PEERS ® Social Skills

Workshop

Dr. Elizabeth Laugeson

Associate Clinical Professor
Founder and Director, UCLA PEERS Clinic
Training Director, UCLA Tarjan Center UCEDD
Program Director, UCLA Autism Center of Excellence, Core D
Training Agenda
Research Collaborators
Acknowledgements
Research Assistants
Fred Frankel, Ph.D., ABPP
Andrew Leuchter, M.D. Georgia Yu, M.A. Hira Asif Victoria Boone
Alex Gantman, Psy.D. Dali Tung Gozi Egbuonu Bethany Wu
Catherine Mogil, Psy.D. Gozi Egbuonu Victorya Jewett
Jan Stolpe, M.A.
Helena Johnson, Ph.D. Jin Lee, Psy.D. Sarah Tsai
Josh Mandelberg, M.D. Dawn Mitchell, M.A. Amanda Lenvin Ana Mendoza
Steven Kapp, Ph.D. Rosanna Rivero, M.A. Cordelia Ross Yuan Zhang
Kaely Orenski, Psy.D. Mary Goodarzi, Ph.D. Kristine McGlennen Rhideeta Jalal
Mina Park, Ph.D. Alex Friedman, M.A. Jeff Rudie, M.D., Ph.D. Flor Canales
Enjey Lin, Ph.D. Natalie Colich
Sarah Bohlman, M.A. Ido Michaeli, SLP
Jilly Chang, Ph.D. Dana Lieberman, Ph.D.
Jennifer Sanderson, Psy.D. Lindsay Henry, M.A. Leilani Forby
Siena Whitham, Ph.D.
Ruth Ellingsen, Ph.D. Summer Vilkins Allison Vreeland Peggy Hsieh
Aarti Nair, Ph.D. Maile Adolphson Horn, M.A. Lucy Vo, Ph.D. Allison Ganel
Vindia Fernandez, Ph.D. Michelle Jackson, Psy.D. Chloe Koeffler Gabe Aviera
Courtney Bolton, Ph.D. Alea Baron, Psy.D.
Sarah Taylor, M.A. Jordan Albright
Shannon Bates, Psy.D. Laura Knoll, M.A.
Melissa Wasserman, Psy.D. Ahoo Karimian, M.A. Eslin Saporta
Lindsey Hughes, M.A. Kathleen Jorgenson, M.A. Caroline McDonough
Administrative Support Ellie Mellon Rebecca Fountain, M.A. Sarah Tsai, MA
Daniel Janulaitis, M.A. Erin Cornack, M.A. Preston Johnson
Rohini Bagrodia, M.A. Emily Chen, M.A. Jade-Remington Rebil
Yasamine Bolourian, Ph.D.
Kandyse Christopher
Jessica Hopkins Kathryn Fitzpatrick Phoebe Josephson
Devi Beck-Pancer
Lara Tucci, Psy.D. Tiana Bayrami, M.A. Noha Zaki
Ben Schwartman, Ph.D.
Ashley R. Dillon, Ph.D. Nicole Yeroushalmi
Jason Tinero Elan Javanfard, M.A.
Clare Gorospe Danielle Mund
Elizabeth Shipley, Psy.D. Meredith Kalies, M.A.
Jessie Sanchez, M.A. Brittany Murphy
Meagan Cronin, M.A.
Elina Veytsman Khadija Noorbhai Juliette Lerner
Mera West Lyndsay Brooks, M.A.
Catherine Wallace Simrina Dasar
James Yang, M.A. David Diaz, M.A. Isita Tripathi
Marlene Cabrera
Morgan Joliffe, M.A. Cecilia Costa, M.A. Leila Solouki
Renee Doe
Nicole Rosen Crystal Ferrendelli, M.A. Haripriya Dalmia
Niki Bahri Alexandra Walsh Alex Gigler
Erin Santos, M.A.
Megan Hanson Marina Avetisian Jenny Rodstein
Steven Lograsso Danielle Missler, M.A.
Eugene Kutasevich, M.A. Nick Senosky
Haley Goodman Cara Lam Christine Park
Maricella Campuzano, M.A.
Katherine Sung Fernanda Samaia Elsa Gay
Leijing Zhang, M.A.
Nicky de Nocker Angela Dahiya, M.A. Vigen Tumoyan
Elizabeth Denluck Steven Scott
Tricia Choy Jennifer Majdick, M.A.
 Social Deficits Among Youth with ASD
§ Poor social communication Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press

§ Problems with topic initiation

§ Use repetitive themes
§ Perseverate on restricted interests
§ Disregard the other person’s interests
§ One-sided conversations
§ Elicit fewer extended responses
§ Give fewer reciprocal responses
§ Fail to identify common interests
§ Difficulty providing relevant
information
§ Make unexpected leaps in topics
§ Pedantic style of speaking
§ Poor speech prosody
§ Difficulty interpreting verbal and
nonverbal social cues (Volkmar & Klin, 1998; Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Orsmond, Krauss, &
Seltzer, 2004; Koning & Magill-Evans, 2001; LeCouteur et al.,
§ Voice tone 1989; Marks, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000; Ghaziuddin &
§ Sarcasm Gerstein, 1996; Twatchman-Cullen, 1998; Hemphill & Siperstein,
1990; Church, Alisanki, Amanullah, 2000; Constantino, 2005)
§ Gestures
§ Social touch
 Social Deficits Among Youth with ASD

§ Poor social awareness

§ Poor eye-contact
§ Difficulty understanding social cues
§ Poor social motivation
§ Less involvement in social activities
§ Extra-curricular activities
§ Clubs
§ Sports
§ Lack of peer entry attempts
§ Fewer social initiations
§ Poor social cognition
§ Difficulty understanding the
perspectives of others
(Volkmar & Klin, 1998; Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Orsmond, Krauss, &
§ Poor theory of mind Seltzer, 2004; Koning & Magill-Evans, 2001; LeCouteur et al.,
1989; Marks, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000; Ghaziuddin &
§ Lack of cognitive empathy Gerstein, 1996; Twatchman-Cullen, 1998; Hemphill & Siperstein,
1990; Church, Alisanki, Amanullah, 2000; Constantino, 2005)
 Consequences of Social Deficits for
Youth with ASD
§ Social neglect and isolation Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Withdrawn
§ Seen as shy by others
§ Go unnoticed
§ Not engaging others socially
§ Anxious, depressed
§ Peer rejection
§ Teased and bullied
§ Unsuccessful attempts to socially
engage others
§ Bad reputation
§ ADHD, impulse control disorders
§ Peer conflict
§ Arguments may result in (Volkmar & Klin, 1998; Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Orsmond, Krauss, &
Seltzer, 2004; Koning & Magill-Evans, 2001; LeCouteur et al., 1989;
termination of friendship Marks, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000; Ghaziuddin & Gerstein,
1996; Twatchman-Cullen, 1998; Hemphill & Siperstein, 1990;
§ Lack of close reciprocal Church, Alisanki, Amanullah, 2000)

friendships
§ Poor friendship quality
 Poor Quality of Friendships
Among Youth with ASD

• Poor overall quality

of friendships
– Less companionship
– Less help from
friends
– Less security within
friendships
(Bauminger & Kasari, 2000)

• Greater loneliness
 Why Target Friendships?
Having one or two close
friends:
• Predicts later adjustment in
life
• Can buffer the impact of
stressful life events
• Correlates positively with:
– Self-esteem
– Independence (Buhrmeister, 1990; Matson, Smiroldo, & Bamburg, 1998; Miller &
Ingham, 1976)

• Correlates negatively with:

– Depression
– Anxiety
 Consequences of Peer Rejection

Peer rejection is one of the

strongest predictors of:

• Mental health problems

– Depression
– Anxiety
• Juvenile delinquency
• Poor academic performance
• Early withdrawal from school (Buhrmeister, 1990; Matson, Smiroldo, & Bamburg, 1998;
Miller & Ingham, 1976)
• Substance abuse
• Suicidal ideation and attempts
 Risk Factors for Peer Rejection
Among Teens with ASD

High Risk Factors:

• Less socially competent
• Fewer friendships
• Less peer support

Protective Factors:
• Friendships are known to
protect against victimization
(Olweus,1973,1993; Rose et al., 2009; Dinkes et al., 2006; Poteat &
Espelage, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003;
Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Schwartz, 2010; Perry et al., 2001;
Doren et al., 1996; Little, 2001, 2002; Montes & Halterman, 2007;
van Roekel et al., 2010; Whitney et al., 1992, Martlew & Hodson,
1991; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989)
Categories of Peer Acceptance
in Adolescence

Average (55%)

Popular (15%)

Peer Rejected (15%)

Socially Neglected (15%)

The Science of Making Friends

(Laugeson, 2013)
 Social Skills Training
• Social skills training is very common
for children with ASD
• Very few programs for adolescents and
adults with ASD
• Most programs do not use evidence-
based curricula
• Often fail to tailor teaching methods to
the cognitive style of those with ASD
• Do not teach ecologically valid social
skills
• Do not include homework assignments
• Skills do not generalize to other
settings
• Do not include parents and/or teachers
in the treatment
• Do not assess durability of treatment
gains over time
 Background
about PEERS®
• International program
– Developed at UCLA in 2004
– Adolescent program has been
translated into over a dozen
languages
– Used in over 85 countries

• Evidence-Based Social Skills

Programs:
– PEERS® for Preschoolers
– PEERS® for Adolescents
– PEERS® for Young Adults

• Research Programs:
– PEERS® for Careers
– PEERS® for Dating
– PEERS® L-Dopa
Unique Aspects
of PEERS®
• One of the only evidence-
based social skills programs
– ONLY evidence-based social
skills program for teens and
adults with ASD and other social
challenges

• Parent or caregiver assisted

– Parents and other caregivers are
trained as social coaches

• Only teaches ecologically

valid social skills
– Teaches rules and steps followed
by socially successful people

• Cross-culturally adapted
across the globe
– Seven scientific papers published
outside of the U.S.
 PEERS® for Adolescents
Weekly Parent-Assisted Manual
(Laugeson & Frankel, 2010)

• Parent-assisted
– Concurrent parent and teen sessions
– Parents are trained as social coaches
• Appropriate for socially motivated teens
• Addresses core social deficits in ASD
• Focuses on relationship skills
• Teaches ecologically valid social skills
• 14-week curriculum
– 90 minute weekly sessions
• Evidence-based:
– Teens in middle and high school with
ASD
– Teens with ADHD
– Teens with FASD
– Teens with ID
 PEERS® for Adolescents
Daily School-Based Curriculum
(Laugeson, 2014)

• Teacher-facilitated in the school

setting
• 16-week curriculum
• 30-60 minute daily lesson plans
• Focuses on friendship skills
• Strategies for handling peer
rejection/conflict
• Includes weekly comprehensive
parent handouts
– No parent group
• Evidence-based treatment for ASD
– Middle school
– High school
 PEERS® for Young Adults
Weekly Caregiver-Assisted Manual
(Laugeson, 2017)

• Caregiver-assisted
– Concurrent social coaching and young adult
sessions
• Appropriate for socially motivated adults
• Addresses core social deficits in ASD
• Focuses on relationship skills
• Friendships, dating, conflict, rejection
• Teaches ecologically valid social skills
• 16-week curriculum
– 90-minute weekly sessions
– Library of video role play demonstrations
• Evidence-based:
– Young adults (18-24 years of age) with ASD
 Evidence-Based Methods for
Teaching Social Skills
§ Small group format
§ 8-10 adolescents Photo of PEERS courtesy of Associated Press
§ Didactic instruction
§ Structured lessons
§ Concrete rules / steps of social behavior
§ Ecologically valid social skills
§ Socratic method of teaching
§ Role-playing / modeling
§ Appropriate and inappropriate demonstrations
§ Perspective taking questions
§ Targeting social cognition
§ Behavioral rehearsal
§ Social coaching
§ Performance feedback
§ In vivo homework assignments (Matson, 1984; Davies & Rogers, 1985; Fleming & Fleming, 1982;
§ Parent-assistance Mesibov, 1984; Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001; Gralinski &
Kopp, 1993; Rubin & Sloman, 1984, Frankel & Myatt, 2003;
§ Generalization to other settings Rao, Beidel, & Murray, 2008; Laugeson et al., 2008)

§ Parent-assistance
§ Social coaching
§ Expand social opportunities
§ Maintenance of treatment gains
 Importance of Social Coaching

• Practice newly learning skills

• Provide feedback on emerging
social skills during practice
• Provide social coaching in the
real world
• Help to generalize skills to other
social settings
• Assist with finding potential
sources of friends or romantic
partners
• Support efforts at arranging get-
togethers and dates
• Ensure that the program never
ends and skills continue to be
used
 Importance of Intrinsic
Social Motivation
• Social skills training should be
voluntary
• Must consider the role of Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associate Press

neurodiversity
• Different – not less
• Participants should be intrinsically
motivated to learn the skills
• Not ethical to force social skills on
others
• Social skills training should NOT
be about changing a person
• Social skills training should be
about enhancing social interactions
skills so others can appreciate who
you already are
 Development of PEERS®
Rules and Steps of Social Behavior
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press

§ Ecologically valid social skills

§ DO’S

§ Common social errors

committed by those with ASD
§ DON’TS

§ Create rules around ecologically

valid skills and common social
errors
§ Break steps down into concrete
parts
 Overview of PEERS® Intervention
§ Conversational skills Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press

§ Trading information
§ Finding common interests
§ Having a reciprocal two-way
conversation
§ Non-verbal communication
§ Electronic communication
§ Voicemail, email, IM, text
messaging, social networking
sites
§ Online safety
§ Choosing appropriate friends
§ Identifying a peer group / crowd UCLA PEERS® Clinic
§ Identifying extracurricular http://www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/
activities (310)-26-PEERS
peersclinic@ucla.edu
 Overview of PEERS® Intervention
§ Appropriate use of humor
§ Paying attention to humor Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press

feedback
§ Peer entry strategies
§ Entering group conversations
with potential friends
§ Peer exit strategies
§ Exiting conversations
§ Good sportsmanship
§ Playing nicely during games and
sports
§ Get-togethers
UCLA PEERS® Clinic
§ Being a good host or guest during http://www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/
get-togethers with friends (310)-26-PEERS
peersclinic@ucla.edu
 Overview of PEERS® Intervention
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press

§ Peer conflict
§ Handling arguments with friends
§ Peer rejection
§ Handling teasing
§ Utilizing embarrassing feedback
§ Handling physical bullying
§ Managing rumors and gossip
§ Minimizing cyber bullying
§ Changing a bad reputation
§ Graduation
§ Final review
§ Graduation party & ceremony UCLA PEERS® Clinic
http://www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/
(310)-26-PEERS
peersclinic@ucla.edu
 PEERS® Lesson Format:
Adolescent In-Person Sessions

1. Homework review (30 min)

§ Troubleshoot homework problems Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Individualize treatment
2. Didactic instruction (30 min)
§ Concrete rules / steps for social
etiquette
§ Role-play / modeling
3. Socialization activity (20 min)
§ Behavioral rehearsal
§ Performance feedback through
coaching
4. Reunification with parents (10 min)
§ Assign and negotiate homework
 PEERS® Lesson Format:
Adolescent Telehealth Sessions

1. Homework review (15 min) *

§ Troubleshoot homework problems
§ Individualize treatment
2. Didactic instruction (30 min)
§ Concrete rules / steps for social etiquette
§ Role-play / modeling
3. Socialization activity (20 min)
§ Behavioral rehearsal
§ Performance feedback through coaching
4. Reunification with parents (10 min)
§ Assign and negotiate homework
§ Individual checkout in breakout rooms (5
min) *
* Different from in-person groups
 PEERS® Lesson Format:
Parent In-Person Sessions

1. Homework review (50-60 min)

§ Troubleshoot homework problems
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Individualize treatment
2. Review of didactic lesson and
homework assignments (20-30
min)
§ Parent handout is distributed
§ Troubleshoot potential homework
problems
3. Reunification with adolescents
(10 min)
§ Assign and negotiate homework
 PEERS® Lesson Format:
Parent Telehealth Sessions

1. Homework review (45 min) *

§ Troubleshoot homework problems
§ Individualize treatment
2. Review of didactic lesson and
homework assignments (30 min)
§ Parent handout is distributed
§ Troubleshoot potential homework
problems
3. Reunification with adolescents
(10 min)
§ Assign and negotiate homework
§ Individual checkouts in breakout rooms
(5 mins) *
* Different from in-person groups
Daily Lesson Format: School Setting
Mondays Thursdays & Fridays
• Homework Review
• Didactic Summary
• Teen Activity
Tuesdays
• Homework Assignment
• Didactic Lesson
• Role Play

Wednesdays
• Lesson Review
• Role Play
• Behavioral Rehearsal
• Homework Assignment
• Distribute parent handout
PEERS® Research Evidence
within the United States
PEERS® Research Evidence
Outside of the United States
 Randomized Controlled Trial:
PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD
(Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)

Random
Assignment
N=33

Pre-Testing
(T1)

Treatment Waitlist
n=17 n=16

Post-Testing
(T2)
 Demographics
(Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)

Treatment Waitlist
(n=17) (n=16)
Age M = 14.75 M = 14.40

Gender Male = 13 Male = 14

Female = 4 Female = 2
Ethnicity White = 6 White = 9
African American = 3 African American = 0
Asian = 2 Asian = 2
Hispanic/Latino = 3 Hispanic/Latino = 2
Middle Eastern = 2 Middle Eastern = 1
Other = 1 Other = 2
School Placement General = 8 General = 9
SPED = 5 SPED = 4
Other = 4 Other = 3
 Randomized Controlled Trial:
PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD
(Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)

SSRS-P
Social Skills (Standard Scores)
p < 0.05

Improvement in Social Skills

12

Mean Change in Scores

10
8
Treatment
6
Waitlist
4
2
0
Condition
 Randomized Controlled Trial:
PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD
(Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)

TASSK FQS
Social Skills Knowledge Friendship Quality
p < 0.01 p < 0.05
Teen Social Skills Knowledge Friendship Quality

0.5
7
Mean Change in Scores

Mean Change in Scores

0
5
-0.5
4 Treatment Treatment
3 Waitlist -1
Waitlist

2
1 -1.5

0
-2
Condition Condition
 Randomized Controlled Trial:
PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD
(Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)

QSQ SSRS-T
Hosted Get-togethers Social Skills (Standard Scores)
p < 0.05 p = 0.07 (trend)

Hosted Get-togethers Improvement in Social Skills

2.5
12

Mean Change in Scores

Mean Change in Scores

2 10

1.5
8
Treatment Treatment
Waitlist
6
1 Waitlist
4
0.5 2
0 0
Condition Condition
 Second Clinical Trial:
PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD
(Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012)

N=28

Treatment Group Waitlist Group

n=14 n=14

14 week Wait
intervention 14 weeks

14 week 14 week
follow-up intervention
 Baseline Demographics
(Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012)

Treatment Waitlist
(n=14) (n=14)

Age M = 14.3 M = 15.0

Grade M = 8.8 M = 9.4
Percent Male M = 85.7 M = 78.6
Percent Caucasian M = 57.1 M = 42.9
Percent Mainstreamed M = 64.3 M = 50.0
KBIT-2 IQ Composite M = 94.1 M = 104.5
VABS-2 Composite M = 72.0 M = 75.4
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Parent-Assisted for Teens with ASD
(Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012)
Improv e me nt in Social Skills

12
Mean Change in Scores

10

8
Treatm ent
6
Waitlis t
4

0
Condition

Improvement in Social Responsiveness (Total)

14
Mean Change in Scores

12
10
8 Treatment
6 Waitlist
4
2
0
Condition

Hosted Get-togethers

5
Mean Change in Scores

3
Treatm ent

2 Waitlis t

0
Condition
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Parent-Assisted for Teens with ASD
14-week Follow-up
(Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012)

Social Skills Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.01) Social Responsiveness Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.01)

95
85

Mean Scores
90 80
Mean Scores

85 75
Treatment Group Treatment Group
80 70
65
75
60
70
T1 T2 T3
T1 T2 T3
Testing Tim e Testing Time

Hosted Get-Togethers - Adolescent Report

T1-T3 (p < 0.05)

5
4
Mean Scores

3
Treatment Group
2
1
0
T1 T2 T3
Testing Tim e
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Parent-Assisted for Teens with ASD
New Findings at 14-week Follow-up
(Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012)

Parent Report Teacher Report

Problem Behaviors Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.01) * Social SKills Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.03) *

116 110
114
105

M e an Scor es
Mean Scores

112
100
110
Treatment Group 95 Treatment Group
108
106 90
104 85
102 80
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Testing Time Testing Time
School Based PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
School Based PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)

N = 73

PEERS® Treatment Group Active Treatment Control Group

n = 40 n = 33

Pre-test Pre-test

Post-test Post-test
 Active Treatment Control Group
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)

§ Super Skills
– Fundamental skills:
• Eye contact
• Voice volume
– Social initiation skills:
• Starting a conversation
– Getting along with others:
• Acknowledging others and
following directions
– Social response skills:
• Reciprocity
(Coucouvanis, 2005)
 Baseline Demographics
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
School-Based Curriculum for Teens with ASD
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)

(p < .01)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
School-Based Curriculum for Teens with ASD
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)

Improvement in Social Motivation

5
Mean Change in Scores

4
3 (p < .03) (p < .03)
PEERS
2 Super Skills
1
0
-1
Condition

Improvement in Social Awareness Decrease in Autistic Mannerisms

4 4
Mean Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores

3 3
2 2 (p < .02)
(p < .03) PEERS 1 PEERS
1 Super Skills 0 Super Skills
0 -1
-1 -2
-2 -3
Condition Condition
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
School-Based Curriculum for Teens with ASD
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)

Number of Hosted Get-togethers in Previous Month Number of Invited Get-togethers in Previous Month

Mean Change in Scores

Mean Change in Scores

3 3
2 2
1 PEERS 1
(p < .02)
PEERS
0
-1 (p < .01)
Super Skills 0 Super Skills
-2 -1
-3 -2
-3
Condition Condition

Social Anxiety Adolescent Social Skills Knowledge

Mean Change in Scores

Mean Change in Scores

10 8
(p < .06, trend)
5 6 (p < .01)
PEERS PEERS
Super Skills 4 Super Skills
0 2
-5 0

Condition Condition
 Randomized Controlled Trial:
PEERS® for Young Adults with ASD
(Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012)

N = 17

Treatment Waitlist
Group Group
n=9 n=8

16 week Wait
intervention 16 weeks

16 week
intervention
Baseline Demographics
(Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD
(Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012)
Improvement in Overall Social Skills
(p < .01)
10
Mean Change in Scores

5
Treatmen t
0 Waitlist

-5

-10
Condition

Improvement in Social Responsiveness (Total)

(p < .04)
20
Mean Change in Scores

15
10
Treatmen t
5 Waitlist
0
-5
-10
Condition

Improvement in Empathy
(p < .04)
10
Mean Change in Scores

5 Treatment
Waitlist
0
-5
Condition
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD
(Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012)

Frequency of Hosted Get-Togethers Frequency of Invited Get-Togethers

(p < .05) (p < .03)
1.5 1
Mean Change in Scores

Mean Change in Scores

1 Treatment
0.5 Treatment
Waitlist Waitlist
0.5 0
0 -0.5
Condition Condition

Decrease in Loneliness
Social Skills Knowledge
(p < .05) (p < .01)
10 Me an Change in Scores 8
Mean Change in Scores

5 6
0 Treatment Treatment
4
-5 Waitlist Waitlist
-10 2
-15 0
Condition Condition
Second Randomized Controlled Trial with
Young Adults with ASD
(Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
Second Randomized Controlled Trial with Young Adults with ASD
(Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)

!
 Baseline Demographics
(Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD
(Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD
(Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD
(Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD
(Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)

• Data was collected 1-5 years post-treatment

– T1 – Pre-test
– T2 – Post-test
– T3 – 1-5 year follow-up

• 53 of 82 potential subjects
– 64% response rate
• No significant differences between
participants and non-participants at baseline
• Mean age at follow-up:
– 17.5 years old
– 11.4 grade level
• Mean time to follow-up:
– 29 months
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
 PEERS® Research Snapshot:
Long-term Follow-up Study
(Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
Cross Cultural Validation and
Replication of PEERS®
 UCLA
PEERS®
for Careers
Research Study
• College to career
transition program
• 20-week program
for college students
with ASD

THURSDAYS
5:00 – 7:30 PM
 UCLA
PEERS®
for Dating
Research Study

• 16-week program
• Dating skills for
young adults with
ASD

TUESDAYS
5:30 – 7:00 PM
 UCLA
PEERS®
L-Dopa
Research
Study

Return Start Date:

February 2021
 Proposed Future Research
• PEERS with Peers
– Peer mediated intervention for
teens with ASD
• PEERS for Teens with
Intellectual Disabilities
– Parent-assisted intervention for
teens with IQ < 70
• PEERS for Parenting
– Parenting classes
• PEERS for Independence
– Life skills training
• Camp PEERS
– Two-week topical camps for teens:
• Conversational skills
• Friendship
• Handling bullying
• PEERS Boot Camps
– Two-day topical boot camps for
families
 PEERS® Boot Camps at UCLA
CLA PEE CLINIC

BOOT CAMPS ARE HELD AT THE UCLA SEMEL INSTITUTE FOR

NEUROSCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN LOS ANGELES

BOO CAMP ARE HELD A HE CLA EMEL IN I E FOR

NE RO CIENCE AND H MAN BEHA IOR IN LO ANGELE PRESENTER:
DR. ELIZABETH LAUGESON

T ic C e ed
Sa i ga de ei gc e ai
Mai ai i g eci cal c e ai

SAT S N
T adi g i f ai

Parents
A ia e c e ai ic
E ii gc e ai
Parents
DATE TBD
A ia e e f h
Elec ic c ica i

Attend for attend for

To ic Co e ed
FREE! * FREE!*
Parents
. emel. cla.ed /pee Attend for
* Plea e no e no ce ifica ion i p o ided *
FREE!*

*Offe onl alid fo a en accom an ing hei child o o ng ad l .

*Offe onl alid fo pa en accompan ing hei een o o ng ad l

• Two-day intensive topical boot • Offered 4 times per year at UCLA

camps: around the topics of:
– Saturday 9 AM – 3PM – Dating
– Sunday 9 AM – 3 PM – Friendship
– Handling Bullying
– Conversational Skills
UCLA PEERS® Virtual Boot Camp

• 35 episodes
• Covers ALL the skills
taught in PEERS®
• Go at your own pace
• Available on the UCLA
PEERS YouTube
Channel
• Access never expires
 UCLA PEERS® Clinical Programs

Adolescent Groups

• Middle and high school

• Wednesdays 4:30 – 6:00 PM
• Wednesdays 6:30 – 8:00 PM
– Autism Spectrum Disorder,
ADHD, depression, anxiety,
and other social challenges
UCLA PEERS®
Adolescent
Telehealth
Groups

WEDNESDAYS
4:30–6:00 PM PST
6:30–8:00 PM PST
 UCLA PEERS® Clinical Programs

Young Adult Groups

• Mondays 4:30 – 6:00 PM

• Mondays 6:30 – 8:00 PM
– 18-35 years of age
– Autism Spectrum Disorder,
ADHD, anxiety, depression,
and other social challenges
UCLA PEERS®
Young Adult
Telehealth
Groups

MONDAYS
4:30–6:00 PM PST
6:30–8:00 PM PST
 UCLA
PEERS®
Educational
Classes
• 16-week program
• Teen group and young
adult group
• Available for participants
across the globe

TUESDAYS
4:30 – 6:00 PM PST
6:30 – 8:00 PM PST
 UCLA PEERS® Clinical Programs

Preschool Groups

• Tuesdays 3:30 – 5:00 PM

– Children 4-6 years of age

– Autism Spectrum Disorder,

ADHD, and other social
challenges
– Return: TBD
 www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/
peersclinic@ucla.edu
310-26-PEERS
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram:
UCLA PEERS
 Conversational Topics

QUESTION:

What do people
talk about with
their friends?
Common Conversational Topics

(Laugeson 2017)
 Conversational Skills

QUESTION:

What are the

rules for
having a good
conversation?
 PEERS® Rules for
Trading Information
§ Ask the other person
questions
§ Answer your own questions
§ Find common interests
§ Common interests are the
foundation of friendships
§ Share the conversation
§ Ask follow-up questions
§ Ask open-ended questions
 PEERS® Rules for
Trading Information

§ Don’t be repetitive
§ Listen to your friend
§ Don’t be brutally
honest
§ Don’t interrupt

(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;

Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
 Trading Information and
Maintaining Conversations

QUESTION:

What are some social

errors made during
conversations?
 Review of PEERS® Rules for
Trading Information
• Don’t be a conversation hog
• Don’t be an interviewer
• Don’t police
• Don’t tease
• Don’t get too personal at first
• Avoid risky topics:
– Politics
– Religion
– Sex (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
– Money
 Review of PEERS® Rules for
Trading Information
§ Don’t brag
§ Don’t be argumentative
§ Use good volume control
§ Not too loud
§ Not too quiet
§ Use good body boundaries
§ Not too close
§ Not too far
§ Use good eye contact
§ Not too little (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
§ Not too much (staring)
Starting and Entering Conversations

QUESTION

What are most

people told to do to
meet new people?
 Assessing Interest During
In-Person Conversations

QUESTION

How can you tell

when you’re accepted
into a conversation
in-person?
 Assessing Interest During
In-Person Conversations
§ Eye contact:
§ Are they looking at you?
§ GOOD: Smiling, nodding, making
eye contact
§ BAD: Look confused, making
faces, rolling eyes, no eye contact

§ Body language:
§ Are they facing you?
§ GOOD: OPEN the circle, turn
toward you
§ BAD: CLOSE the circle, give the
cold shoulder, turn away

§ Verbal signs:
§ Are they talking to you?
§ GOOD: Talking nicely, asking you (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
questions Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
§ BAD: Giving short answers, not
asking you questions
 Starting In-Person
Individual Conversations
(Bad Role Play)
QUESTIONS:

What are most people

told to do to start
individual conversations
in-person?

What are some social

errors people make to Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
start individual
conversations in-person?
 PEERS® Steps for Starting
In-Person Individual Conversations
(Good Role Play)
1. Casually look over
2. Use a prop
3. Find a common interest
4. Mention the common
interest
– Make a comment
– Ask a question
– Give a compliment
5. Trade information
6. Assess interest
– Are they looking at you?
– Are they facing you? Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
– Are they talking to you?
7. Introduce yourself (optional)
Starting Individual Conversations Online
(Bad Role Play)

QUESTIONS

How do you start

an individual
conversation
online?

What are some

social errors for
starting
individual
conversations
online?
 PEERS® Modified Steps for Starting
Individual Conversations Online
(Good Role Play)

1. Casually look over

2. Find a common interest
3. Mention the common
interest
4. Trade information
5. Assess interest
– Are they attending to
you?
– Are they talking to
you?
6. Introduce yourself
(optional)
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Entering In-Person Group Conversations
(Bad Role Play)

QUESTIONS

How do you enter

group
conversations in-
person?

What are some

social errors for
entering group Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
conversations in-
person?
 PEERS® Steps for
Entering In-Person Group Conversations
(Good Role Play)
1. Listen to the conversation
2. Watch from a distance
3. Use a prop
4. Identify the topic
5. Find a common interest
6. Move closer
7. Wait for a pause
8. Mention the topic
– Make a comment
– Ask a question
– Give a compliment
9. Assess interest
– Are they looking at you?
– Are they facing you? Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
– Are they talking to you?
10. Introduce yourself (optional)
 PEERS® Simplified Steps for
Entering In-Person Group Conversations

1. Watch and listen

– Use a prop
– Identify the topic
– Find a common interest
2. Move closer
3. Wait for a pause
4. Mention the topic
5. Introduce yourself
(optional) (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Entering Group Conversations Online
(Bad Role Play)

QUESTIONS

How do you
enter group
conversations
online?

What are some

social errors for
entering group
conversations
online?
 PEERS® Modified Steps for
Entering Group Conversations Online
(Good Role Play)
1. Watch and listen
– Identify the topic
– Find a common
interest
2. Wait for a pause
3. Mention the topic
4. Assess interest
– Are they attending
to you?
– Are they talking
to you?
5. Introduce yourself
(optional) (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
 Defining Bullying

• Subtype of aggression
• Negative actions directed
at a person or groups of
people that are either:
– Repetitive

– Chronic

– Characterized by power
(Olweus,1973,1993; Rose et al., 2009; Dinkes et al., 2006; Poteat &
imbalance Espelage, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003;
Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Schwartz, 2010; Perry et al., 2001;
Doren et al., 1996; Little, 2001, 2002; Montes & Halterman, 2007;
van Roekel et al., 2010; Whitney et al., 1992, Martlew & Hodson,
1991; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989)
 Types of Bullying
• Verbal
– Teasing in person
– Name calling in person
• Physical
– Hitting
– Kicking
– Pushing
– Tripping
– Stealing
– Pranking
• Relational / Social (Olweus,1973,1993; Rose et al., 2009; Dinkes et al., 2006;
Poteat & Espelage, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001;
– Rumors and gossip Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hawker & Boulton, 2000;
Schwartz, 2010; Perry et al., 2001; Doren et al., 1996;
Little, 2001, 2002; Montes & Halterman, 2007; van
• Electronic Roekel et al., 2010; Whitney et al., 1992, Martlew &
Hodson, 1991; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989)
– Cyber bullying
 Teasing
QUESTIONS:

What are most young people

told to do in response to
teasing?

Do those strategies usually

work?

What does the teaser want

you to do?
 PEERS® Rules for Handling Teasing

§ Do not walk away, ignore the person, or tell an adult

§ Don’t show you’re upset or tease back
§ Act like what the person said did not bother you
§ Provide a SHORT COMEBACK that shows what the person said was
lame:
§ Whatever!
§ Anyway…
§ So what?
§ Big deal! * Not everyone can do this
§ Who cares?
§ Yeah and?
§ And your point is?
§ Am I supposed to care?
§ Is that supposed to be funny?
§ (Shrug shoulders) *
§ (Roll eyes)* (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
§ Then walk away or remove yourself
 PEERS® Rules for Handling Teasing

§ Be prepared with a few

comebacks
§ Comebacks need to make sense
§ Comebacks also work with
friendly banter
§ Males and females use the same
comebacks
§ Different ways of using
comebacks:
§ Have an attitude
§ Sound bored (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
 PEERS® Rules for Handling Teasing

§ The teaser may try harder

at first
§ Expect the teaser to try
again in the future
§ Don’t use teasing
comebacks with physically
aggressive bullies
§ Don’t use comebacks with
people in authority
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
 Handling Teasing
(Good Example: Having an Attitude)

Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources

 Handling Teasing
(Good Example: Sounding Bored)

Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources

 Embarrassing Feedback

QUESTIONS:

What are some of the

things that young people
get teased about?

What could we do
differently if we didn’t
want to be teased about
these things?
Responding to Embarrassing Feedback

(Laugeson 2017)
 Handling Disagreements

QUESTIONS:

Do people get into

disagreements with their
friends?

Do disagreements have
to end your friendship if
they’re not too frequent
and not too explosive?
 Responding to Disagreements

QUESTIONS:

How should you

RESPOND to a
disagreement if your
friend or partner is
upset?

What would be the

WRONG way to
RESPOND to a
disagreement?
 PEERS® Steps for
Responding to Disagreements

1. Keep your cool

2. Listen to the other person
3. Repeat what they said
• “It sounds like you’re upset.”
4. Explain your side using “I”
statements
5. Say you’re sorry
• “I’m sorry you’re upset.”
• “I’m sorry this happened.”
6. Try to solve the problem
• Tell them what you’ll do differently (Laugeson & Frankel 2010;
• Ask them what they want you to do Laugeson 2013;
• Suggest what you want them to do Laugeson 2014;
Laugeson 2017)
 PEERS® Rules for
Responding to Disagreements
• Additional rules for
responding to
disagreements:

§ Keep your cool if you

can’t solve the problem

§ Agree to disagree

§ Make sure to follow

ALL the steps (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
 Bringing up Disagreements

QUESTIONS:

How do you BRING UP a

disagreement?

What would be the WRONG

way to BRING UP a
disagreement?
 PEERS® Steps for
Bringing Up Disagreements
1. Wait for the right time and place
2. Keep your cool
3. Ask to speak privately
4. Explain your side using “I”
statements
5. Listen to the other person
6. Repeat what they said
7. Tell them what you need them to do
8. Try to solve the problem
• Tell them what you’ll do differently
• Ask them what they want you to do (Laugeson & Frankel 2010;
• Suggest what you want them to do Laugeson 2013;
Laugeson 2014;
Laugeson 2017)
 PEERS® Rules for
Bringing Up Disagreements

• Additional rules for bringing

up disagreements:

§ Keep your cool if you

can’t solve the problem

§ Agree to disagree

§ Remember that (Laugeson & Frankel 2010;

Laugeson 2013;
friendship is a choice Laugeson 2014;
Laugeson 2017)
 PEERS® for Young Adults
Teleconferences for Professionals
• Certified Teleconferences at UCLA:
– April 19-21, 2021

• 16-week curriculum
• Weekly 90-minute young adult sessions and
caregiver sessions
• Social coaching handouts
• Addresses core deficits for ASD
• Focuses on friendship and relationships skills
and handling peer rejection and conflict
• Teaches ecologically valid social skills
 PEERS® for Adolescents
Teleconferences for Professionals
• Certified Teleconferences at
UCLA:
– February 3-5, 2021

• 14-week curriculum
• Weekly 90-minute teen
sessions and parent sessions
• Parent handouts
• Addresses core deficits for
ASD
• Focuses on friendship skills and
handling peer rejection and
conflict
• Teaches ecologically valid
social skills
 PEERS® for Adolescents
School-Based Certified Training

• Certified Trainings at UCLA

– June 23-25, 2021

• Teacher-facilitated curriculum
• 16-week program
• Daily lesson plans
• Focuses on friendship skills and
strategies for handling peer
rejection and conflict
• Includes weekly comprehensive
parent handouts
 The Science of Making Friends:
Helping Socially Challenged Teens and Young Adults
(Laugeson, 2013)

• Parent book
• Friendship skills
• Handling peer rejection
and conflict
• Parent section
– Narrative lessons
– Social coaching tips
• Chapter summaries for
teens and young adults
• Chapter exercises /
homework
• Companion DVD
– Role-play videos
• Mobile App: FriendMaker
– Virtual social coach
 Role-Play Video Library

www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
www.routledge.com/cw/laugeson
 www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/
peersclinic@ucla.edu
310-26-PEERS
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram:
UCLA PEERS