their teachers) responded with aggressive behaviour when they heard the hostile scenario, and both groups showed no aggressive behaviour when they heard the accidental scenario. However, when the intention behind the puzzle damage was ambiguous, only the boys who had been nominated as aggressive by their teachers, reacted with aggressive behaviour. From this study it was concluded that when social cues are ambiguous, some childrenautomatically attribute hostile intent to the other, and subsequently respond with aggressive behaviour.
This experimental design has influenced the way children’s social information processing skills have been researched over three decades (see de Castro, 2004; Ziv & Elizarov, 2020).
Social Stencil was evaluated using game like software that presented students with video scenario’s of relational aggression (bullying and exclusion). Participants engaged with the experiment before and after participating in the early version of Social Stencil (the Friendship Saver Program). The research outcomes helped to demonstrate that after participating in the program, encoding and interpretation skills significantly improved across 98% of students involved in the study. Students’ response construction (SIP Skill 4) also changed significantly, with a higher proportion of students describing strategies that would help to manage the conflict situation presented, and fewer reports of submissive, unhelpful responses.
Social Stencil is sequentially mapped to the steps of the SIP model, offering a clear sequence of skills and strategies that are discussed and explored progressively over the course of the program. Importantly, differences in social processing that might be relevant to neurodivergent students in a Social Stencil classroom are equally discussed and explored. Social Stencil themes open a safe, guided dialogue to discuss social differences and foster a culture of understanding, equal valuing and support.
Social Stencil was a typical universal social skills program, teaching Social Information Processing Skills from 2008 till 2020. However, the transition to become a neuroaffimring program, while also sharing social concepts and strategies commenced in 2020.
Since 2020 Social Stencil as undergone reflective practice, critical review from neurodivergent clinicians and advocates, and at times, a complete rethink of various activities and objectives. The outcome, a much more beautiful, supportive program that not only shares respectful inclusive social concepts and strategies in sequence, but also facilitates a culture of understanding and support. Now we’re really excited!
