pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07531 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.HC

PRISM: Evaluating a Rule-Based, Scenario-Driven Social Media Privacy Education Program for Young Autistic Adults

Kirsten Chapman , Garrett Smith , Kaitlyn Klabacka , Joseph Thomas Bills , Addisyn Bushman , Terisa Gabrielsen , Pamela J Wisniewski , Xinru Page This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.HC
keywords social media privacyautismeducational interventionprivacy literacyscenario-based learningrule-based approachesneurodiversity
0
0 comments X

The pith

A scenario-based privacy education program using rules and context produced statistically significant gains in safer social media decisions for young autistic adults.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops PRISM, a 14-week classroom intervention that replaces all-or-nothing privacy rules with nuanced, scenario-driven guidance tailored to how autistic young adults perceive social media affordances. Twenty-nine participants with level-2 support needs completed pre- and post-assessments across six topics, showing measurable improvement in privacy decision-making. A sympathetic reader would care because social media brings both benefits and disproportionate privacy harms to this group, and current education approaches do not address their specific patterns of rule-based thinking.

Core claim

The PRISM intervention, which delivers privacy literacy through contextual rule-based scenarios instead of absolute avoidance, produced a statistically significant increase in participants' knowledge of safer social media privacy practices as measured by pre- and post-assessments for each of the six course topics.

What carries the argument

The PRISM program itself, a classroom-based curriculum that uses scenario-driven formats and contextual rules to teach nuanced privacy management adapted to autistic neurodevelopmental differences and risks.

If this is right

  • Privacy educators can shift from generic literacy materials to neuro-affirming, rule-leveraging scenarios that accommodate all-or-nothing thinking.
  • Technology designers can embed contextual prompts or scenario examples into platforms to support safer decisions for users who process rules differently.
  • Autistic social media users may sustain platform benefits while reducing unintentional privacy harms if they receive guidance that builds on rather than overrides their existing rule-based strategies.
  • The same scenario-and-rule format could be adapted to teach other digital safety topics such as online interactions or content sharing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the approach generalizes, it could reduce privacy harms without requiring autistic users to disengage from social media entirely.
  • The work suggests that rule-based cognition common in autism can be an asset for privacy education when scenarios supply the missing nuance.
  • Long-term follow-up measuring real platform behavior would clarify whether classroom gains persist outside the educational setting.

Load-bearing premise

That gains on written knowledge assessments reflect real-world changes in privacy behavior and that those gains are caused by the PRISM classes rather than other factors.

What would settle it

A controlled study that tracks participants' actual social media posts, friend requests, and privacy settings before and after the program, or that includes a matched group receiving no intervention, would show whether the measured improvements appear in daily use.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07531 by Addisyn Bushman, Garrett Smith, Joseph Thomas Bills, Kaitlyn Klabacka, Kirsten Chapman, Pamela J Wisniewski, Terisa Gabrielsen, Xinru Page.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of Rule-Based Educational Slide. There were 5 rules that students were taught. 2 of the criteria are shown on the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Modules and the Challenges they Each Address [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example of the pre and post assessment questions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Blue Checkmark A. Personal account B. Alternate personal account (finsta) C. Business account D. Verified celebrity or influencer account E. Topic/interest account 3. Your cousin created a second Instagram account just for their closest friends to follow. What type of account is this? A. Personal account B. Alternate personal account (finsta) C. Business account D. Verified celebrity or influencer account … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Young autistic adults may garner benefits through social media but also disproportionately experience privacy harms. Prior research found that these harms often stem from perceiving the affordances of social media differently than the general population, leading to unintentional risky behaviors and interactions with others. While educational interventions have been shown to increase social media privacy literacy for the general population, research has yet to focus on effective educational interventions for autistic young adults. We address this gap by developing and deploying Privacy Rules for Inclusive Social Media (PRISM), a classroom-based educational intervention tailored to the unique risks and neurodevelopmental differences of this population. Twenty-nine autistic students with substantial (level 2) support needs participated in a 14-week social media privacy literacy class. During these classes, participants often communicated their existing rule-based "all or nothing" approaches to privacy management (such as completely disengaging from social media to avoid privacy issues). Our course focused on empowering them by providing more nuanced guidance on safe privacy practices through the use of scenario-based formats and contextual, rule-based scenarios. Using pre- and post-knowledge assessments for each of our 6 course topics, our intervention led to a statistically significant increase in their making safer social media privacy decisions. We conclude with recommendations for how privacy educators and technology designers can leverage neuro-affirming educational interventions to increase privacy literacy for autistic social media users.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents PRISM, a 14-week classroom-based, rule-based and scenario-driven educational intervention designed to improve social media privacy literacy for 29 young autistic adults with level-2 support needs. It claims that pre- and post-knowledge assessments across six course topics showed a statistically significant increase in safer privacy decision-making, and offers recommendations for privacy educators and technology designers.

Significance. If the causal claim can be substantiated with a stronger design, the work would address an important gap in neuro-affirming privacy education for autistic social-media users whose rule-based thinking styles are often mismatched with typical affordance-based guidance. The scenario-driven format is a plausible active ingredient, but the current pre-post evidence does not yet support strong conclusions about effectiveness or generalizability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods / Results] The evaluation uses a single-group pre-post design with no control or comparison arm (Methods and Results sections). This prevents attribution of observed score gains to the PRISM intervention rather than maturation, repeated testing, demand characteristics, or external events over the 14-week period, directly undermining the central claim of intervention effectiveness.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the intervention 'led to a statistically significant increase' but supplies no details on the statistical tests performed, exact p-values, effect sizes, degrees of freedom, or adjustments for multiple comparisons across the six topics. Without this information the reported significance cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Evaluation] The pre- and post-knowledge assessments are treated as valid proxies for real-world safer privacy behaviors, yet no validation data, behavioral measures, or manipulation checks are reported to support this assumption (Evaluation section).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Intervention Description] Clarify the exact content of the six course topics and how the scenario-based rules were operationalized in the assessments.
  2. [Participants] Provide demographic and baseline characteristics of the 29 participants (age range, gender, prior social-media use, support needs) to allow assessment of sample representativeness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns about causal attribution, statistical reporting, and the interpretation of assessment results. Our responses to each major comment are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Results] The evaluation uses a single-group pre-post design with no control or comparison arm (Methods and Results sections). This prevents attribution of observed score gains to the PRISM intervention rather than maturation, repeated testing, demand characteristics, or external events over the 14-week period, directly undermining the central claim of intervention effectiveness.

    Authors: We agree that the single-group pre-post design limits strong causal inferences. In the revised manuscript we have added an expanded Limitations subsection that explicitly discusses maturation, repeated testing, demand characteristics, and external events as alternative explanations. We have also revised the abstract, introduction, and conclusions to replace causal phrasing (e.g., “led to”) with associative language (“was associated with” or “followed”). A randomized controlled design was not feasible for this initial study given recruitment and ethical constraints with young autistic adults who have level-2 support needs; we now explicitly recommend controlled trials in future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states that the intervention 'led to a statistically significant increase' but supplies no details on the statistical tests performed, exact p-values, effect sizes, degrees of freedom, or adjustments for multiple comparisons across the six topics. Without this information the reported significance cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We have revised the abstract to include the requested statistical information. The updated abstract now states that paired t-tests (or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for non-normal data) were used for each of the six topics, reports exact p-values after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, provides effect sizes (Cohen’s d), and notes the degrees of freedom. These details have also been added to the Results section. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Evaluation] The pre- and post-knowledge assessments are treated as valid proxies for real-world safer privacy behaviors, yet no validation data, behavioral measures, or manipulation checks are reported to support this assumption (Evaluation section).

    Authors: We acknowledge that knowledge assessments are an indirect proxy for behavior. The revised manuscript now includes additional text in the Evaluation and Discussion sections that (1) states this limitation explicitly, (2) explains the rationale for using scenario-based items designed to approximate decision-making, and (3) cites prior educational research linking privacy knowledge gains to subsequent behavior change. We did not collect direct behavioral data or manipulation checks because of ethical and logistical constraints around monitoring participants’ actual social-media use. We have added concrete recommendations for future studies to incorporate behavioral measures. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical pre-post evaluation

full rationale

This is an empirical intervention study reporting pre- and post-knowledge assessment results across six topics for 29 participants. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles claims appear in the provided text. The central finding—that scores increased significantly—is presented as a direct statistical observation from the data collected, without any reduction to prior inputs by construction, self-citation chains, or ansatz smuggling. The design is self-contained against external benchmarks for the purpose of circularity analysis, even though other methodological limitations (e.g., absence of control group) exist outside the scope of this check.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about autistic cognition and privacy behavior drawn from prior research, plus the untested premise that the tailored scenario-based format produces lasting behavioral change. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Autistic young adults perceive social media affordances differently than the general population, leading to unintentional privacy risks.
    Explicitly stated as background from prior research in the abstract.
  • ad hoc to paper A rule-based, scenario-driven classroom intervention can produce measurable improvements in privacy decision-making for this population.
    Core design assumption of the PRISM program itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5570 in / 1385 out tokens · 70455 ms · 2026-05-10T16:55:00.388090+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

220 extracted references · 220 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    American Psychiatric Association

    2013.Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(5 ed.). American Psychiatric Association

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

    2024. https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Alessandro Acquisti and Ralph Gross. 2006. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. InInternational workshop on privacy enhancing technologies. Springer, 36–58

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Diane Adreon and Jennifer Stella Durocher. 2007. Evaluating the college transition needs of individuals with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders.Intervention in school and clinic42, 5 (2007), 271–279

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Wisniewski

    Mamtaj Akter, Jinkyung Katie Park, Campbell Headrick, Xinru Page, and Pamela J. Wisniewski. 2025. Calculating Connection vs. Risk: Understanding How Youth Negotiate Digital Privacy and Security with Peers Online.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, CSCW1 (2025), Manuscript submitted to ACM PRISM: Evaluating a Rule-Based, Scenario-Driven ...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22993 2025

  6. [6]

    Tayyaba Gul Malik Rabail Alam. 2019. Comparative analysis between pre-test/post-test model and post-test-only model in achieving the learning outcomes.Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology35, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Heba Aly, Yizhou Liu, Reza Ghaiumy Anaraky, Sushmita Khan, Moses Namara, Kaileigh Angela Byrne, and Bart Knijnenburg. 2024. Tailoring Digital Privacy Education Interventions for Older Adults: A Comparative Study on Modality Preferences and Effectiveness.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies(2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Muh Fajrin Arifa, Nurul Wahdah, Trisonia Fitria, Roudhotul Fitria, and Jumadi Jumadi. 2023. PBL-Based PhET Simulations e-Worksheet: Improvement Students’ Communication Skill on Global Warming in Merdeka Curriculum. InProceedings of the 2023 5th World Symposium on Software Engineering. 172–177

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Matthew Armstrong, Cade Dopp, and Jesse Welsh. 2020. Design-based research. (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Jakki O Bailey, Xinyue You, Andrea Stevenson Won, Sun Joo Ahn, and Blair MacIntyre. 2025. Students’ Privacy and Ethical Concerns of Using Social Virtual Worlds for Online Learning.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 7 (2025), 1–22

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Simon Baron-Cohen, Emma Ashwin, Chris Ashwin, Teresa Tavassoli, and Bhismadev Chakrabarti. 2009. Talent in autism: hyper-systemizing, hyper-attention to detail and sensory hypersensitivity.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences364, 1522 (2009), 1377–1383

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Simon Baron-Cohen and Michael V Lombardo. 2017. Autism and talent: the cognitive and neural basis of systemizing.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience19, 4 (2017), 345–353

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    My Perfect Platform Would Be Telepathy

    Belén Barros Pena, Nelya Koteyko, Martine Van Driel, Andrea Delgado, and John Vines. 2023. " My Perfect Platform Would Be Telepathy"- Reimagining the Design of Social Media with Autistic Adults. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Susanne Bejerot, Jonna M Eriksson, and Ewa Mörtberg. 2014. Social anxiety in adult autism spectrum disorder.Psychiatry research220, 1-2 (2014), 705–707

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Scott Bellini. 2006. The development of social anxiety in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders.Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities21, 3 (2006), 138–145

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    Scott Bellini and Luke L McConnell. 2010. Strength-based educational programming for students with autism spectrum disorders: A case for video self-modeling.Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth54, 4 (2010), 220–227

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Jenny Berkholz, Aniqa Rahman, and Gunnar Stevens. 2025. Playing with Privacy: Exploring the Social Construction of Privacy Norms Through a Card Game.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 1 (2025), 1–23

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Jens Binder, Andrew Howes, and Alistair Sutcliffe. 2009. The problem of conflicting social spheres: Effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 965–974

    work page 2009

  19. [19]

    Elana B Blinder, Marshini Chetty, Jessica Vitak, Zoe Torok, Salina Fessehazion, Jason Yip, Jerry Alan Fails, Elizabeth Bonsignore, and Tamara Clegg

    work page

  20. [20]

    Evaluating the use of hypothetical’would you rather’scenarios to discuss privacy and security concepts with children.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–32

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Judith Willemijn Borghouts, Gloria Mark, Alex C Williams, and Thomas Breideband. 2022. Motivated to work or working to stay motivated: A diary and interview study on working from home.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–26

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Rachel L Bradley and George H Noell. 2022. Rule-governed behavior: teaching social skills via rule-following to children with autism.Developmental neurorehabilitation25, 7 (2022), 433–443

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Mark Brosnan, Marcus Lewton, and Chris Ashwin. 2016. Reasoning on the autism spectrum: A dual process theory account.Journal of autism and developmental disorders46, 6 (2016), 2115–2125

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Barry Brown, Alexandra Weilenmann, Donald McMillan, and Airi Lampinen. 2016. Five provocations for ethical HCI research. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 852–863

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Heather M Brown, Janis Oram-Cardy, and Andrew Johnson. 2013. A meta-analysis of the reading comprehension skills of individuals on the autism spectrum.Journal of autism and developmental disorders43 (2013), 932–955

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    SM Brown and JM Bebko. 2012. Generalization, overselectivity, and discrimination in the autism phenotype: A review.Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders6, 2 (2012), 733–740

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Taina Bucher, Anne Helmond, et al. 2018. The affordances of social media platforms.The SAGE handbook of social media1 (2018), 233–254

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Moira Burke and Mike Develin. 2016. Once more with feeling: Supportive responses to social sharing on Facebook. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 1462–1474

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Moira Burke, Robert Kraut, and Cameron Marlow. 2011. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 571–580

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Moira Burke, Cameron Marlow, and Thomas Lento. 2010. Social network activity and social well-being. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1909–1912

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    Priscilla Burnham Riosa, Victoria Chan, Andrea Maughan, Victoria Stables, Carly Albaum, and Jonathan A Weiss. 2017. Remediating deficits or increasing strengths in autism spectrum disorder research: A content analysis.Advances in neurodevelopmental Disorders1 (2017), 113–121

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Ru Ying Cai and Amanda L Richdale. 2016. Educational experiences and needs of higher education students with autism spectrum disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders46 (2016), 31–41. Manuscript submitted to ACM 26 Chapman et al

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Louis John Camilleri, Katie Maras, and Mark Brosnan. 2025. Self-set goals: autistic adults facilitating their self-determination through digitally mediated social stories.Autism in Adulthood7, 1 (2025), 25–38

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Arlinda Cerga-Pashoja, Jorge Gaete, Antoneta Shishkova, and Vesna Jordanova. 2019. Improving reading in adolescents and adults with high- functioning autism through an assistive technology tool: a cross-over multinational study.Frontiers in psychiatry10 (2019), 546

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Irene Chaidi and Athanasios Drigas. 2020. Parents’ involvement in the education of their children with Autism: Related research and its results. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning (Ijet)15, 14 (2020), 194–203

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Yu-Lun Chen, Laura L Senande, Michael Thorsen, and Kristie Patten. 2021. Peer preferences and characteristics of same-group and cross-group social interactions among autistic and non-autistic adolescents.Autism25, 7 (2021), 1885–1900

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Mei-chun Cheung, Agnes S Chan, Sophia L Sze, Winnie W Leung, and Cho Yee To. 2010. Verbal memory deficits in relation to organization strategy in high-and low-functioning autistic children.Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders4, 4 (2010), 764–771

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    Michelene TH Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes.Educational psychologist 49, 4 (2014), 219–243

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Wan Chong Choi. 2022. The Influence of Code. org on Computational Thinking and Learning Attitude in Block-Based Programming Education. In Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on Education and E-Learning. 235–241

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Wan Chong Choi and Iek Chong Choi. 2024. The Influence of CodeCombat on Computational Thinking in Python Programming Learning at Primary School. InProceedings of the 2024 5th International Conference on Education Development and Studies. 26–32

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Sunny Consolvo, Ian E Smith, Tara Matthews, Anthony LaMarca, Jason Tabert, and Pauline Powledge. 2005. Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 81–90

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    Lisa A Croen, Ousseny Zerbo, Yinge Qian, Maria L Massolo, Steve Rich, Stephen Sidney, and Clarissa Kripke. 2015. The health status of adults on the autism spectrum.Autism19, 7 (2015), 814–823

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Gabriel Culbertson, Erik Andersen, Walker White, Daniel Zhang, and Malte Jung. 2016. Crystallize: An Immersive, Collaborative Game for Second Language Learning. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(San Francisco, California, USA)(CSCW ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/2818048.2820020 2016

  44. [44]

    Gabriel Culbertson, Solace Shen, Erik Andersen, and Malte Jung. 2017. Have your Cake and Eat it Too: Foreign Language Learning with a Crowdsourced Video Captioning System. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA)(CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998268 2017

  45. [45]

    Spring Cullen, Elizabeth S Johnson, Pamela J Wisniewski, and Xinru Page. 2024. Towards Digital Independence: Identifying the Tensions between Autistic Young Adults and Their Support Network When Mediating Social Media. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Maitraye Das, John Tang, Kathryn E Ringland, and Anne Marie Piper. 2021. Towards accessible remote work: Understanding work-from-home practices of neurodivergent professionals.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–30

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Dan Davis, Claudia Hauff, and Geert-Jan Houben. 2018. Evaluating crowdworkers as a proxy for online learners in video-based learning contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–16

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Ashley B de Marchena, Inge-Marie Eigsti, and Benjamin E Yerys. 2015. Brief report: Generalization weaknesses in verbally fluent children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders45, 10 (2015), 3370–3376

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    Jackie Dearden, Anne Emerson, Tom Lewis, and Rebecca Papp. 2017. Transforming engagement: a case study of building intrinsic motivation in a child with autism.British journal of special education44, 1 (2017), 8–25

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Bernhard Debatin, Jennette P Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn, and Brittany N Hughes. 2009. Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences.Journal of computer-mediated communication15, 1 (2009), 83–108

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    Vanessa P Dennen, Stacey A Rutledge, Lauren M Bagdy, Jerrica T Rowlett, Shannon Burnick, and Sarah Joyce. 2017. Context collapse and student social media networks: Where life and high school collide. InProceedings of the 8th international conference on social media & society. 1–5

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Pierre Desaunay, Anais R Briant, Dermot M Bowler, Melanie Ring, Priscille Gérardin, Jean-Marc Baleyte, Fabian Guénolé, Francis Eustache, Jean-Jacques Parienti, and Bérengère Guillery-Girard. 2020. Memory in autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychological Bulletin146, 5 (2020), 377

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Michael Ann DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2018. ’Too Gay for Facebook’ Presenting LGBTQ+ Identity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–23

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    William Easley, Amy Hurst, Helena M Mentis, and Foad Hamidi. 2023. Youths’ usage of an informal chatting tool in an after-school 3d print shop. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–20

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Matthew W Easterday, Daniel Rees Lewis, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2014. Design-based research process: Problems, phases, and applications. Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    Serge Egelman, Julia Bernd, Gerald Friedland, and Dan Garcia. 2016. The teaching privacy curriculum. InProceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education. 591–596

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    friends:

    Nicole B Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 2007. The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.Journal of computer-mediated communication12, 4 (2007), 1143–1168

    work page 2007

  58. [58]

    Nicole B Ellison and Jessica Vitak. 2015. Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes.The handbook of the psychology of communication technology(2015), 203–227. Manuscript submitted to ACM PRISM: Evaluating a Rule-Based, Scenario-Driven Social Media Privacy Education Program for Young Autistic Adults27

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    Nicole B Ellison, Jessica Vitak, Rebecca Gray, and Cliff Lampe. 2014. Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes.Journal of computer-mediated communication19, 4 (2014), 855–870

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Nicole B Ellison, Jessica Vitak, Charles Steinfield, Rebecca Gray, and Cliff Lampe. 2011. Negotiating privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment.Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web(2011), 19–32

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    Suzannah J Ferraioli and Sandra L Harris. 2011. Effective educational inclusion of students on the autism spectrum.Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy41 (2011), 19–28

    work page 2011

  62. [62]

    Veronica P Fleury, Susan Hedges, Kara Hume, Diane M Browder, Julie L Thompson, Kathy Fallin, Farah El Zein, Colleen Klein Reutebuch, and Sharon Vaughn. 2014. Addressing the academic needs of adolescents with autism spectrum disorder in secondary education.Remedial and Special Education35, 2 (2014), 68–79

    work page 2014

  63. [63]

    Karri Gillespie-Smith, Gillian Hendry, Nicole Anduuru, Tracey Laird, and Carrie Ballantyne. 2021. Using social media to be ‘social’: Perceptions of social media benefits and risk by autistic young people, and parents.Research in developmental disabilities118 (2021), 104081

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Elena L Glassman, Aaron Lin, Carrie J Cai, and Robert C Miller. 2016. Learnersourcing personalized hints. InProceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 1626–1636

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    Marie Gomot and Bruno Wicker. 2012. A challenging, unpredictable world for people with autism spectrum disorder.International Journal of Psychophysiology83, 2 (2012), 240–247

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    Carol Gray. 2021. Social stories™. InStorytelling, special needs and disabilities. Routledge, 152–158

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    Emine Gurbuz, Deborah M Riby, Mikle South, and Mary Hanley. 2024. Associations between autistic traits, depression, social anxiety and social rejection in autistic and non-autistic adults.Scientific Reports14, 1 (2024), 9065

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Francesca Happé and Uta Frith. 2006. The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders.Journal of Autism & developmental disorders36, 1 (2006)

    work page 2006

  69. [69]

    Caroline D Hardin and Jen Dalsen. 2020. Digital privacy detectives: an interactive game for classrooms. In2020 IEEE 44th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC). IEEE, 184–189

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Admaja Dwi Herlambang, Nastiti Wijayanti, and Prima Zulvarina. 2023. Project-Based Learning Implementation Effect Comparison on the Students’ Cognitive and Psychomotor Learning Outcomes at Indonesian Vocational High School Majoring in Information Technology. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Techn...

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    Tom Hitron, Yoav Orlev, Iddo Wald, Ariel Shamir, Hadas Erel, and Oren Zuckerman. 2019. Can Children Understand Machine Learning Concepts? The Effect of Uncovering Black Boxes. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. https:/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300645 2019

  72. [72]

    R Peter Hobson. 2012. Autism, literal language and concrete thinking: Some developmental considerations.Metaphor and Symbol27, 1 (2012), 4–21

    work page 2012

  73. [73]

    Stephanie C Holmes. 2024. Inclusion, autism spectrum, students’ experiences.International Journal of Developmental Disabilities70, 1 (2024), 59–73

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    Hwajung Hong, Jennifer G Kim, Gregory D Abowd, and Rosa I Arriaga. 2012. Designing a social network to support the independence of young adults with autism. InProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 627–636

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Xiaoshan Huang and Susanne P Lajoie. 2023. Social emotional interaction in collaborative learning: Why it matters and how can we measure it? Social Sciences & Humanities Open7, 1 (2023), 100447

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Finsta gets all my bad pictures

    Xiaoyun Huang and Jessica Vitak. 2022. " Finsta gets all my bad pictures": Instagram Users’ Self-Presentation Across Finsta and Rinsta Accounts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–25

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Rose Iovannone, Glen Dunlap, Heather Huber, and Don Kincaid. 2003. Effective educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities18, 3 (2003), 150–165

    work page 2003

  78. [78]

    Richard Jenkinson, Elizabeth Milne, and Andrew Thompson. 2020. The relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety in autism: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Autism24, 8 (2020), 1933–1944

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    Haiyan Jia, Pamela J Wisniewski, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M Carroll. 2015. Risk-taking as a learning process for shaping teen’s online information privacy behaviors. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 583–599

    work page 2015

  80. [80]

    Ronald C Kessler, Lenard Adler, Minnie Ames, Olga Demler, Steve Faraone, EVA Hiripi, Mary J Howes, Robert Jin, Kristina Secnik, Thomas Spencer, et al. 2005. The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological medicine35, 2 (2005), 245–256

    work page 2005

Showing first 80 references.