Introduction
Autistic individuals have persistent differences in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interaction, restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests, as well as uncommon responses to sensory stimuli from hyper-responsiveness to hypo-responsiveness (American Psychiatric Association DSM-
5,
2013). Leekam et al. (
2007) concluded that more than 90% of autistic children and adults had sensory responsiveness interfering with their everyday lives, and their symptoms were persistent across all age groups and IQ levels (Baranek et al.,
1997; Ben-Sasson et al.,
2009; Forrester Jones and Broadhurst,
2007; Harrison & Hare,
2004; Kern et al.,
2007).
Autistic individuals react to sensory stimuli with a behavior that is not comparative to the grade and nature of the sensory stimulation (Baranek et al.,
2006; Lane et al.,
2010). Hypo-responsiveness refers to the lack of reaction to environmental or bodily sensory stimuli (Tomcheck, and Dunn,
2007). Hyper-responsiveness, is characterized as an overload of sensory stimuli (Frith,
1991; Kanner,
1943). As a result, autistic individuals may show sensory soothing behaviors that function to repeat or strengthen sensory experiences (Ben-Sasson et al.,
2009; Damiano et al.,
2018; Kirby et al.,
2015). Hypo-responsiveness can occur distinctively or alongside sensory soothing behaviors (Dunn,
2007; Lane et al.,
2011). Sensory soothing behaviors are linked to high neurological threshold, meaning that an individual requires intense sensory stimuli to produce a reaction that can be soothing (Dunn,
2007). In contrast, lower neurological threshold are linked to behaviors that reflect an avoidance to certain types of sensory input that others find innocuous (Butera et al.,
2020; Dunn,
2007).
Through functional magnetic resonance imaging (
fMRI) Green et al. (
2015) found that autistic individuals experienced significantly more symptoms of hyper-responsiveness than neurotypical and developmentally delayed individuals. Several studies found significant differences between autistic and control groups (Baranek et al.,
2006; Crane et al.,
2009; Tavassoli et al.,
2014) in a range of sensory modalities, like gustatory (Tavassoli & Baron-Cohen,
2012); olfactory/smell (Bennetto et al.,
2007), auditory/hearing (Haesen et al.,
2011), visual (Simmons et al.,
2009) and tactile (Cascio et al.,
2008). Autistic individuals experience touch dysfunction more often compared to the other sensory modalities (Kern et al.,
2006); however it is still the least investigated compared to the extensive research on the other sensory modalities (Baranek, et al.,
2006).
Tactile defensiveness is the hypo-responsiveness and hyper-responsiveness to direct touch stimuli (Baranek et al.,
1997). Many autistic individuals experience an unusual anticipation of being touched, wearing specific clothes or from tags and labels on clothes (Kern et al.,
2006). Autobiographical reports from autistic individuals explained that their uncommon sensory experiences were sometimes devastating and could act as incentives for social withdrawal (Grandin,
1992; Markram & Markram,
2010; Cosbey et al.,
2010).
Despite being able to avoid unpleasant textures in the environment (Robertson & Simmons,
2015), autistic individuals experience emotional distress and anxiety when in contact with specific unpleasant stimuli (South & Rodgers,
2017). These sensory experiences may hinder autistic people’s educational development as they have been found to compromise their ability to concentrate in a classroom (Howe & Stagg,
2016). Autistic individuals have also reported that their sensory responsiveness and emotional distress are being part of a vicious cycle comprised of stress and increased responsivity (Smith & Sharp,
2013).
On the other hand, tactile modality is most commonly found to produce pleasurable experiences when it is perceived to be more controllable (Jones et al.,
2003; Robertson & Simmons,
2015). In this respect, Autistic individuals have reported enjoyment when touching woolen fabrics, heavy blankets and rubbery objects (Ashburner et al.,
2013). Some autistic individuals have also reported being able to control such pleasurable tactile experiences i.e. touching cold, even surfaces; using these textures as coping strategies to relax (Robertson & Simmons,
2015).
Despite discussion regarding the psychological, physical and social impact of tactile defensiveness, the majority of previous studies are based on proxy reports and self-report quantitative assessment tools (Ben-Sasson et al.,
2009; Brown & Dunn,
2002). Since the empirical dimensions of tactile defensiveness, including how individuals experience different textures and fabrics in their daily environment, how they use and choose fabrics, and how tactile defensiveness affects their everyday lives has not previously been explored, qualitative methods were deemed the most appropriate to explore the complexities of individuals’ experiences. In this paper, following the findings of Kenny et al., (
2016) as well as public and social media discourse, we use identify first language (i.e. autistic person) rather than person first language (i.e. person with autism), since the autistic community consider being autistic as part of their identify (Waldock and Forrester-Jones,
2019; Sinclair,
2013). This also fits with our qualitative approach that respects and accepts autistic voices as key to investigation autistic lives experiences.
The aim of the study was therefore to: (a) explore the importance of different type/texture of fabrics to autistic people; (b) investigate the effects of different fabrics have on the everyday lives of autistic people; and (c) understand if the color and texture of fabrics influences their experience. The objective was to increase awareness of tactile defensiveness and understand the impact of fabrics on the participant’s everyday lives, thereby adding to the very small body of qualitative research that focuses on the experiences of autistic individuals in regards to tactile defensiveness (Appendix Table
1).
Research Methods
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was used to explore autistic individuals’ subjective experiences of fabrics. IPA has three key philosophical approaches: ‘Phenomenology’, ‘Hermeneutics’ and ‘Idiography’ (Smith et al.,
2009). ‘Phenomenology’ is a philosophical method to the understanding of people’s subjective experiences. ‘Hermeneutics’ refers to the active connection between the researchers’ interpretation of the participants’ experiences, whilst recognizing the effect of their own personal perception on the findings (double-hermeneutic) (Smith et al.,
2009). ‘Idiography’ refers to the commitment of the researcher to collect in-depth data to understand these experiences from the participants’ perspective. IPA differs from other qualitative methods (such as thematic analysis and participant observation) in that its focus is on the expressed experiences of individuals of specific social phenomena (in this case the impact of different fabrics on their everyday functioning). IPA allows each individual to voice their own particular experience and for themes that are important to the group to emerge and take center stage in the research. This differs from quantitative methods that seek answers to a priori hypotheses.
Participants’ perceptions of seven samples of fabrics was explored and subjected to content analysis. Particular fabrics were chosen for the study based on previous enquiries within the local autistic community as to fabrics most commonly encountered (See Appendix Table
2). Through systemic organization and quantification of coding and identifying patterns, content analysis offers understanding of the complex models of human perception (Mayring,
2004).
Design
The current study design was explorative, using semi-structured, in-depth, one-to-one interviews that allowed responses that linked to the participant’s subjective tactile experiences. Participants were provided with seven samples of fabrics (see Appendix Table
2) and were asked to explain the effects that these may have had on their everyday lives. They were also asked to bring their own favorite fabric to the interview and to share their feelings about the fabric. This multi-activity component of the design aimed to provide a better understanding of participants’ experience of tactile defensiveness.
Participants and Settings
Due to the nature of the study, a purposive sampling approach was utilized. Participants were adults (above the age of 18) with a diagnosis of autism. The chosen sample included adults, since approximately 90% of the autistic adult population have been reported as having sensory responsiveness that interfere with their everyday lives (Leekam et al.
2007). University students were included because they were a readily available group.
Ten participants were interviewed (seven females; three males). The ideal number of participants in IPA is six to eight (Smith et al.
2009). Participants were all university students at different stages of their education (seven undergraduates; three postgraduates) and were recruited via gatekeepers including the university’s support services as well as the university’s Autism Group on Facebook via on-line advertisements. All participants confirmed their autism diagnosis prior to taking part in the study.
Materials and Measures
Interview questions (Appendix Table
1) were not extracted from previous studies as there were no studies that have explored this subject area, therefore, the authors followed Smith et al. (
2009) guidance on producing interview questions. The seven samples of fabrics used (satin, denim, hession, cotton, polyester, wool and spandex) (See Appendix Table
2) were chosen on the basis of previous qualitative descriptions of fabrics that have shown to affect autistic individuals (Ashburner et al.,
2013; Blakemore et al.,
2006; Cascio et al.,
2016). Participants were also asked to bring their favorite fabric with them to the interview session to allow an exploration of subjectively positively experienced fabrics. The semi-structured open-ended informal interview schedule was designed to provide a calm interface with the participants and to facilitate their individual experiences (Smith et al.,
2009). The interviews lasted 25 to 60 min and all participants gave their informed consent for the interview to be audio-recorded (see
Appendix 1 for interview questions and pictures of the 7 fabrics) (Appendix Tables
1 and
2).
Procedure
From the third question onwards, questions (Appendix
2) became more specific (semi-structured); yet still open-ended (See Appendix Table
1). On question 6 (See Appendix Table
1), participants were asked to touch each of the seven samples of fabrics (See Appendix Table
2) and describe their perceptions and how these might have affected them in their everyday life. The final question (See Appendix Table
1) asked participants to present their favorite fabric. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their choice, and the usefulness/value of the specific fabric(s) for them. Throughout the interview, the researcher gave the participants regular feedback regarding her own interpretations to check if they were in line with the participant’s perceptions (Smith et al.,
2009). The researcher debriefed the participants before leaving the interview room.
Ethical Approval
The current study received a favorable ethical opinion from the University of Kent Tizard Ethics Committee, (Reference: 29,032,017). Informed consent in writing was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Potential participants were provided with an information sheet and consent form. The first researcher conducted the interviews and used a designated room at the University for the Interviews to take place. A £5 voucher was offered to all participants as a token of appreciation for their time. Consent was re-established prior to the start of the interview and the interview started by asking two open-ended questions to encourage the participants to talk in depth about their experiences (Smith et al.,
2009). Participants were informed that they had the right to refuse to touch the fabrics, therefore if participants did not wish to touch the fabric(s) the researcher would advise them to respond as regards to their past experience with the specific fabric(s). No participants withdrew from the study and no distress was documented or reported to the researcher during, or after the interview.
Pseudonyms were used in the analysis of the data to protect the participants’ identities and data were treated in accordance to GDPR regulation.
Analysis
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
Once all of the audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, an idiographic approach was taken whereby, the first author read and re-read the transcripts to allow an active hermeneutic engagement with the data (Smith et al.,
2009). Next, the researcher produced a broad set of codes which were compared to the second author’s independent codes of the same transcripts. This allowed for coding reliability. Discussions between the two authors let to coding-saturation. Patterns of similarity across the data took place until final themes began to emerge, which were then relabeled and reorganized.
Content Analysis
During the interview, the researcher requested that participants to touch each of the seven fabrics and explain their perceptions of each fabric, the effect each would have if they should encounter them in their everyday lives, and their fabric preferences. Content Analysis was then used to analyze the participant’s interpretations and experiences of the seven samples of fabrics. The subjective qualitative data obtained was coded and quantified into categories of liked/disliked and reasons (See Appendix Table
3).
Reliability
The research team recognize the importance of evaluating qualitative research according to the criteria suitable for it. Therefore Guba’s (
1981) four criteria of trustworthiness (Credibility-internal validity, Transferability-generalizability, Dependability-reliability and Confirmability-objectivity) were used to measure reliability in the current study.
Credibility was achieved as the questions, setting and analysis were all completed in the same way for all participants. Credibility and triangulation was strengthened through the use of one-to-one interviews, the displayed fabrics and by asking participants to bring their favorite fabric. Transferability and dependability are the hardest and most debatable aspects of qualitative research because the relationship between the researcher and the participants (
Appendix 3) tends to be unique and thus, difficult to replicate (Gomm et al.,
2000). Dependability/Reliability was ensured through the use of mini-audits, and inter-reliability of the codes and themes with the study’s second author (Smith et al.,
2009). All scripts were reviewed by two of the authors and there was agreement on all themes and codes. Mitigation against any disagreements was reached, via the used of the principles of saturation. Confirmability was increased through the transparent details provided in the current study.
Discussion and Conclusion
The study examined a group of autistic adults’ experiences of living with tactile defensiveness and how this has impacted their everyday lives. These results were not made as an attempt to be generalized, since the study was exploratory, and could be used as a foundation for future research. IPA allowed the voices of people experiencing tactile defensiveness to be heard and for a deeper understanding to be presented. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to do this.
IPA analysis showed that participants were very aware of fabrics and textures in their environments, and the clothes on their bodies impacted on their day to day functioning. Their familiarity with what they perceived as good and bad textures/fabrics enabled them to develop coping strategies to avoid and escape stressful experiences. Content analysis of the data revealed that participants preferred interacting with satin, denim and cotton, mostly favoring satin due its softness, comfortableness and light-touch feel. The fabrics that were reported to be the most difficult to cope with were: hession, polyester, wool, and spandex, especially, hession and spandex, due to their abrasiveness, and itchiness. It should be noted that just as each autistic individual has their own repertoire of symptoms, so each individuals in this study experienced fabrics in different ways. This means that our findings cannot necessarily be generalized to the whole autistic population. Nevertheless, overall, the data answered the three initial research questions, since (1) participants expressed how important fabrics and textures were to them; (2) they explained the effects that these had on their everyday lives; and (3) they reported the effects that the colors of the fabrics had on their perceptions.
Awareness of Fabrics
All participants reported being aware (hyper-responsiveness) of the fabrics/textures in their surroundings, as well as the clothes that were physically touching their bodies. These sensations were expressed through feelings of irritation, discomfort or distraction/confusion towards restrictive, itchy and uncomfortable fabrics. Similar to previous studies (Grandin,
1992; Baranek et al.,
1997; Jones et al.,
2003) our findings suggest that autistic individuals are conscious of their surroundings due to hyper-responsiveness.
We also found contact with uncomfortable textures can cause autistic individuals increased anxiety (Markram & Markram,
2010; South & Rodgers,
2017) and distraction of concentration (Howe & Stagg,
2016). Similarly, some participants reported that particular fabrics used in schools have interfered with their learning and development, leading to negative associations and experiences of school. Indeed, unpleasant environmental textures may act as disincentives to the development of educational (Howe & Stagg,
2016) and social skills (Grandin,
2000; Markram & Markram,
2010).
Participants reported feeling hyper-responsive towards labels, tags and seams, which were perceived as uncomfortable, abrasive and irritating. Coping strategies included cutting-off the labels and tags from their clothes. Yet, the remaining material was still abrasive and impacted their stress levels and concentration. Previous studies supported similar findings; many autistic individuals avoiding tags on clothes (Kern et al.,
2006) and wearing outfits with plastic seams (Ashburner et al.,
2013). Whilst abrasiveness and restrictiveness of fabrics/textures have been reported as one of the main causes of irritation for participants, these fabrics are regularly found in public communal areas. Shopping bags made from hession-like fabric were particularly problematic for our sample; the finding was corroborated by Cascio et al. (
2012) and Ashburner et al. (
2013) who also found that this fabric was regarded as one of the most aversive textures for autistic individuals.
Conversely, our study sample demonstrated fabric favoritism. For example, muted colored fabrics were more favored compared to bright and pattern-based fabrics; these are more likely to be associated with visual sensory-perceptual irregularity, instead of tactile (Coulter,
2009). Furthermore, participants’ preferred soft and comfortable textures, like satin; previous research also reporting that autistic individuals enjoy touching soft and smooth textures (Cascio et al.,
2012). Notably, participants’ showed sensory-soothing behaviors towards their favorite fabrics and reported being fascinated when they identified new soft fabric that they felt pleasing. Previous studies have similarly found evidence of autistic individuals constantly sitting and holding soft fabrics and textures (Ashburner et al.,
2013; Dunn,
2007; Lane et al.,
2011). Importantly, individual preferences have not been disregarded, since Ashburner et al. (
2013) established that some autistic individuals enjoy touching woolen fabrics, and others dislike it. In the current study, 60% of participants disliked fabrics made from 100% wool, which might indicate either individual preferences or differences in the types of wool used amongst research studies.
Body Sensations
Participants reported feeling a range of physical pain magnitudes towards unwanted textures and fabrics. Participants specified feeling needles pricking their skin and insects crawling on their bodies. These vivid descriptions may possibly demonstrate a lower pain threshold of autistic individuals compared to the general population (Cascio et al.,
2008; Smith & Sharp,
2013). Participants reported hyper-responsiveness to tickle, itch and temperature; similar to previous research (Blakemore et al.,
2006; Cascio et al.,
2008,
2012). Some also described their worst sensory experiences as being in a vicious cycle that kept escalating their tactile sensory perceptions, and subsequently increased physical and psychological distress that often ended up in severe scratching and self-injury. Smith and Sharp (
2013) found almost identical descriptions of their participants’ experiences with pain threshold. The qualitative approach in this study allowed the raw tactile feelings of autistic individuals to be heard (Smith et al.,
2009).
Moreover, participants reported that their tactile defensiveness has changed since they were children. According to previous studies, autistic individuals do not become physically habituated to unpleasant stimuli, but they instead, produce coping strategies to become more tolerable towards undesirable textures (Ashburner et al.,
2013; Smith & Sharp,
2013).
Coping Strategies
Participants’ experiences with several stimuli appeared to help them understand how to better control their tactile defensiveness by using coping strategies. Similarly, Robertson and Simmons (
2015) reported that their participants valued the knowledge of past negative tactile experiences and utilized coping strategies to gain control and subsequently decreased their anxiety. Participants reported avoiding unpleasant tactile stimulation; likewise, previous reports identified this as one of the main coping strategies used in this population (Ashburner et al.,
2013; Smith & Sharp,
2013).
The participants in our study implemented avoidance strategies to escape overwhelming stimulations like removing all tactile stimulations from their bodies or distracting themselves from entering the vicious cycle. Distraction and avoidance behavior has previously been reported in other studies as coping strategies used by autistic individuals (Howe & Stagg,
2016; Smith & Sharp,
2013). These findings emphasized the importance of experience to learn strategies that enable autistic individuals to escape unpredictable and overwhelming tactile stimulations.
The tactile hyper-responsiveness commonly experienced by autistic individuals can enhance any textures perceived as pleasurable which can then be used as relaxation strategies (Cascio et al.,
2008; Smith & Sharp,
2013). Choosing the right clothes and furniture or stroking/touching a specific pleasurable fabric were some of the main strategies reported. Repeatedly touching or stroking a specific fabric is a common strategy for some autistic people to experience soothing sensory experiences (Ashburner et al.,
2013; Liss et al.,
2006). Having coping strategies decreased stress and increased the subjective wellbeing of autistic individuals (Ashburner et al.,
2013; Jones et al.,
2003; Smith & Sharp,
2013).
The findings from the current study and previous research, have shown that contact with unpleasant stimulations could negatively impact the physical and psychological wellbeing of autistic individuals (Smith & Sharp,
2013). In contrast, these negative tactile experiences have enabled participants to discriminate what textures and fabrics they like and dislike, hereby allowed the development of more effective coping strategies for both avoidance/escape and the enhancement of pleasurable experiences.
Limitations
While numerous ways were utilized to increase the reliability and validity of the study, limitations were unavoidable. Due to the exploratory design of the study, the participants’ current use of medication and previous experience of interventions related to sensory hyper/hypo sensitivity, were not investigated. These variables should be included in future research. Also, although gender differences were not under examination, there was an unequal gender balance which could have led to an unrepresentative sample; future research would benefit from an examination of gender differences. The small sample size of the study does not allow generalization of the findings. However, in accordance with IPA guidelines, the sample size was ideal for this analysis. Future research could focus on different analysis including larger sample sizes. Furthermore, everyday tactile experiences for autistic individuals are not as controlled and predictable as an interview setting, therefore, ecological validity was increased through the qualitative nature of the study.
Recruitment was carried out from one region/university, which could have compromised the generalizability of the results. The use of triangulation (semi-structured interviews; interaction with 7 samples of fabrics; and bringing their own favorite fabric), reduced the magnitude of the current limitation.
Conclusion
The results of the current small scale study should be regarded as a stepping stone for future qualitative and quantitative research to examine the effects of fabrics on autistic individuals and to inform the autistic community, policy-makers, professionals, caregivers and the general community. In particular, we make the following research, practice and policy recommendations:
Research: We recommend a larger quantitative RCT study that uses clinical assessment tools for testing our initial findings of individual’s own experiences of different fabrics, as well as the soothing strategies they use.
Practice: we would recommend that environment such as schools, colleges and universities should consider using non-abrasive fabrics for communal furniture placed in study/work settings including accommodation blocks, libraries, and lecture theatres, in order to prevent distress and reduce non-community participation of autistic individuals.
Policy: policies such as the ‘Autism Good Practice Guidance’ (Department of Health,
2002) could progress their practices from considering the experiences of autistic individuals, in order to promote autism-friendly environments. It is important for our society to recognize tactile defensiveness in autistic individuals to better understand their behaviors and needs (Kern et al.,
2006). By understanding tactile defensiveness, our community will increase autism-friendly approaches through the use of appropriate fabrics that could lead to social inclusion and better adaptation for autistic individuals.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.