The Impact of Autism-Affirming and Autism-Stigmatizing Cues on Autistic Adults’ Camouflaging Efforts

Abstract

Background: Camouflaging is widely used by autistic individuals to conceal their autistic behaviors in response to stigma; however, it is also associated with negative mental health outcomes. Because identity cues in social environments can signal either stigma or safety and shape how individuals experience their identity, they may also influence the extent to which autistic people engage in camouflaging. In a social psychological experiment, we examined the extent to which autistic adults adjust their camouflaging efforts in response to autism-affirming or stigmatizing identity cues within a controlled setting.

Method: Using the Highly-Repeated Within-Person design, we tracked 135 autistic adults’ reports of camouflaging efforts across 24 hypothetical situations, each featuring either autism-affirming or autism-stigmatizing identity cues.

Results: Most participants reported significantly less camouflaging efforts in situations with autism-affirming (vs. autism-stigmatizing) cues. This was particularly the case for those who more strongly identified with the autistic community. The study also demonstrated substantial diversity among autistic individuals in the effect of these cues on camouflaging efforts, even after accounting for participants’ strength of identification with the autistic community.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that autism-affirming cues can create environments where autistic people feel safe to express themselves authentically. In addition, the substantial diversity across participants in the effect of these cues we observed for each individual highlights the limitations of a “one-size-fits-all” approach, underscoring the need to further explore individual differences among autistic adults.

Community Brief

Why is this an important issue?

Autistic people often camouflage (or mask) their autistic behaviors as a response to stigma, despite the negative impact of camouflaging on mental health. This study shows that autism-related cues in a situation can impact how autistic people camouflage in that situation. Specifically, in a controlled experiment, we demonstrated that autism-affirming cues can reduce camouflaging efforts, even in a context typically associated with high camouflaging pressure such as the first day of work at a new workplace. In addition, we found that the impact of autism-affirming cues on camouflaging varies substantially from one autistic person to another, even in the exact same context and situations, highlighting the complexity of camouflaging processes and the importance of looking at individual differences within the autistic population.

What was the purpose of this study?

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how situational cues related to autism and the autistic identity can influence camouflaging efforts among autistic individuals, in an experiment where many other variables were controlled for. We also wanted to see whether the strength of the impact of these cues was different across autistic people, and if the impact was stronger for those who more strongly identify with the autistic community. To the extent that is the case, focusing solely on the “average autistic person” can overlook the diverse range of individual experiences. By demonstrating this variability, we aimed to challenge conventional portrayals of autistic individuals as a homogeneous group and emphasize the importance of considering, as an integral component of research and clinical practice, that autistic people are not all the same.

What did the researchers do?

We first asked autistic adults to suggest a series of autism-affirming and stigmatizing cues. We selected 12 autism-affirming and 12 autism-stigmatizing cues and embedded them in workplace-related situations and asked a different sample of autistic adults to indicate the extent to which they would camouflage their autistic behaviors in each of these 24 situations, presented in random order. We analyzed the data for each participant separately, looking at whether each person indicated less effort to camouflage in situations with autism-affirming (vs. autism-stigmatizing) cues. We also looked at whether strength of identification with the autistic community could explain (at least some of) the individual differences we saw.

What were the results of the study?

Overall, participants indicated they would invest less effort to camouflage their autistic behaviors in situations with autism-affirming (vs. autism-stigmatizing) cues. But when we looked at individual differences, we saw that this was not the case for some participants, showing that each autistic person can interpret and respond to situations differently. Participants who more strongly identified with the autistic community responded with more intensity to autism-affirming (vs. stigmatizing) cues, with a greater reduction in camouflaging in autism-affirming situations.

What do these findings add to what was already known?

Lending support to the call to create autism-affirming environments, this study adds evidence from a controlled study that, like other minoritized groups, autistic people benefit from identity safety cues in their environment. Even in contexts where the pressure to camouflage is strong, such as starting a new job, autistic people indicated less effort to camouflage in situations with autism-affirming cues. But while these cues seemed to contribute to psychological safety overall, their impact differed significantly from one autistic person to another, demonstrating the need to move beyond studies that only focus on the “average” autistic person.

What are potential weaknesses in the study?

The study does not provide information about autistic people in societies and populations different from those studied here. Most of the participants in this study identified as White, and more than half (57%) as women. In addition, the surveys were posted on social media and available only in English. As such, we should not assume, without further study, that the results apply to the experiences of all autistic individuals. The study also focused on responses to autism-affirming and autism-stigmatizing cues in workplace-related situations, so its findings may not apply to how autistic people react to cues in other settings. Finally, the brief verbal descriptions of situations used in the study may not capture the full complexity of real-life experiences. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution and not generalized beyond the specific context studied.

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

The study highlights the potential benefits of using identity safety cues to create autism-affirming environments where camouflaging efforts are reduced and autistic individuals feel safe to express themselves authentically. Even simple changes, such as welcoming sensory accommodation requests, can make spaces, such as workplaces, feel more inclusive, reducing the negative impact of stigma. The study also demonstrates that autistic people differ from each other in their experience and responses to the same situations, urging us to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches and encouraging more research into the autistic diversity.