Following on from my last two Blogs (20 years later… and are we really any further on? (Jan 2, 2026) and Intensive Interaction research: What does ‘Google A.I.’ say? (Jan 18, 2026)), I thought that I would finish this series of Blogs by setting out what I think the current position is regarding the whole body of Intensive Interaction research.
Well, first off, we now have over 30 years of structured research into the observable outcomes of Intensive Interaction, with well over 30 outcome studies (yes, admittedly most single case or small-scale studies) of sufficient methodological quality to be published across a range of peer-reviewed research and academic journals.
So what have all these studies collectively told us?… I hear you ask.
Well, across these studies, we generally see a number of clearly identifiable, socially beneficial outcomes. These common outcomes evidence increased or novel socially interactive responsiveness on the part of the recipient participants, i.e. children or adults with communication or social difficulties and differences; with such recipient participants most often being people with learning difficulties and/or autism (although some studies have looked at the use of the approach with older adults with late-stage dementia, e.g. Harris & Wolverson, 2014).
So, below I have listed the most common observable and therefore directly measurable social communication outcomes found across the studies into Intensive Interaction, as compared to initial/baseline measures. These are:
- Increased social anticipation, initiation and/or engagement by the recipient
As evidenced in the following studies: Nind, 1996; Watson & Fisher, 1997; Kellett, 2000; Cameron & Bell, 2001; Kellett, 2003; Kellett, 2004; Forster & Taylor, 2006; Anderson, 2006; Barber, 2008; Samuel et al, 2008; Zeedyk et al, 2009a; Zeedyk et al, 2009b; Jones & Howley, 2010; Fraser, 2011; Argyropoulou & Papoudi, 2012; Harris & Wolverson, 2014; Rayner et al, 2014; Calveley, 2017; Karimi et al, 2019; McKim & Samuel, 2020; Mourière & Hewett, 2021; Glass et al, 2024. - Increased toleration of, or responsiveness to, physical proximity by the recipient
As evidenced in the following studies: Nind, 1996; Firth et al, 2008; Zeedyk et al, 2009a; Zeedyk et al, 2009b; Fraser, 2011; Harris & Wolverson, 2014; Calveley, 2017; Berridge & Hutchinson, 2021. - Increased levels of contingent smiling by the recipient
As evidenced in the studies: Nind, 1996; Lovell et al, 1998; Leaning & Watson, 2006; Barber, 2008; Zeedyk et al, 2009a; Argyropoulou & Papoudi, 2012; Calveley, 2017; McKim & Samuel, 2020. - Increased levels of eye contact (or looking at another’s face) by the recipient
As evidenced in the following studies: Watson & Knight, 1991; Nind, 1996; Lovell et al, 1998; Kellett, 2000; Kellett, 2004; Cameron & Bell, 2001; Kellett, 2003; Kellett, 2004; Kellett, 2005; Leaning & Watson, 2006; Forster & Taylor, 2006; Barber, 2008; Samuel et al, 2008; Zeedyk et al, 2009a; Zeedyk et al, 2009b; Fraser, 2011; Argyropoulou & Papoudi, 2012; Harris & Wolverson, 2014; Mourière & Scott-Roberts, 2017; McKim & Samuel, 2020; Berridge & Hutchinson, 2021; Mourière & Hewett, 2021. - Increased use of vocalisations by the recipient
As evidenced in the following studies: Watson & Knight, 1991; Lovell et al, 1998; Kellett, 2000; Elgie &
Maguire, 2001; Cameron & Bell, 2001; Argyropoulou & Papoudi, 2012; Harris & Wolverson, 2014;
Calveley, 2017; Mourière & Scott-Roberts, 2017; McKim & Samuel, 2020; Mourière & Hewett, 2021. - Increased levels of socially significant physical contact by the recipient
As evidenced in the following studies: Lovell et al, 1998; Kellett, 2000; Elgie & Maguire, 2001; Kellett, 2003; Kellett, 2004; Forster & Taylor, 2006; Firth et al, 2008; Barber, 2008; Samuel et al, 2008; Argyropoulou & Papoudi, 2012; Harris & Wolverson, 2014; Calveley, 2017; McKim & Samuel, 2020. - Improved levels of joint attention by the recipient
As evidenced in the following studies: Nind, 1996; Lovell et al, 1998; Kellett, 2000; Kellett, 2003; Kellett, 2004; Kellett, 2005; Leaning & Watson, 2006; Samuel et al, 2008; Mourière & Scott-Roberts, 2017; Mourière & Hewett, 2021; Glass et al, 2024.
[For summaries of each of the studies listed ‘as evidenced in‘ above, go to The Intensive Interaction Published Research Summaries Document 2026, which can also be downloaded as a .pdf document.]
Therefore, as you can see above, the cumulative, overall body of evidence strongly supports the general contention for Intensive Interaction that, if we present ourselves to people with social or communication difficulties and/or differences in ways that are meaningful to them, and in a way and at a level that accords with their own means of engaging with the world, we get better social connections and therefore fundemental communication outcomes. Well, ‘No Sh*t Sherlock‘ some people might say … of course we do.
However, it is important to remember that research evidence of effectiveness isn’t the only issue at play when considering the use of an approach like Intensive Interaction. We should also always ask ourselves whether it is ethically the right thing to do, i.e. is it the right and proper way to treat people – not ‘treat them’ in a medicalised or therapeutic sense, but in terms of presenting ourselves to people (children and adults) with social or communication difficulties and/or differences in a socially inclusive and humanistically equitable manner.
And, let’s be clear – yes, yes it is! Yes, Intensive Interaction is the right and proper socially inclusive and humanistically equitable way to be with people – all the people who need it (and we all need it in one way or another) – irrespective of some understandable methodological concerns. But actually, when taken together, we do have an unequivocally strong collective evidence base as well!
Oh, and it’s mutually pleasurable to do as well. So what’s stopping us? Nothing, I’d say!
As noted above, for summaries of all the studies into Intensive Interaction [that I know of], please go to The Intensive Interaction Published Research Summaries Document 2026
Connecting with Intensive Interaction 