ABSTRACT
Overinterpretation of messages was another area fraught with the danger of facilitator influence. Two additional points need to be made with respect to the argument for an independent facilitator as a check on validity. The first concerns the matter of facilitated output. The second point concerns the Australian case, cited earlier; in which nine separate facilitators reported allegations of sexual abuse by a woman with autism only to have the charges dismissed when the likelihood of facilitator influence was revealed. There are many reasons for the occurrence of facilitator influence, not all of which should be considered unwholesome or sinister. In fact, many of these forms of influence are normal by-products of human communication and hence are naturally embedded in that process. In fact, the matter of facilitator influence turned out to be a multidimensional construct that was not only directly linked to but actually intertwined with facilitators’ belief systems, their mind-sets, and their overriding commitment to facilitated communication.
