Understanding autistic camouflaging: The use of online community discussions and stigmatized identity research

Abstract

To avoid the pervasive stigma surrounding autism, autistic people often strive to appear neurotypical by using camouflaging to conceal their natural behaviors and traits. Camouflaging may enable autistic people to navigate social interactions more smoothly, but we lack clear empirical data on its effectiveness. Furthermore, the stress and exhaustion caused by camouflaging seem to be highly detrimental to mental health. This review discusses the need to elucidate the benefits and harms of camouflaging, understand how autistic people make decisions about camouflaging, and evaluate how it compares to other strategies to avoid stigma. To shed light on these questions, I suggest that researchers consult two underutilized existing sources of information: online community discussions and research into other concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs). Online community discussions provide a valuable window into how autistic people make decisions about camouflaging within their daily lives, including a recent movement of “unmasking” and rejecting camouflaging. Situating autistic camouflaging within the larger framework of CSI research allows us to better understand the effects of camouflaging and provides a basis to theorize about how it compares to other strategies of stigma management.

Autism is a highly stigmatized identity, and autistic people face pervasive dehumanization and marginalization in society (Botha et al., 2022; Pearson & Rose, 2021; Turnock et al., 2022). Stigma is a discrediting attribute that reduces the bearer “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (Goffman, 1963, p. 3), fostering status loss and a sense of separation from non-stigmatized groups, with stigmatized people facing ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination at both interpersonal and societal levels (Link & Phelan, 2013).

Autism stigma is multifaceted, and often based on flawed assumptions. Under the medical model of disability, autistic people are labeled as abnormal and inferior to the rest of society (Pearson & Rose, 2021). Medical narratives have traditionally painted autistic people as incapable of personhood or real social connection, often equating them to animals (Botha et al., 2022; Gernsbacher, 2007; Lovaas et al., 1965). For decades, researchers assumed that autistic people were socially impaired because they lacked “theory of mind,” or the ability to understand the mental states of other people (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985). Instead, more recent research suggests that autistic people do not face social and communication issues when interacting with each other, but rather that there is a gap when communicating across neurotypes (Milton, 2012). Researchers have also attributed behaviors like motor stims and echolalia to a lack of interest in others, dismissing autistic people's reports of desiring social connection and ignoring alternative explanations (Jaswal & Akhtar, 2019).

People often hold negative misconceptions toward autism, and are less likely to spend time with or want to be close to autistic people (Turnock et al., 2022). Sasson et al. (2017) demonstrated that within seconds, neurotypical people rate autistic people unfavorably on a variety of personality traits and show a reduced willingness to socially engage based on their voice or appearance. This negative first impression happens in response to both audio and video clips and even a static image of an autistic person. It is presumably based on atypical body language and prosody rather than the content of what is said, as written transcripts of speech produced no differences, meaning that this disadvantage is likely unavoidable in face-to-face interactions (Sasson et al., 2017). Even neurotypical people who self-report positive attitudes toward autism may simultaneously hold implicit dehumanizing attitudes (Cage et al., 2019). When indirectly measuring dehumanization through ratings of human traits, autistic people are rated as having less human uniqueness than non-autistic people (Cage et al., 2019), and this dehumanization is linked to hostile prejudice (Parker et al., 2020). These results suggest that we cannot take research showing that autistic people are rated more positively when disclosing a diagnosis (O’Connor et al., 2020) at face value, and must also test the effects of implicit biases.

External stigma collides with autistic people's atypical social interaction styles to result in lower levels of social integration, greater feelings of loneliness, fewer friendships, and higher rates of victimization, as compared with neurotypical peers (Botha & Frost, 2020; Turnock et al., 2022). Autistic children are more likely to be bullied (lifetime prevalence rate estimates range from 60–94%), and one large review found that within a one-month period, 44–77% of autistic children were bullied, as compared to 2–17% typically developing children (Hoover, 2015). Autistic adults also face more employment difficulties, financial hardship, and domestic abuse than non-autistic adults (Griffiths et al., 2019), and the prevalence of sexual violence against autistic women may be 2–3 times higher than that against women in the general population (Cazalis et al., 2022), all of which are stressors associated with a reduced quality of life. Autistic people also internalize stigmatizing beliefs about autism, further harming their self-worth and mental health (Han et al., 2022).

Camouflaging as a response to stigma

To avoid stigma, autistic people often “camouflage” their behaviors in an attempt to conceal their autism and pass as neurotypical (Bradley et al., 2021; Perry et al., 2022). Indeed, the amount of stigma an autistic person experiences directly correlates to how much they camouflage their traits (Perry et al., 2022; Turnock et al., 2022). Thus, camouflaging is best understood as a self-protective mechanism that develops in response to one's social environment and collective norms (Pearson & Rose, 2021).

Autistic camouflaging is a relatively new area of academic study; Hull et al. (2017) were the first to create a comprehensive conceptual model of camouflaging, focusing on its motivations, techniques, and impact. Previously, researchers had examined camouflaging mainly as a potential explanation for gender differences in diagnosis rates and external presentations of autism, as women typically camouflage more (Bargiela et al., 2016; Dean et al., 2017; Hull et al., 2017; Hull et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2011; Lai et al., 2017), rather than as its own phenomenon. As such, its mechanisms, developmental trajectory, effects, and long-term consequences have not yet been thoroughly examined, and no longitudinal studies have been conducted. However, recent qualitative and quantitative studies consistently find the same motivations for camouflaging, suggesting that it is a robust and commonly occurring phenomenon. These reasons center around fitting in and passing in a neurotypical world, avoiding rejection and bullying, and successfully forming social connections (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Hull et al., 2017, 2019; Perry et al., 2022).

Camouflaging involves the use of specific behavioral and cognitive strategies to conceal one's autism (Cook et al., 2021). It includes mimicking neurotypical behaviors such as making eye contact, memorizing unintuitive social rules and cues, and consciously learning useful conversational “scripts” (Cook et al., 2021; Davidson & Henderson, 2010; Hull et al., 2017). Autistic people may assume a deferential role in interactions and center their conversational partner in order to reduce the amount they must speak (Cook et al., 2022; Hull et al., 2017). Camouflaging also involves suppressing autism-associated behaviors such as repetitive motor stims, echolalia, and negative reactions to sensory stimuli in order to appear “normal” (Davidson & Henderson, 2010).

For example, a hypothetical autistic person, Alice, might take these steps when meeting a new person: Alice puts on a big smile and deliberately pitches her voice upward to demonstrate enthusiasm while saying hello, because her natural monotone is often perceived as disinterest. When asked about what she does for fun, Alice replies with a practiced two-sentence response and quickly redirects the conversation to center on the other person; she does not want to reveal the atypical intensity of her special interests to a stranger, and she has read that other people will feel more positively about an interaction when they get to talk about themselves. Furthermore, it is easier to appear socially competent in a listening role, where she smiles, makes appropriate reactions, and maintains eye contact despite her discomfort. It is harder to properly perform these nonverbal behaviors when she must also focus on deciding what to say. Throughout the interaction, Alice grits her teeth and fights the urge to wince or complain about how the fluorescent lights make a buzzing noise; she knows from experience that no one else is bothered and she doesn’t want to call attention to any differences between them.

Effectiveness of camouflaging

There is no clear data on how successful camouflaging is, as operationalizations of camouflaging vary and most measures are in preliminary development with uncertain psychometric properties (Fombonne, 2020; Hannon et al., 2023). Discrepancy measures attempt to calculate the discrepancy between one's natural autistic traits and external behavioral presentation, while observational/reflective methods rely on participants’ self-reported descriptions of camouflaging (Hannon et al., 2023). While preliminary evidence suggests that both methods successfully measure the same construct, more research is needed (Hannon et al., 2023).

Past findings do demonstrate that camouflaging can often allow autistic people to appear “normal” enough to be clinically overlooked. It was not until 2022 that the DSM acknowledged that learned skills like camouflaging can impact one's external presentation, adding that “current symptoms may be masked by compensatory mechanisms” to the diagnostic criteria (APA, 2022, p. 36). Many autistic people, especially women, have evaded detection from parents and pediatricians working off of outdated autism stereotypes, and remained undiagnosed until adulthood or beyond (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Hull et al., 2020).

However, it is unclear whether camouflaging allows autistic people to fully “pass” as neurotypical and achieve the social connection they desire. One study of elementary school children found that autistic girls can achieve the superficial appearance of successful social interaction using camouflaging, but do not actually gain deep friendships or sustained social engagement (Dean et al., 2017). In interviews, autistic adults suggest that camouflaging does not completely hide their autism, but still helps them fit in and successfully communicate, especially during formulaic interactions which can be prepared for ahead of time such as job interviews and first dates (Bradley et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017). The effectiveness of camouflaging likely varies highly by context and by person, and must be further investigated.

Negative impacts of camouflaging

Although camouflaging may be a useful mechanism for autistic people to navigate social situations and reduce the external discrimination they face, these benefits may be outweighed by the stress of concealing their identity. Camouflaging has highly detrimental effects on mental health, including exhaustion, anxiety, depression, and loss of identity (Bradley et al., 2021; Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Cage et al., 2018; Cassidy et al., 2020; Cook et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2020; Perry et al., 2022). Camouflaging mediates higher rates of suicidal behaviors and lifetime suicidality among autistic individuals and partially explains why the autistic suicide rate is 7.5 times higher than in the general population (Cassidy et al., 2020). In a population where incidence rates of clinical anxiety and depression are over 50%, more than double than those of the general population, the link between camouflaging and mental health problems is especially troubling (Hirvikoski et al., 2016; Kirsch et al., 2020).

As opposed to impression management (highlighting or minimizing aspects of the self to present the best external impression), autistic camouflaging attempts to completely conceal one's “true self” (Pearson & Rose, 2021) and is much more emotionally taxing (Bargiela et al., 2016; Hull et al., 2017). Constantly playing a role that is distinct from one's natural behavior further makes it difficult to feel secure in and keep track of one's authentic identity, which takes an incredibly large toll (Cassidy et al., 2020; Hull et al., 2017). Navigating a confusing social environment using conscious strategies causes high exhaustion and is mentally, physically, and emotionally draining (Bradley et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017). Camouflaging requires intensive concentration, self-control, and management of discomfort; autistic people report needing alone time to recover or “be themselves” again after social interactions, and feel spikes in anxiety and stress from having to both self-monitor and surveil others simultaneously (Bradley et al., 2021; Hull et al., 2017).

Importantly, frequent camouflaging is associated with a thwarted sense of belonging – feeling a lack of acceptance in one's social circles and in society (Cassidy et al., 2020). Thwarted belonging can be measured through self-reported loneliness and lack of social support, and is strongly related to the ingenuine, forced experience of camouflaging (Cassidy et al., 2020). Some individuals felt as if relationships they formed through camouflaging were based on deception, and were therefore disingenuous, reinforcing feelings of isolation and being misunderstood, as well as guilt for potentially deceiving their friends and even loved ones (Hull et al., 2017).

Research gap

In light of evidence that camouflaging negatively impacts mental health, it is especially important to elucidate its benefits and determine to what extent it is a necessary or viable strategy for autistic people. As detailed above, we currently lack a full understanding of the effectiveness of camouflaging, in terms of whether and when it allows autistic people to successfully navigate social interactions and avoid stigma/discrimination. Furthermore, we have discovered associations between camouflaging and suicidality, depression, anxiety, and loneliness, but have yet to establish causality or determine whether these effects differ based on context and environment. We must seek to understand how autistic people make decisions about camouflaging and how camouflaging behaviors are developed over time and shaped by societal and interpersonal pressure (Pearson & Rose, 2021). Casting a wider net, we should also examine how engaging in camouflaging impacts an autistic person's perceptions of stigma and the attitudes of their communities, families, friends, and others with whom they interact. Since camouflaging is fundamentally a response to experiencing external stigma, it is important to study the effectiveness of camouflaging at stigma reduction, and how it compares to alternative strategies of stigma management.

Autistic people's quality of life and mental health hinge upon the answers to these questions. Furthermore, this knowledge could impact policy and treatment recommendations. For example, Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), the most commonly recommended treatment for autistic children, has faced backlash from autistic self-advocates and the neurodiversity movement for attempting to force “normative” behavior by essentially teaching children to camouflage their traits, sometimes in traumatic ways (Anderson, 2023; Leadbitter et al., 2021). However, some ABA proponents argue that even autistic behaviors with emotional benefits like motor stims should be decreased to prepare clients for the real world, where they would be judged negatively (Leaf et al., 2022). A better understanding of camouflaging would illuminate whether treatments such as ABA provide essential skills to navigate the world, or if their harms outweigh the benefits.

We currently have a very preliminary understanding of autistic camouflaging, and fully addressing these questions will require extensive research and effort, ideally with large-scale longitudinal studies. With these long-term goals in mind, I would like to point researchers toward two existing sources of information that can provide unique insights: online community discussions and past research into other concealable stigmatized identities.

Online community discussions

An important, yet still underutilized source of knowledge is the autism community itself. The push for community-informed, participatory research is very recent (Botha et al., 2022; Fletcher-Watson et al., 2019), and research has lagged behind community knowledge and discussions, especially in regard to camouflaging. In the past, researchers often claimed that autistic individuals lack the self-awareness and introspection required to accurately describe their own lived experiences and contribute to research (Frith & Happé, 1999; Hacking, 2009). Autistic camouflaging has therefore been largely overlooked academically until recent years, whereas the autism community has been describing the exact same phenomenon for decades using the term “masking” (Pearson & Rose, 2021).

Liane Holliday Willey wrote extensively about masking in her 1999 autobiography Pretending to Be Normal: Living with Asperger's Syndrome. Willey relates avidly observing and mimicking others’ behavior as a child, developing an ability to “copy accents, vocal inflections, facial expressions, hand movements, gaits and tiny gestures” (p. 27). She relays, “I was fully aware that I would need to mask myself, as best I could,” following the social rules that she had gleaned despite not understanding their purpose (p. 63). She developed extensive masking strategies to “appear interested, intrigued and motivated by the discussions and people around [her],” performing normative conversations while hiding her overwhelming desire to escape (Willey, 1999, p. 69). Later, in her teenage years, she “worried all along that eventually someone would discover [she] was an outsider” (p. 38). Willey's descriptions are emblematic of the camouflaging strategies Hull et al. (2017) recorded 18 years later: memorizing social rules and conversational topics and mimicking neurotypical speech patterns and facial expressions, accompanied by a pervasive fear that this mask will be discovered. Unfortunately, this latent knowledge gap and terminology difference between academia and the autism community still persists.

In recent years, as academia began to investigate camouflaging with more depth, many autistic people have been “unmasking” instead, taking off the mask to live and behave authentically rather than striving to appear neurotypical. Understanding unmasking is crucial to understanding autistic people's choices about camouflaging – what experiences or motivations lead someone to unmask after years of camouflaging, and how do their lives change as a result? No academic research has yet described unmasking, meaning that we are missing an entire dimension of knowledge about camouflaging. As such, the best source to understand unmasking is books, blogs, and online discussion forums written by autistic people. The book Unmasking Autism by Devon Price (2022) provides a guide to unmasking, which centers on unlearning shame and internalized stigma, accepting one's own physical, sensory, emotional, and psychological needs, and reducing masking behaviors. Importantly, the idea of unmasking is not based on platitudes of “being yourself”; it is a logical response to the heavy mental toll that camouflaging takes. However, it can still be difficult to let go of a coping mechanism that has helped to ward off external discrimination and aid social interaction (Price, 2022).

Online community discussions provide a deep and easily accessible trove of information about how people make decisions about camouflaging and unmasking in their daily lives. Many social media platforms such as Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok contain autistic content creators who discuss these topics. To understand the complexity of the autism community, however, Reddit offers perhaps the richest, most granular data on these issues due to its discussion-oriented nature. Reddit is the largest online forum in the world, and is composed of self-created sub-communities called subreddits, each with their own focus, rules, and moderation team (Medvedev et al., 2019). Posts can be upvoted or downvoted to demonstrate agreement or disagreement, and comments are structured as a rooted tree, facilitating back-and-forth discussions. Data are openly available for researchers, making Reddit an increasingly popular source of data for both qualitative and computational social science research (Medvedev et al., 2019; Proferes et al., 2021).

Large subreddits such as r/autism (currently 341 thousand members), r/aspergers (152 thousand), r/AutismInWomen (125 thousand), and r/AutisticAdults (56 thousand) are full of discussions about masking and unmasking. Searching “mask” or “masking” across these four subreddits yields over 114,000 results. Posts are often emotional vents: [u/homicidalfantasy] (2023) wrote “I learned about masking I wanna say 2 years ago but the way it describes my childhood and teen years makes me feel so fucking devastated like I was unconsciously performing for everyones acceptance and never felt safe enough to hone in on developing who I was, my hobbies, my interests, my self idk. That's just such a loss that feels tragic to me and nobody sees it.” Many commiserate over realizing that they have masked at such a deep level that they have lost their “real” self: “I am in my 30s and I feel like I have masked and hidden myself from everyone, from family and friends to the point where I don't know who I am anymore” ([deleted], 2022); “Does masking cause deep rooted identity issues?…I feel like nothing that comes out of my mouth is genuine and im starting to think it has something to do with masking” ([u/VinegarTheClown], 2022). This loss of identity is very distressing, aligning with findings from qualitative research on camouflaging (Cassidy et al., 2020), and posters often struggle with the idea of unmasking, not knowing where to start or how to rediscover their true identity and personality.

Unmasking is a rising topic of discussion, with searches for “unmask” or “unmasking” yielding over 32,000 posts across the same four subreddits. Struggles with how to make decisions about masking abound, as people try to puzzle out how to balance the need to avoid stigma with a desire to live as their authentic self; whether to prioritize their own mental health or their ability to move through the world. In a popular post with over 100 comments, [u/twatermelonsugar] (2024) wrote that unmasking “WAS very freeing” at first, as she stopped concealing her overstimulation and accommodated her own sensory needs. However, she now “felt more isolated”, hated feeling “unlikeable”, and was considering masking again. Another poster echoed that unmasking lessened their exhaustion but harmed their social interactions, as others now “treat [them] like a weirdo”, which “​​affirms [their] fears that no one will like [their] true self” ([u/oversized_socks], 2022).

A post asking “Do you agree with the majority opinion that masking is bad?” met with a wide range of responses, with many agreeing that masking is often necessary for success, especially in professional settings, but that being able to unmask and be authentic with friends and family you trust is extremely important for mental health ([u/chinawcswing], 2022). However, unmasking around loved ones brings its own challenges with handling their reactions and perceptions. One user described the dilemma of how unmasking at home improved her mental wellbeing, but her husband felt hurt because he interpreted this change as her being unwilling to put in the same effort and “normal reactions” for him that she did for others ([u/matsche_pampe], 2022). Another said unmasking and reducing the prep work she did before social interactions resulted in her spouse feeling annoyed and friends assuming she was “being rude and a stuck up b[itch]” ([u/ixpantenco48], 2022). These posts sparked extensive discussions of how to balance the need to unmask with fulfilling loved ones’ emotional and interactional needs. Commenters suggested ways to facilitate healthy communication and avoid misunderstandings, how to explain masking/unmasking to non-autistic people, and shared similar personal experiences. It appears that unmasking in front of people who are used to a different self-presentation can draw backlash and confusion, further complicating autistic people's decisions around masking/camouflaging.

Most of these discussions result in no conclusive answer, but they reflect nuanced, genuine opinions from members of the autistic community – valuable personal testimony that should be taken seriously by researchers. They provide novel information about decision-making around camouflaging, its effects, and the necessity of supportive friends and family when trying to unmask. Unmasking has not yet been studied academically, and any researcher interested in it would be well-served by taking a deep dive into online community discussions. More broadly, as we strive toward consulting autistic people at every stage of the research process, immersing oneself in these online communities could be a way to understand autistic people's distinctive problems and concerns, enabling researchers to design studies that could directly benefit autistic people's lives. Whether using them as a starting point for generating research questions, to inform interview guides and survey design, or to conduct content analyses or computational research, online community discussions are an invaluable source of information, especially when studying camouflaging.

Concealable stigmatized identity research

Another avenue to gain insight into camouflaging is past research into other concealable stigmatized identities, which share distinctive characteristics and struggles. Goffman's (1963) seminal treatise on stigma made an important distinction between the discredited, whose stigma is known about, and the discreditable, whose stigma is concealable and unknown to those around them. For the discreditable, “passing” as a non-stigmatized person is possible, but the threat of being discredited looms large; they face the constant dilemma “to display or not to display…to lie or not to lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when, and where” (Goffman, 1963, p. 42). Building upon these ideas, researchers have created a theoretical framework of concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs), defined as socially devalued and negatively stereotyped identities which can be hidden from others (Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). CSIs include identities such as sexual orientation, mental illness, substance abuse, and HIV, and a wealth of research has since illuminated the effects of concealability on people's experiences of stigma and their psychological health (Chaudoir et al., 2013; Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013).

For those who are able to camouflage their traits, autism can be conceptualized as a CSI and placed within this framework (Han et al., 2022). I argue that we should go a step further and utilize past CSI research into other identities to strengthen our conceptual understanding of autistic camouflaging and make predictions about aspects of it we do not yet fully understand, such as how camouflaging compares to other stigma management strategies.

Although CSIs are devalued by society, individuals’ own attitudes toward their identity can vary widely. The effects of stigma therefore depend on both the valenced content and magnitude of each individual's identity-related constructs (Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). Valenced content is the sum of all affectively positive or negative beliefs and experiences related to the CSI, including experienced, internalized, and anticipated stigma, with negatively valenced content predicting psychological distress. Magnitude is the importance of the CSI within one's self-concept, with greater magnitudes being related to higher psychological distress, lower self-esteem, and more negative affect (Frable et al., 1998; Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009; Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). Magnitude is determined by centrality (how much the identity defines oneself), and salience (how often the identity is thought about)(Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). Individuals with CSIs can self-determine how central and salient their identity is, but social contexts and characteristics of the CSI are likely to impact both (Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). When it comes to autism, qualitative research shows that autistic people generally think of autism as very integral to who they are, affecting every aspect of their lives (Botha et al., 2022). Autistic people therefore likely have high identity magnitudes, meaning that differences in individuals’ valenced content will have an especially high impact on psychological distress.

CSI research also provides theoretical support for the assumption that camouflaging can effectively reduce external discrimination. Past research has established that the amount of external stigma a member of a stigmatized group faces depends on the visibility of their group membership. This is because humans instinctively categorize others at a subcategory level; we not only judge whether someone fits a certain category, we also assess how much they fit that category (Monk, 2015). For example, Black Americans with darker skin tones are perceived as more likely to fit stereotypes about their race than those with lighter skin, and as a result face more discrimination and worse treatment across myriad life domains, to the extent that Black Americans’ intra-racial disparities in wealth and health along the skin color continuum exceed overall black-white disparities (Monk, 2015). For CSIs, stigma visibility is also directly linked to discrimination. For instance, gender nonconformity is a visible marker of being transgender, and gender nonconforming people face more legal, economic, and social discrimination than those who can “pass” as cisgender (Miller & Grollman, 2015). Gay men and lesbians with higher stigma visibility (in terms of gendered stereotypes of physical characteristics and behaviors) also face more frequent discrimination and worse mental health outcomes (Doane, 2017).

Engaging in concealment strategies thus appears to be a viable strategy to reduce the external stigma that one faces. Furthermore, decreasing one's stigma visibility along a continuum can result in corresponding decreases in external discrimination, rather than being limited to a binary visible/invisible result. This conceptually supports the idea that camouflaging can be a useful tool to reduce external stigma even if it does not allow someone to fully pass as neurotypical. Again, further elucidation of camouflaging's effectiveness is still needed.

Alternative strategies

In addition to camouflaging, autistic people report using selective identity disclosure, self-advocacy, and positive reframing of their identity to manage stigma (Han et al., 2022). However, these reports were mostly from qualitative interview studies, which provided limited evidence as to whether these tactics were actually effective (Han et al., 2022). Examining how these strategies manifest in other CSIs can provide theoretical support for their usefulness, and aid us in comparing them to concealment-based strategies like camouflaging.

Identity disclosure

Disclosing one's CSI is a complex process that can yield benefit or harm based on the confidants’ reactions, which in turn shapes one's self-identity (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). A supportive confidant alleviates inhibition and improves social support, while a neutral or negative reaction yields no benefits, and may even worsen self-perception (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). For heavily stigmatized identities which face frequent misconceptions among the public such as autism (Turnock et al., 2022), the benefits of disclosure heavily depend on the confidants’ level of knowledge, and there may be a lower chance of receiving a positive reaction. Autistic people typically hide their autism, and deciding whether to disclose involves a methodical evaluation of the pros and cons that involves the trustworthiness and open-mindedness of the person (Davidson & Henderson, 2010). They describe strategically testing who would be a good confidant by bringing up autism in a non-self-related way, and may gradually educate others about autism before revealing their own identity (Davidson & Henderson, 2010).

Identity disclosure has the potential to improve future social interactions with not only the confidant, but also one's broader social circle, as individual disclosure can help raise accurate awareness, reduce stigma, and help make disclosure normative in their environment (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Identity disclosure also decreases the likelihood of directly witnessing friends and nearby others disparage one's CSI, which is a hurtful experience (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009; Wahl, 1999). Unfortunately, it is currently unclear whether confidants’ change in behavior reflects a change in beliefs, or just a self-censoring in the presence of the person.

Identity disclosure can be especially helpful when it allows someone to find and receive support from similar others, which serves as a protective factor against stigma and increases self-acceptance (Frable et al., 1998). Confiding in other autistic people is generally beneficial and provides social support (Botha & Frost, 2020), but can be difficult to do when most keep their identity concealed. This makes online autism communities an especially important method of receiving social support, again underscoring their role as the central space where autistic people are describing their struggles and seeking empathic understanding.

Importantly, identity disclosure and camouflaging are not mutually exclusive strategies, especially for autism. Someone can disclose having autism but continue to camouflage their behaviors to avoid negative reactions, or “unmask” and behave naturally without explicitly disclosing their identity. In fact, whether an autistic person has disclosed their identity or not is less predictive of psychological well-being than the amount of active concealment behavior they engage in (Camacho et al., 2020). It is important for future research to examine the effects of identity disclosure for autistic people specifically, and to examine how disclosure intersects with camouflaging or unmasking.

Activism and self-advocacy

Camouflaging is a highly individualistic, deflection-based strategy that involves dissociating from one's in-group and attempting to “pass” into a higher-status out-group (Perry et al., 2022). In contrast, collectivist, challenge-based strategies such as activism and self-advocacy aim to benefit one's in-group by challenging negative stereotypes, educating those around them, and reducing stigma (Marcussen et al., 2021; Perry et al., 2022; Thoits, 2011). On an individual level, using challenge-based strategies can also increase one's sense of agency, and is associated with lower depressive symptoms and better overall well-being (Marcussen et al., 2021; Perry et al., 2022; Thoits, 2011). While avoiding external stigma may help preserve one's personal well-being, the use of deflection strategies does not help decrease overall stigma around a condition (Marcussen et al., 2021). To this author's knowledge, there has been no research on the effects of activism on stigma and mental health in autism specifically. However, past CSI research findings would suggest that engaging in autism advocacy work or other challenge-based strategies could potentially serve as a good alternative to camouflaging, reducing societal stigma and discrimination in a way that is less detrimental to the individual.

Conclusion

It is clear that camouflaging deeply impacts the lives of autistic people; while it may provide a way to avoid stigma, it also has highly detrimental effects on mental health. We still have an incomplete understanding of camouflaging, and must further elucidate its benefits and harms. Two existing sources of information that can help advance camouflaging research are online community discussions and CSI research. Discussions within the autism community can provide unique insight into their decision-making processes and struggles around camouflaging and unmasking, while past research into other CSIs can serve as a valuable conceptual basis to theorize about the effectiveness of camouflaging and other stigma management strategies for autism.