Differences in social communication and interaction styles between autistic and typically developing have been studied in isolation and not in the context of real-world social interaction. The current study addresses this “blind spot” by examining whether real-world social interaction quality for autistic adults differs when interacting with typically developing relative to autistic partners. Participants (67 autism spectrum disorder, 58 typically developing) were assigned to one of three dyadic partnerships (autism–autism: n = 22; typically developing–typically developing: n = 23; autism–typically developing: n = 25; 55 complete dyads, 15 partial dyads) in which they completed a 5-min unstructured conversation with an unfamiliar person and then assessed the quality of the interaction and their impressions of their partner. Although autistic adults were rated as more awkward, less attractive, and less socially warm than typically developing adults by both typically developing and autistic partners, only typically developing adults expressed greater interest in future interactions with typically developing relative to autistic partners. In contrast, autistic participants trended toward an interaction preference for other autistic adults and reported disclosing more about themselves to autistic compared to typically developing partners. These results suggest that social affiliation may increase for autistic adults when partnered with other autistic people, and support reframing social interaction difficulties in autism as a relational rather than an individual impairment.

Previous work indicates that first impressions of autistic adults are more favorable when neurotypical raters know their clinical diagnosis and have high understanding about autism, suggesting that social experiences of autistic adults are affected by the knowledge and beliefs of the neurotypical individuals they encounter. Here, we examine these patterns in more detail by assessing variability in first impression ratings of autistic adults ( N = 20) by neurotypical raters ( N = 505). Variability in ratings was driven more by characteristics of raters than those of autistic adults, particularly for items related to “intentions to interact.” Specifically, variability in rater stigma toward autism and autism knowledge contributed to first impression ratings. Only ratings of “awkwardness” were driven more by characteristics of the autistic adults than characteristics of the raters. Furthermore, although first impressions of autistic adults generally improved when raters were informed of their autism status, providing a diagnosis worsened impressions made by neurotypical raters with high stigma toward autism. Variations in how the diagnosis was labeled (e.g. “autistic” vs “has autism”) did not affect results. These findings indicate a large role of neurotypical perceptions and biases in shaping the social experiences for autistic adults that may be improved by reducing stigma and increasing acceptance.

Non-autistic adults often hold explicit and implicit biases toward autism that contribute to personal and professional challenges for autistic people. Although previous research indicates that non-autistic adults with higher autism knowledge and familiarity express more inclusionary attitudes, it remains unclear whether training programs designed to promote autism acceptance and understanding affect subsequent implicit and explicit biases toward autism. In this study, non-autistic adults ( N = 238) completed an autism acceptance training featuring factual information and engaging first-person narratives, a general mental health training not mentioning autism, or a no-training control, then responded to surveys assessing their autism knowledge, stigma, and impressions of autistic adults, and completed a novel implicit association task about autism. Non-autistic adults in the autism acceptance training condition reported more positive impressions of autistic adults, demonstrated fewer misconceptions and lower stigma about autism, endorsed higher expectations of autistic abilities, and expressed greater social interest in hypothetical and real autistic people. However, training had no effect on implicit biases, with non-autistic adults associating autism-related labels with unpleasant personal attributes regardless of training condition. These findings suggest that the autism acceptance training program in this study, designed to increase autism knowledge and familiarity among non-autistic people, holds promise for reducing explicit but not implicit biases toward autism. Lay abstract Autistic adults face prejudice from non-autistic people. They are often judged unfairly and left out of social activities because of their differences. This can make it difficult for autistic people to make friends and find jobs. Some training programs have tried to teach autistic people to act more like non-autistic people to help them gain acceptance. Fewer have focused on teaching non-autistic people how to be more autism friendly. In this study, we used a short training video that teaches people about autism. The video was created with the help of autistic adults and included clips of real autistic people. We found that non-autistic people who watched this video had better knowledge about autism and showed more autism-friendly attitudes than those who watched a video about mental health or those who did not watch any video. They were more open to having a relationship with an autistic person and had more positive beliefs about autism. However, our video did not affect people’s unconscious attitudes about autism. People in our study connected autism with unpleasant traits, even if they had watched the autism training video. This suggests that teaching non-autistic people about autism may promote more autism-friendly attitudes, but some beliefs may be harder to change.

Background: Autistic adults receive unfavorable first impressions from typically developing (TD) adults, but these impressions improve when TD adults are made aware of their diagnosis. It remains unclear, however, how autistic adults form first impressions of other autistic adults, and whether their impressions are similarly affected by diagnostic awareness. Methods: In this study, 32 autistic and 32 TD adults viewed brief videos of 20 TD and 20 autistic adults presented either with or without their diagnostic status and rated them on character traits and their interest in interacting with them in the future. Results: Findings indicated that autistic raters shared the TD tendency to evaluate autistic adults less favorably than TD adults, but these judgments did not reduce their social interest for interacting with autistic adults as they did for TD raters. Furthermore, informing raters of the diagnostic status of autistic adults did not improve first impressions for autistic raters as they did for TD raters, suggesting that autistic raters either already inferred their autism status when no diagnosis was provided or their impression formation is less affected by awareness of a person's diagnosis. Conclusions: Collectively, these results demonstrate that autistic observers make trait inferences about autistic adults comparable with those made by TD observers-suggesting a similar sensitivity to perceiving and interpreting social signifiers that differ between TD and autistic presentation styles-but unlike their TD counterparts, these trait judgments are not perceived as an impediment to subsequent social interaction and are relatively consistent regardless of diagnostic disclosure.

Social cognition, social skill, and social motivation have been extensively researched and characterized as atypical in autistic people, with the assumption that each mechanistically contributes to the broader social interaction difficulties that diagnostically define the condition. Despite this assumption, research has not directly assessed whether or how these three social domains contribute to actual real-world social interaction outcomes for autistic people. The current study administered standardized measures of social cognition, social skill, and social motivation to 67 autistic and 58 non-autistic (NA) adults and assessed whether performance on these measures, both individually and relationally between dyadic partners, predicted outcomes for autistic and NA adults interacting with unfamiliar autistic and NA partners in a 5 minute unstructured “get to know you” conversation. Consistent with previous research, autistic adults scored lower than NA adults on the three social domains and were evaluated less favorably by their conversation partners. However, links between autistic adults' performance on the three social domains and their social interaction outcomes were minimal and, contrary to prediction, only the social abilities of NA adults predicted some interaction outcomes within mixed diagnostic dyads. Collectively, results suggest that reduced performance by autistic adults on standardized measures of social cognition, social skill, and social motivation do not correspond in clear and predictable ways with their real-world social interaction outcomes. They also highlight the need for the development and validation of more ecological assessments of autistic social abilities and the consideration of relational dynamics, not just individual characteristics, when assessing social disability in autism.