Autistic people are neurologically divergent, yet approaches to studying autism are framed by neurotypical definitions of being social. Using the concept of intersubjectivity, which conceptualises a variety of ways of socially relating, we investigate distinctive features of how autistic people build social understanding. A total of 30 members of a charity supporting adults with autism were video-recorded during a social activity they enjoyed, namely collaborative video gaming. Mapping the coherence, affect and symmetry of each conversational turn revealed shifting patterns of intersubjectivity within each interaction. Focussing on clusters of consistent and fragmented turns led us to identify two features of neurodivergent intersubjectivity: a generous assumption of common ground that, when understood, led to rapid rapport, and, when not understood, resulted in potentially disruptive utterances; and a low demand for coordination that ameliorated many challenges associated with disruptive turns. Our findings suggest that neurodivergent intersubjectivity reveals potential for unconventional forms of social relating and that a within-interaction analysis is a viable methodology for exploring neurodivergent communication. Future research should examine the varieties of neurodivergent intersubjectivity, with associated problems and potentials, and how those forms of intersubjectivity can be enabled to flourish, particularly in autistic-to-neurotypical encounters.

Misunderstandings are social in nature, always having two sides. Yet the misunderstandings experienced by people with Asperger’s syndrome are usually studied in terms of the individual with a diagnosis, with less emphasis on social relations. We use a two-sided methodology to map out misunderstandings within 22 dyads (n = 44) consisting of people with Asperger’s syndrome and their family members. Both sides of the relationship were asked about 12 topics in terms of one’s rating of Self, one’s rating of Other and one’s predicted rating by Other. The findings show that people with Asperger’s are able to predict lower scores from family members, despite disagreeing with their view, and that family members often over-estimate the extent to which their relatives with Asperger’s syndrome are egocentrically anchored in their own perspective. The research demonstrates that a two-sided methodology is viable, and it uses it to identify how representations of Asperger’s syndrome can both support and hinder social understanding within relationships affected by Asperger’s.

No abstract

Background: Autistic individuals face challenges in the workplace, particularly related to social communication. Diagnostic disclosure may mitigate these challenges, but it also exposes individuals to potential discrimination. This study aimed to share the diagnostic disclosure experiences of autistic adults in the workplace to help employers better understand the process, and help other autistic individuals make an informed decision about disclosure. Methods: The participants in this study were 238 clinically diagnosed, U.K.-based autistic adults with employment experience. Participants completed an online survey, comprising both open-ended and closed-ended questions, that asked about their experiences of disclosure in the workplace. Specifically, questions focused on when in the employment process participants disclosed, to whom the disclosure was made, what factors were involved in the decision to disclose, and what the impacts were of this decision. Results: Our findings suggest that when deciding to disclose, the participants were most concerned about how this might affect the attitudes of others in the workplace. Participants most often only disclosed selectively, while over a third disclosed to everyone. Many participants chose to disclose when completing the application materials or after starting the job, but rarely in the interview process. Many also disclosed after encountering issues at work (i.e., retrospective disclosure). Just over a third of participants rated the impact of disclosing to supervisors and coworkers positively. Subsequent adjustments made were even less positively endorsed. Conclusions: Autistic individuals must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the costs. This study highlights the need for organizations, rather than autistic individuals, to take more responsibility for facilitating disclosure and improving outcomes to it. Specific recommendations include the creation of clear pathways for disclosure in workplaces, and an ongoing commitment to organization-wide autism training to reduce stigma and discrimination for autistic employees.

Despite possessing valuable skills, social communication differences mean that autistic people are frequently disadvantaged in job interviews. We examined how autistic and non-autistic adults compared on standard (unmodified) job interview questions, and then used these findings to develop and evaluate supportive adaptations to questions. Fifty adults (25 autistic, 25 non-autistic) took part in two mock job interviews. Interview 1 provided a baseline measure of performance when answering typical, unmodified interview questions. Employment experts (unaware of participants’ autism diagnoses) rated all interviewees on question-specific performance and overall impressions and then provided feedback about how interviewees could improve and how questions could be adapted to facilitate this. Interviewees also provided feedback about the interview process from their perspective. Adaptations to the questions were developed, with Interview 2 taking place approximately 6 months later. Results demonstrated that, in Interview 1, employment experts rated autistic interviewees less favourably than nonautistic interviewees. Ratings of both autistic and non-autistic participants’ answers improved in Interview 2, but particularly for autistic interviewees (such that differences between autistic and non-autistic interviewees’ performance reduced in Interview 2). Employers should be aware that adaptations to job interview questions are critical to level the playing field for autistic candidates. Lay abstract Despite possessing valuable skills, differences in the way that autistic people understand and respond to others in social situations mean that they are frequently disadvantaged in job interviews. We examined how autistic and non-autistic adults compared on standard (unmodified) job interview questions, and then used these findings to develop and evaluate supportive adaptations to questions. Fifty adults (25 autistic, 25 non-autistic) took part in two mock job interviews. Interview 1 provided a baseline measure of performance when answering typical, unmodified interview questions. Employment experts (unaware of participants’ autism diagnoses) rated all interviewees on their responses to each question and their overall impressions of them and then provided feedback about how interviewees could improve and how questions could be adapted to facilitate this. Interviewees also provided feedback about the interview process, from their perspective. Adaptations to the questions were developed, with Interview 2 taking place approximately 6 months later. Results demonstrated that, in Interview 1, employment experts rated autistic interviewees less favourably than non-autistic interviewees. Ratings of both autistic and non-autistic participants’ answers improved in Interview 2, but particularly for autistic interviewees (such that differences between autistic and non-autistic interviewees’ performance reduced in Interview 2). Employers should be aware that adaptations to job interview questions are critical to level the playing field for autistic candidates.