The Double Empathy Problem suggests that autistic individuals may experience communication difficulties with non-autistic people due to differences in social interaction styles and communication preferences.
When autistic people interact with each other, they share similar social styles and communication preferences, which can lead to better understanding and rapport.
This shared understanding can reduce the need for masking or camouflaging autistic traits, creating a more comfortable and authentic social experience.
In contrast, interactions with non-autistic individuals may require more effort to navigate social expectations and communication differences, potentially leading to misunderstandings and reduced rapport.
Foster, S. J., Ackerman, R. A., Wilks, C. E., Dodd, M., Calderon, R., Ropar, D., Fletcher-Watson, S., Crompton, C. J., & Sasson, N. J. (2025). Rapport in same and mixed neurotype groups of autistic and non-autistic adults. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251320444
Key Points
- Autistic adults established higher rapport with other autistic adults compared to mixed groups with non-autistic individuals.
- Non-autistic adults’ rapport was consistent across different group types.
- Autistic adults were more sensitive to group composition than non-autistic adults.
- The study supports the Double Empathy Problem, suggesting bi-directional difficulties in social interactions between autistic and non-autistic individuals.
- The findings highlight the importance of considering social context in rapport-building interventions for autistic individuals.
Rationale
The study is based on the Double Empathy Problem (DEP), which suggests that communication and understanding can be impaired in mixed groups of autistic and non-autistic individuals due to differences in their ways of thinking and interacting.
While previous research has demonstrated the DEP in dyadic interactions, this study extends the investigation to group settings, which are more representative of real-world social interactions.
This research is crucial for informing the development of more effective social interventions for autistic individuals, moving beyond the traditional deficit-based model that focuses solely on improving autistic individuals’ social skills to better align with non-autistic norms.
Instead, the study’s findings can help create social environments that are more inclusive and supportive of diverse interaction styles, promoting positive social experiences for both autistic and non-autistic individuals.
Method
The study used a mixed-group experimental design. Participants were assigned to groups of four, with varying compositions of autistic and non-autistic individuals.
Rapport was assessed after a collaborative tower-building task.
Procedure
- Participants were screened for eligibility criteria, including age, language proficiency, and the absence of social anxiety or uncontrolled epilepsy.
- Autistic participants were either formally diagnosed or self-identified and met specific criteria on the Ritvo Autism and Asperger Diagnostic Scale (RAADS).
- Participants were assigned to one of four group types: all-autistic, all-non-autistic, non-autistic majority, or autistic majority.
- Groups engaged in a 5-minute Jenga tower-building task after a brief 3-minute introduction period.
- Following the task, participants individually completed a rapport measure.
Sample
- The study involved 143 adults (77 autistic, 66 non-autistic).
- Participants were recruited from various sources across three university sites.
- The sample was predominantly white and in their twenties.
- Autistic and non-autistic participants did not differ significantly in terms of age, IQ, or ethnicity but showed a difference in gender, with more autistic participants identifying as non-binary.
Measures
- Ritvo Autism and Asperger Diagnostic Scale (RAADS-14): A screening tool used to assess autistic traits.
- Jenga tower-building task: A collaborative task used to observe group interaction dynamics.
- Rapport measure: A 5-item scale used to assess participants’ perceived rapport within their group, including items like enjoyment, ease of interaction, success, friendliness, and awkwardness.
Statistical measures
- Multilevel Modeling (MLM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimation was used to analyze the data.
- Group Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (GAPIM) was employed to assess the effects of individual and group neurotype on rapport.
Results
- Hypothesis 1: Mixed groups of autistic and non-autistic adults would report lower overall rapport compared to all-autistic and all-non-autistic groups.
- Result: Not fully supported. While all-autistic groups reported the highest mean composite rapport, there was no significant difference in overall rapport between mixed and same-neurotype groups. However, all-autistic groups rated their interactions as significantly more enjoyable and friendly than both types of mixed groups.
- Hypothesis 2: Participants who were the diagnostic minority in the group would report lower overall rapport than those in the diagnostic majority.
- Result: Partially supported. Autistic participants’ rapport decreased as more non-autistic participants were included in the group, particularly in terms of ease and enjoyment. Non-autistic participants maintained similar rapport ratings regardless of group composition.
Insight
This study provides important insights into the dynamics of rapport in mixed neurotype groups.
The finding that autistic adults experience greater rapport with other autistic adults, particularly in terms of enjoying the interaction and perceiving the group as friendly, challenges the deficit-based model of autism.
This model often attributes social difficulties solely to autistic individuals’ characteristics, overlooking the role of social context and interaction dynamics.
The study also highlights that autistic adults are more sensitive to the neurotype composition of their groups compared to non-autistic adults.
This sensitivity could be due to various factors, including past negative social experiences or the cognitive demands of masking autistic traits in mixed groups.
Future research could investigate these potential factors and their impact on rapport.
The study’s findings extend previous research on the DEP by demonstrating its relevance in group settings.
This extension is crucial for understanding real-world social interactions, as they often occur in groups rather than dyads.
Further research could explore the DEP in various group settings, such as workplaces or educational institutions, to inform the development of more inclusive environments.
Implications
The findings have practical implications for practitioners and policymakers working with autistic individuals.
They highlight the importance of considering the social context and the neurotype composition of groups in rapport-building interventions.
For example, creating opportunities for autistic individuals to interact with other autistic adults could foster a greater sense of rapport and belonging.
In mixed groups, interventions could focus on promoting understanding and acceptance of diverse interaction styles.
Educators could use these findings to create more inclusive classrooms that support the social needs of all students.
This could involve providing opportunities for autistic students to work together on group projects or incorporating discussions about neurodiversity into the curriculum.
While implementing these findings may present challenges, such as the need for resources and training, the potential benefits for autistic individuals’ social well-being and inclusion are significant.
Strengths
This study had several methodological strengths, including:
- Experimental design: The study’s experimental design allowed for a controlled manipulation of group composition, enabling a direct examination of its effects on rapport.
- Mixed neurotype research team: The involvement of both autistic and non-autistic researchers in the project team ensured a more nuanced understanding of the research question and findings.
- Pre-registration of hypotheses and analyses: Pre-registering the study’s hypotheses and planned analyses on the Open Science Framework enhanced transparency and reduced the risk of bias.
Limitations
This study also had several limitations, including:
- Sample size and diversity: The limited sample size, particularly for the mixed groups, reduced the power to detect certain group differences and potential moderating effects. The sample also lacked diversity in terms of intellectual ability, race, and gender, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.
- Self-report measure: The reliance on self-reported rapport may not fully capture the nuances of social interaction dynamics. Future research could incorporate observational measures to complement self-report data.
- Disclosure of group composition: Informing participants about the diagnostic composition of their group might have influenced their behavior and rapport ratings. Future studies could explore the impact of disclosing or not disclosing group composition on rapport.
References
Primary reference
Foster, S. J., Ackerman, R. A., Wilks, C. E., Dodd, M., Calderon, R., Ropar, D., Fletcher-Watson, S., Crompton, C. J., & Sasson, N. J. (2025). Rapport in same and mixed neurotype groups of autistic and non-autistic adults. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251320444
Other references
Crompton, C. J., Sharp, M., Axbey, H., Flynn, E. G., & Ropar, D. (2020). Neurotype-Matching, but Not Being Autistic, Influences Self and Observer Ratings of Interpersonal Rapport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 586171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586171
Crompton, C. J., Hallett, S., Ropar, D., Flynn, E., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020). ‘I never realised everybody felt as happy as I do when I am around autistic people’: A thematic analysis of autistic adults’ relationships with autistic and neurotypical friends and family. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320908976
Milton, D. E. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & society, 27(6), 883-887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
Morrison, K. E., DeBrabander, K. M., Jones, D. R., Faso, D. J., Ackerman, R. A., & Sasson, N. J. (2019). Outcomes of real-world social interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared to typically developing partners. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319892701
Sasson, N. J., Dichter, G. S., & Bodfish, J. W. (2012). Affective Responses by Adults with Autism Are Reduced to Social Images but Elevated to Images Related to Circumscribed Interests. PLOS ONE, 7(8), e42457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042457
Sasson, N. J., Faso, D. J., Nugent, J., Lovell, S., Kennedy, D. P., & Grossman, R. B. (2017). Neurotypical Peers are Less Willing to Interact with Those with Autism based on Thin Slice Judgments. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700
Sheppard, E., Pillai, D., Wong, G. T. L., Ropar, D., & Mitchell, P. (2016). How easy is it to read the minds of people with autism spectrum disorder?. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 46, 1247-1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2662-8
Chen, L., Senande, L. L., Thorsen, M., & Patten, K. (2021). Peer preferences and characteristics of same-group and cross-group social interactions among autistic and non-autistic adolescents. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211005918
Bolis, D., & Schilbach, L. (2018). Observing and participating in social interactions: Action perception and action control across the autistic spectrum. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 29, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.01.009
Socratic Questions
- How might the study’s findings challenge traditional deficit-based models of autism?
- What are the potential implications of these findings for social skills interventions designed for autistic individuals?
- How could educators and policymakers apply these findings to create more inclusive environments for autistic people?
- What are some potential ethical considerations when conducting research on rapport in mixed neurotype groups?
- How might the disclosure of group composition influence participants’ behavior and perceptions in social interaction studies?
- What are some potential alternative interpretations of the findings, and how could future research address them?
- How might these findings be applied to different social contexts, such as workplaces or community settings?
