A Neurodiversity Perspective on Fostering Marketplace Inclusion by Bridging Ability Mismatches

Inclusive design is increasingly important to both consumers and firms. Lteif et al. (2025) importantly identify four categories of ability-barrier mismatches that impede marketplace inclusion and consumption. They further provide a framework for addressing these mismatches, but the microdynamics underlying the mismatches and ways of overcoming them are opaque. We build on their exciting framework by offering a neurodiversity-informed perspective that makes two contributions to understanding marketplace inclusion. First, we offer the “double empathy problem” (Milton 2012) as a foundational interpersonal dynamic underlying social interaction mismatch that also underpins other forms of mismatch and inhibits inclusive policies from realizing their potential. Second, we propose reimagining the challenges of disability inclusion as diversity to be embraced, rather than difference to be accommodated. The latter intends to redress “othering” that underpins exclusion and marginalization (Cohn-Vargas and Zacarian 2024) and depends on benevolent accommodations by those in positions of authority (Kithinji 2023).

Neurodiversity is the spectrum of neurocognitive functioning variation that affects the way people think, learn, and engage with others (Dwyer 2022), with neurodivergence reflecting differences from the dominant societal standards of “neurotypicality” and inclusive of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyslexia, dyscalculia, and others (Doyle and McDowall 2021). Current estimates indicate that up to 20% of the global population identifies as neurodivergent (Doyle and McDowall 2021), but persistent stigma suggests this may be an underestimate.

Focusing on neurodiversity helps clarify the microdynamics of ability mismatches, especially the breakdowns between consumers and service providers, that Lteif et al. (2025) refer to as “social interaction mismatches.” Specifically, research on neurodiversity has identified social interaction mismatches as a “double empathy problem” (DEP) whereby interactions between people of differing neurotypes have greater difficulty generating mutual understanding (Milton 2012) relative to interactions between those with similar neurotypes (Williams, Wharton, and Jagoe 2021). That is, the deep-rooted differences in patterns of attention, communication, and preferred forms of sociality (e.g., interest-based vs. sociability-based; Bertilsdotter Rosqvist 2019) across neurotypes underlying the DEP illuminate why social interaction mismatch occurs.

Given that the DEP is linked to differences in neurotype, it is likely that the fundamental disconnects in social interaction lead to other forms of ability mismatch. Without interventions and bridging mechanisms for ensuring, for example, that a consumer and service provider's needs are understood and met, the resulting social interaction mismatch is likely to spill over into other forms of mismatch. Specifically, the neurodivergent party in the interaction will be burdened with bridging the social interaction mismatch often in ways that likely exacerbate the behavioral mismatch (e.g., “camouflaging” to try to fulfill neurotypical expectations). Social interaction mismatch also lessens the likelihood that neurodivergent and neurotypical people will work together to codesign physical spaces and processes. As a result, greater sensory and cognitive mismatch are more likely to persist. The DEP and resulting social interaction mismatch also illustrate how bottom-up social processes inhibit the shared understanding necessary to make complex and ambiguous policy-based ideas like “reasonable accommodation” (e.g., Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Baker and Kaufman-Scarborough 2001) actionable or supportive of the creation of enabling environments.

We argue that three steps can enhance social interaction match by ameliorating the DEP. First, destigmatizing neurodivergence disclosure by consumers and making the implications for both parties normative and discussable is the first step for bridging social interaction mismatch. This is more likely to occur when organizations invest in training that increases neurodiversity awareness and understanding of the variations in communication preferences and styles among non-neurodivergent employees (Longmire, Vogus, and Colella 2025). When people are socialized to the mutuality of the DEP, they can work to better understand each other by setting clear expectations, engaging in more concrete and explicit ways of communicating, and actively listening. These interaction shifts also help those engaged in service encounters more self-consciously negotiate responses to address the needs of all parties involved. Second, increasing transparency of the service experience by signaling what's expected and adapting tools and scripts to help service providers develop shared understandings with customers can minimize service failures that exacerbate the DEP. Third, the DEP can be ameliorated when organizations broaden the styles of interrelating by adjusting hiring policies to bring in more neurodivergent employees (Williams, Wharton, and Jagoe 2021). This can be consistent with neurodivergent (especially autistic) employees’ job preferences and interpersonal styles (Cheriyan et al. 2021). Organizations will also benefit from rethinking hiring policies and onboarding processes to socialize all employees to the existence of the DEP. They may bridge the DEP divide using tools and technologies that provide “personal user manuals” and opportunities for customizing profiles through explicit interaction and workplace preferences to foster more inclusive norms and customer experiences (Lohr 2020).

The neurodiversity paradigm also requires rethinking the public policy and practice conversations regarding disability and marketing. It does so by recasting what has typically been considered “disability” (individual “needs” to be met) as natural and value-neutral diversity in the human population—potentially with as much value to add as need to be met (Chapman 2021). This shift reflects that not all neurodivergent individuals identify as disabled. Importantly, neurodivergence becomes like other forms of human variation that firms aim to attract and to better serve, like ethnicity, gender, or race. Understanding neurodivergence through a diversity—rather than a “disability”—lens makes the goal of inclusivity less of an individual struggle for grudging recognition, accommodation, and access, but rather an opportunity to leverage and benefit from a breadth of human strengths and experiences (Baker, Stephens, and Hill 2001).

We have argued that attending more specifically to neurodiversity helps enrich Lteif et al.'s (2025) model of ability mismatch. We identify a key micromechanism by which social interaction mismatch emerges—the DEP—and explain how it exacerbates other ability-based mismatches and complicates the interpretation and constructive use of policy to bridge mismatch. In response, we use neurodiversity to illustrate three steps for bridging social interaction mismatch: destigmatizing disclosure, increasing service transparency, and broadening the service workforce. We have also used the neurodiversity perspective to argue for reformulating disability as diversity to broaden our view of human variation and its potential. Neurodiversity is not to be merely accommodated, but rather celebrated, with the attendant benefits for firms in customer and employee engagement, loyalty, and profit, but most importantly as part of a person's inherent value.