Neurodiversity Movement Identification and Perceived Appropriateness of Terms Used to Describe Autism

Abstract

Background:

Autism terminology is highly controversial. The debate regarding person-first and identity-first language is particularly well-studied, but the present study explores views on different terms commonly used to describe autism, such as “disorder,” “disability,” and “difference.” Furthermore, unlike prior studies, this study explores how terminology views are related to identification with the neurodiversity movement (NDM).

Methods:

We collected usable survey data from 475 participants, 271 of whom were autistic and 204 of whom were non-autistic interested parties (e.g., family members, professionals). Participants rated perceived appropriateness of 13 terms as descriptors of autism. They also indicated whether they had heard of neurodiversity and the social model; if yes, they respectively completed a brief measure of NDM identification and/or answered an item rating support for the social model.

Results:

Overall, participants rated the terms “condition,” “developmental,” “disability,” “difference,” “neurodiverse,” “neurodivergent,” “neurominority,” and “neurotype” as more appropriate than neutral, whereas “deficit,” “disorder,” “illness,” “psychopathology,” and “syndrome” were seen as inappropriate. As participants identified more strongly with the NDM, they rated the terms “neurodiverse,” “neurodivergent,” “neurominority,” and “neurotype” as more appropriate; however, they rated “condition,” “deficit,” “disorder,” “illness,” and “syndrome” as less appropriate. In non-autistic people only, perceived appropriateness of “developmental” decreased with increasing neurodiversity identification. In autistic participants only, perceived appropriateness of “disability” increased with greater neurodiversity identification.

Conclusion:

Both autistic and non-autistic participants in this study robustly preferred neurodiversity-aligned terms, such as “neurodivergent” and “difference,” to traditional terms assuming pathology and deficiency. Participants also generally approved of the term “disability,” particularly autistic participants identifying with the NDM, aligning with the NDM’s recognition of both autism-related strengths and challenges. Although we cannot rule out sample bias, our data suggest an emerging consensus supporting discussion of autism in positive or neutrally descriptive ways or through acknowledging challenges in a nonderogatory manner.

Community Brief

Why is this an important issue?

People have many different opinions about the words we should use to describe autism. For example, some people use words like “disorder” and “deficit” to describe autism. Some autistic people think these words are offensive and harmful.

What was the purpose of this study?

This study explored how people feel about different words that are often used to describe autism. We wanted to know if people who are more supportive of the neurodiversity movement like different words than those who support it less.

What did the researchers do?

A total of 271 autistic people and 204 non-autistic people with connections to autism (including family members and researchers/professionals) completed our online survey. They rated how appropriate they felt different words were for describing autism. We also asked whether they supported the neurodiversity movement.

What were the results of the study?

Participants (including autistic participants) often said that the words “neurodivergent,” “neurodiverse,” “neurotype,” “difference,” “disability,” “neurominority,” “developmental,” and “condition” were appropriate. The terms “illness,” “deficit,” “psychopathology,” “disorder,” and “syndrome” were often seen as inappropriate.

Neurodiversity movement supporters often rated “neurodiverse,” “neurodivergent,” “neurominority,” and “neurotype” highly. Neurodiversity supporters rated “condition,” “deficit,” “disorder,” “illness,” and “syndrome” less highly.

The more that autistic participants supported the neurodiversity movement, the more highly they rated the word “disability.” This was not the case for non-autistic participants. This may suggest that autistic people are less likely to see disability as a bad thing.

Autistic people’s views on the terms “developmental” and “difference” were not related to neurodiversity movement support. This suggests that these words were well liked by autistic people with different views about autism and neurodiversity.

What do these findings add to what was already known?

We found that support for the neurodiversity movement is connected to a range of words people think should be used to describe autism. These findings extend beyond previously studied links between awareness of the neurodiversity movement and preferences for identity-first language (e.g., autistic person). We found that many autistic people, especially neurodiversity movement supporters, are comfortable thinking of autism as a developmental disability.

What are potential weaknesses in the study?

Participants did not represent the larger community well. For example, participants came from a few mostly English-speaking Western countries. Supporters of the neurodiversity movement were probably more likely to participate in this study than people who do not support the movement. Thus, our participants probably liked certain words more or less than autism community members generally.

The study only examined participants’ views about words when they are used to describe autism. It is not clear what participants might think about words for other disabled and neurodivergent identities, like ADHD or epilepsy.

How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?

These findings will help people choose respectful words to talk about autism. We can respect community members using words they like. These findings show that many words that are often used to describe autism—such as “deficit” and “disorder”—are often disliked and should be avoided whenever possible. Terms like “difference” or “neurodivergent” may be preferred.