Chapter 4: Results/Findings
4.11 Research question 3: Qualitative movement features
What other movement features are evident in the interaction in partnered movement activities for adolescents and adults with ASD?
4.11.1 Personal movement patterns, skills, and challenges
Although the focus of this study was movement patterns within interactions, it is necessary to first consider the participants’ individual movement preferences, skills, and difficulties as these personal styles and capacities influence what the individual brings to the interaction. While the five participants in this secondary analysis each had their own style of dancing, this type of variability is expected between people. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, this variability was used as context while conducting a further investigation of each case individually and of the differences between cases. Due to the complexity of movement and known limitations in inter-observer agreement with these movement observation tools (Cruz & Koch, 2012; Koch, 2006; Koch et al., 2001; Lausberg, 2013), there was also variability between the rater’s descriptions of each individual’s movement qualities. Despite these limitations, there were some trends in the movement preferences, skills, and challenges that are reported here. The reader can refer to Appendices E to I for more detailed descriptions of each individual’s
movement.
The participants’ movement repertoires varied greatly: some participants led many of the same basic movements in each taped session and others used a much larger range of movements and movement qualities. All the participants attempted to follow the full variety of movements led by their partners, although some participants had more difficulty than others in mirroring the full range of movements or movement qualities presented by their partners. Hans and Karl, in particular, appeared rather limited in their movement range. Karl often moved multiple body parts at a time in ways that made his movements appear somewhat chaotic even though the movements themselves were fairly basic and repetitive. Hans started with a very limited
movement range and his dances mostly consisted of moving just his arms or walking, but he increased the variety and complexity of his movements slightly in the last two weeks. While Lukas used a variety of movements (periodically inserting a single repetition of a novel movement into his dance), he repeated the same overall structure for his dance throughout the intervention. Lukas also increased the intensity of the movements in his dance over the first several weeks. Julia varied her movements both across the sessions and within the 30-second clips, showing her ability to creatively explore new movements to develop her dance. Anna tended to use mostly her arms, but led a wide variety of novel gestures.
All the participants had a somewhat stiff torso with limited (or completely lacking) integration of movement in the limbs with the rest of the body, tending to move their arms or legs while holding the torso and at times neck, stiff and immobile. In one segment, a rater described that Lukas and his partner “both moved side to side like wooden puppets with fixed and stiff trunk.” Karl and Hans tended to move their arms in isolation from their stiffly held upper torsos and Karl also seemed to hold tension in his facial muscles and possibly his fingers. The lack of integration through his stiffly held torso seemed to hinder Hans’s coordination throughout his body: “The movement of the arms and legs are not connected and not really coordinated, because the body is too stiff through the high Spannung [tension].” Some raters described limited breath support even in two of the participants who did sometimes move through their torsos (Lukas and Julia). These raters noted that they did not even see the movement of the breath in Lukas and Julia’s chests, emphasizing the stiffness of the torso and the lack of integrated body movement connected to the rhythm of the breath. This suggests that: (a) they were not allowing the movement of the breath to support integrated movement throughout the body, (b) they were holding tension and blocking movement through the torso, and (c) they were not using much shape flow.
While the participants varied in their ability to coordinate their different body parts, they all had some difficulties with coordination. Hans, Karl, and Anna especially seemed to have
difficulty with coordinating their upper and lower body movements, and sometimes followed at a noticeably longer delay or followed only the upper or lower body movements when their partner led full body movements. One week, when Hans’s partner was leading full body movements, a rater noted that it “seems that the process of recognizing which part of the body is moving in [his partner] in order to transfer movement into his own body is demanding and slow.”
Four of the five participants seemed to lack grounding and/or nearly lost their balance at least once. Balance was a persistent issue only for Karl and Lukas, who often looked like they might lose their balance during the movements they themselves led. Karl frequently moved his pelvis in a bouncing or forward-backward motion which was not coordinated with the rest of his body. This tended to lift him onto his toes, and made him appear unstable. Lukas was somewhat more coordinated, but he seemed to prefer movements that were so large and energetic that he sometimes nearly lost his balance, and once actually did fall. Despite his apparent enjoyment of these movements, Lukas did not engage the necessary muscle tone to support these movements and maintain stability. They both had better balance when following their partners’ movements, which were usually smaller, less energetic, or more coordinated, and therefore inherently less destabilizing.
4.11.2 Matching and mismatching the partner’s movement qualities
While all of the participants attempted to follow their partners’ lead, some were more successful than others in matching both the exact shape and the movement qualities of the partner’s movement. Karl, for example, sometimes matched the general shape, but not the more detailed aspects or movement qualities of his partners’ movements. The partners also varied in their movement skills and even their consistency in attempting to follow. For some participants there were more descriptions of mismatching movement qualities when they were following their partners, while the opposite was true for other participants. For example, the raters frequently noted that Hans and Karl tended to appear “less enthusiastic” in their movements than their
partners. Lukas and his partners were described as having mismatching movement qualities when Lukas was leading or dancing as he liked and the partner was observed doing less: less enthusiastic, smaller, less muscle tension, less intensity or more neutral flow.
The differences between the participants’ preferred movement qualities and the degree to which they matched all aspects of their partner’s movements was especially evident when Karl and Julia were partnered. In the open dance segments, their movement qualities clashed, with Julia using mostly fighting qualities and Karl using mostly indulging qualities. When Karl led, Julia followed most of his movement qualities. When Julia led, however, Karl was less likely to match her movement qualities; as one rater noted, Julia’s movements “seem much more groovy and intense, while the ones of [Karl] seem absent.”
The raters for the Interaction Quality scales, who were not specifically trained in movement observation, described differences in the dyad’s movement qualities in terms of the level of “enthusiasm,” size, or intensity. The DMT student raters, described differences in
movement qualities using more specific terms from either LMA or KMP. A word search showed that the DMT student raters never used the word enthusiasm, while the raters for the interaction scales used the word enthusiasm 68 times.
4.11.3 Attunement and adapting movement to the partner
Sometimes participants or their partners adapted their own movements to the abilities or interests of the other person. At other times, the participants did not change their movements for partners who couldn’t follow them, even when they looked at their partners enough to seem to be aware that the partner was having trouble following. The partners were not all equally skilled in movement and social interactions, so some participants were paired with partners who attuned to their movement needs more often than others. Hans responded most successfully to the DMT student partner who was trained in attuning through movement, but he did not seem to
There were several ways that the group members adapted to their partners: slowing down, waiting for a partner to catch up, simplifying their movements, making the movement more challenging to playfully test a partner’s ability to follow, or explaining a movement (see Table 12). These adaptations did not always achieve the same result. For example, the raters noted segments in which Hans’s partner’s slower or simpler movements seemed to improve Hans’s
Table 12: Ways participants or their partners adapted (or did not adapt) to each other. Ways of adapting or not
adapting to partner
Participant for partner
Partner(s) for
participant Exemplar quotes
attuning in general --- ---
Julia “performs a lot of different movements, but seems to be aware that she’s challenging [Karl], therefore she seems to be especially clear with her movement propositions and seems to be waiting for him to follow her. ... Always checking if [Karl] is still in contact with her.”
“it seems, that [Hans’s partner] reduced the movements to give [Hans] more chance to warm up. She totally adjusts her movements to his rhythm.” “I think [Lukas] might choose his movements depending on his partner’s abilities.”
waiting Karl
Julia†
Karl*†
Hans
“at some point [Karl] seems to wait for a second, till [his partner] is present enough to mirror his movement.”
“When it takes [Karl] a second to get a motion, [Julia] is aware of that and waits for [Karl] to get it before moving on”
slowing down Julia
Lukas
Julia
Hans Anna
Anna’s partner “slows down her movements, when she recognizes [Anna] takes more time” “it seems that [Lukas] makes the movements slowly to include [his partner].”
Lukas “is not as fast as usual and waits for [his partner]”
Note. Spelling was corrected in quotations.
*Bold when observers agreed that this was very clear and/or repeated in multiple sessions
Table 12 (continued): Ways participants or their partners adapted (or did not adapt) to each other. Ways of adapting or not
adapting to partner
Participant for partner
Partner(s) for
participant Exemplar quotes
simplifying or making movements clearer Julia† Hans† Karl† Hans Anna†
Hans “moves only the arms in a simple way so that [Anna] can try to follow him.”
“The movements contain some very playful, but simple elements.”
playfully testing partner, challenging partner with more challenging movement, or exploring one’s partner’s ability to follow
Julia Hans
Hans Julia
“When [his partner] begins to play with the motions (hands opening and closing), [Hans] smiles broadly. As she makes it more complicated he laughs so that his body shakes. [Hans] seems to be enjoying himself and enjoying the challenge.”
“seems as if [Julia] is testing [her partner] at times for ability to follow”
explaining, verbally encouraging, or demoing how to do a move/activity Lukas Anna Karl Anna
Karl’s partner “talks to [Karl] to show him how to do the balancing.” Lukas “even takes [his partner’s] hands and shows [him] how his hands should be placed in order to correctly copy the movement, and shrugs in a sort of “oh, well!” manner when [his partner] doesn’t understand.”
not adapting to partner’s needs
Julia† Lukas
Karl† Lukas
“I think [Julia] realizes that [Karl] has trouble following her but [Julia] does not respond.”
Lukas’s partner “tries to follow [Lukas], but [Lukas] does not wait for him. It is difficult for [his partner] to keep up with [Lukas] and [his partner] uses smaller gestures.”
Note. Spelling was corrected in quotations.
*Bold when observers agreed that this was very clear and/or repeated in multiple sessions
†seen in segments with Julia/Karl or Hans/Anna as partners, so some instances are represented twice
following, but in another segment he appeared to become distracted when she slowed down (possibly becoming bored with the easier slower movement). Some participants appeared to become more engaged and to enjoy following their partner’s movements when these were slightly
challenging, perhaps just outside their typical movement range, or playfully surprising in tempo or changes, so that they had to pay close attention, but were able to perform the movements.
Lukas appeared to adapt his movement for a few partners who he already knew from other activities at the site. Two of these partners appeared to be rather more limited in their movements than the rest of the group. It is impossible to tell if Lukas’s slower movement was an intentional adaptation to these partners, however, because he did not otherwise indicate that he was attempting to assist or engage his partner. Despite the fact that it is impossible to infer his intentions, 4 of the 6 observers independently noted that Lukas seemed to be moving slower, waiting, or being clearer in his movements for some specific partners.
4.11.4 Capturing a partner’s attention through the movement
The descriptions suggested that participants and their partners sometimes tried to capture each other’s attention through their movements, but the methods (and success of these methods) were specific to the partnership. The participants and partners all looked at the person whose attention they seemed to be trying to catch, but different people used different verbal or nonverbal techniques to capture their partner’s attention. Some of the methods they used were: being playful, increasing the variety of movements, simplifying their movements, approaching or touching the other person, making motions directly at the other person, or smiling at the partner.