Game Changer: Exploring the Role of Board Games in the Lives of Autistic People

This mixed methods paper reports findings from three studies examining the overlap between autism and hobbyist board gaming. The first was a quantitative survey of over 1600 board gamers, showing that autistic individuals are overrepresented in this hobby compared to the general population and that autistic traits measured by the AQ are significantly elevated amongst board gamers. Study 1 also assessed gamers' motivations and preferences and reported key differences as well as similarities between autistic and non-autistic gamers. The second was a qualitative study that reported the results of 13 interviews with autistic individuals who are hobbyist board gamers. Using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), four key themes were uncovered, including a preference for systemising, escapism and passions, the social lubrication effect of games and difficulties with deception. In the third, 28 autistic individuals were introduced to board games in groups of 5-10 over an afternoon. Subsequent focus groups were then analysed using IPA. This analysis uncovered themes around how board games are challenging but encouraged growth and how they were an alternative vehicle for forging social relationships. Through this paper, we discuss how and why board games may be a popular hobby amongst the autistic population, and its potential utility for improving autistic wellbeing.

Medicalizing disabled people's emotions-Symptom of a dis/ableist society

The theoretical-conceptual article at hand explores how emotional discourses shape social relations by specifically focusing on the medicalization of disabled- and chronically ill-people's emotions. Medicalization is a concept from medical sociology that describes medicine's expansion into non-medical life areas, for instance into the realm of emotions, sometimes in order to challenge this expansion. The emotions of disabled people are often presented as a medicalized problem, rather than recognizing their embeddedness in a dis/ableist socio-cultural context. Such discourses instrumentalize feelings in order to individualize the responsibility for disability. For a contextualized and emancipatory approach, this study reviews papers on medicalized emotions from Disability Studies-a research program that can provide a rich archive of experiential accounts yet to be theorized through a comprehensive emotional perspective. The medicalization of disabled people's emotions can manifest in different ways: (1) In a dis/ableist society, able-mindedness is compulsory; i.e., we fail to question that a healthy mind is the norm and something to strive for unconditionally. This is also true on an emotional level; after all, some medical diagnoses are based on the wrong degree or temporality of emotionality. (2) Unpleasant feelings such as sadness are misunderstood as symptoms of impairment rather than effects of discrimination. (3) The expression of hurt feelings, e.g., related to discrimination, can easily be dismissed as hysterical. This assumption epistemologically disables patients. (4) Love and desire are delegitimized as fetish, for example, the desire for a disabled lover or the wish to start a family despite a chronic illness. The medicalization of disabled people's emotions individualizes and delegitimizes unpleasant emotions that emerge in a dis/ableist society. Different facets of medicalization enforce medical treatment instead, albeit in different ways. Disabled and sick people are cast as not feeling and desiring the right way, while hegemonic discourse prescribes psychological treatment against the effects of discrimination and bodily symptoms it cannot explain. Beyond the dismissal of disabled people's experience, adverse effects on healthcare delivery and health outcomes can be expected.

Autism, pets, and the importance of seeing human

People often see the human in the nonhuman, a process called anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is particularly prolific regarding the humanization of pets. Some research suggests that people with autism may not anthropomorphize to the same degree as neurotypicals. In this study, we explored whether there were differences in how autistic and neurotypical pet owners anthropomorphized their pets. We also examined differences in levels of connectedness to nature and experiences of loneliness and how this corresponded to autistic traits in the entire sample. We found anthropomorphism was as common among autistic pet owners as in neurotypicals. However, autistic pet owners reported greater loneliness and were more likely to substitute pets for people. We also found that neurotypical pet owners rated pets more highly on physical, non-anthropomorphic traits (i.e., muscular, active). In contrast, autistic pet owners were likelier to rate pets equally between physical and anthropomorphic traits. Moreover, we found that anthropomorphism and connection to nature were positively correlated with autistic traits. These findings challenge accounts stating that individuals with autism may not anthropomorphize to the same degree as neurotypicals. Implications for animal-based interventions supporting adults on the spectrum are discussed.

Autistic people outperform neurotypicals in a cartoon version of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes

Prior research suggests that while autistic people may demonstrate poorer facial emotion recognition when stimuli are human, these differences lessen when stimuli are anthropomorphic. To investigate this further, this work explores emotion recognition in autistic and neurotypical adults (n = 196). Groups were compared on a standard and a cartoon version of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. Results indicated that autistic individuals were not significantly different from neurotypicals on the standard version. However, autistic people outperformed neurotypicals on the cartoon version. The implications for these findings regarding emotion recognition deficits and the social motivation account of autism are discussed and support the view of socio‐cognitive differences rather than deficits in this population.

'They ask no questions and pass no criticism': A mixed-methods study exploring pet ownership in autism

Many autistic people cite a strong attachment to animals, and some studies suggest they may even show a bias towards animals over people. This mixed-methods study explored companion animal attachment in the adult autistic community. In a quantitative study with 735 people, we found that autistic adults were equally attached to their pets as neurotypicals but were less likely to own them, even though pet ownership corresponded with better mental health outcomes. Substituting pets for people also served as a compensatory mechanism for social contact in the autistic sample. In a second qualitative study, we explored the lived experiences of 16 autistic pet owners. The interpretive phenomenological analysis highlighted the benefits and the barriers to animal companionship. Together these mixed methods findings underline how pets improve the lives of their autistic owners. We conclude with specific recommendations for increasing animal companionship opportunities for autistic adults.

Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers

In this commentary, we describe how language used to communicate about autism within much of autism research can reflect and perpetuate ableist ideologies (i.e., beliefs and practices that discriminate against people with disabilities), whether or not researchers intend to have such effects. Drawing largely from autistic scholarship on this subject, along with research and theory from disability studies and discourse analysis, we define ableism and its realization in linguistic practices, provide a historical overview of ableist language used to describe autism, and review calls from autistic researchers and laypeople to adopt alternative ways of speaking and writing. Finally, we provide several specific avenues to aid autism researchers in reflecting on and adjusting their language choices.

Lay summary

Why is this topic important?: In the past, autism research has mostly been conducted by nonautistic people, and researchers have described autism as something bad that should be fixed. Describing autism in this way has negative effects on how society views and treats autistic people and may even negatively affect how autistic people view themselves. Despite recent positive changes in how researchers write and speak about autism, "ableist" language is still used. Ableist language refers to language that assumes disabled people are inferior to nondisabled people.What is the purpose of this article?: We wrote this article to describe how ableism influences the way autism is often described in research. We also give autism researchers strategies for avoiding ableist language in their future work.What is the perspective of the authors?: We believe that ableism is a "system of discrimination," which means that it influences how people talk about and perceive autism whether or not they are aware of it, and regardless of whether or not they actually believe that autistic people are inferior to nonautistic people. We also believe that language choices are part of what perpetuates this system. Because of this, researchers need to take special care to determine whether their language choices reflect ableism and take steps to use language that is not ableist.What is already known about this topic?: Autistic adults (including researchers and nonresearchers) have been writing and speaking about ableist language for several decades, but nonautistic autism researchers may not be aware of this work. We have compiled this material and summarized it for autism researchers.What do the authors recommend?: We recommend that researchers understand what ableism is, reflect on the language they use in their written and spoken work, and use nonableist language alternatives to describe autism and autistic people. For example, many autistic people find terms such as "special interests" and "special needs" patronizing; these terms could be replaced with "focused interests" and descriptions of autistic people's specific needs. Medicalized/deficit language such as "at risk for autism" should be replaced by more neutral terms such as "increased likelihood of autism." Finally, ways of speaking about autism that are not restricted to particular terms but still contribute to marginalization, such as discussion about the "economic burden of autism," should be replaced with discourses that center the impacts of social arrangements on autistic people.How will these recommendations help autistic people now or in the future?: Language is a powerful means for shaping how people view autism. If researchers take steps to avoid ableist language, researchers, service providers, and society at large may become more accepting and accommodating of autistic people.

What am I thinking? Perspective-taking from the perspective of adolescents with autism

Autistic people are often described as being impaired with regard to theory of mind, though more recent literature finds flaws in the theory of mind deficit paradigm. In addition, the predominant methods for examining theory of mind often rely on "observational" modes of assessment and do not adequately reflect the dynamic process of real-life perspective taking. Thus, it is imperative that researchers continue to test the autistic theory of mind deficit paradigm and explore theory of mind experiences through more naturalistic approaches. This study qualitatively examined theory of mind in 12 autistic adolescents through a series of semi-structured interviews. Interpretive phenomenological analysis of the data revealed four core themes in participants' theory of mind experiences and strategies, all of which highlighted how a more accurate representation of autistic theory of mind is one of difference rather than deficit. For instance, data showed that autistic heightened perceptual abilities may contribute to mentalizing strengths and that honesty in autism may be less dependent on systemizing rather than personal experience and choice. Such findings suggest that future research should reexamine autistic characteristics in light of their ability to enhance theory of mind processing. Understanding how an autistic theory of mind is uniquely functional is an imperative step toward both destigmatizing the condition and advocating for neurodiversity.

Uneasy encounters: Youth, social (dis)comfort and the autistic self

Notions of deficit and 'faultiness' shape depictions of the association between autism and uneasy social relationships. That framing has been the focus of critique by autistic activists and scholars who, exploring autistic people's sociality, reframe issues of social difficulty in terms of inequality and discomfort. Located within this set of debates, the article analyses data from a UK based study of mental health narratives derived from semi-structured interviews with 19 autistic young adults aged 23 to 24. The NIHR funded the study, and a UK National Health Service Research Ethics Committee gave ethical approval. Sociality and social difficulties, feelings of discomfort, and perceptions of the autistic self as 'faulty' were themes of the study. Exploring the nexus of inequality, non-autistic social power, fears about social performance and (dis)comfort that underpinned the accounts, the article explores the conclusions the young adults reached about social difficulty. Critically examining notions of improvability, the article contributes to debates about sociality, social difficulty and comfort by questioning the assumption that social dysfunction is due to autistic 'fault'. The article concludes with a discussion of inequality in autistic and non-autistic encounters, and of the social dynamics that deny autistic people social comfort.

Expanding upon the 'extreme male brain' theory of autism as a common link between other major risk factors: a hypothesis

On average, males have a stronger preference for physical systems and machines over interpersonal interactions; they have lower average levels of cognitive empathy or social cognition than females; and they have higher rates of 'extreme' intelligence when it comes to abstract concepts such as those found in mathematics and sciences. All three traits are also commonly associated with individuals with an autism spectrum disorder or ASD; clearly, it is not coincidental that incidence rates of autism are reportedly four times higher in males than in females. The common link between the majority of risk factors assessed in this review (including technological advancements, advanced parental age, socioeconomic status, and genetic predispositions towards ASDs in families of scientists and engineers) can be traced to a specific hormone, testosterone. It was established that traits which are typically associated with males are also typically associated with ASDs as well as individuals with antisocial personality disorder, or APD. The key distinction between individuals who are considered to be 'autistic' as opposed to those who are considered 'sociopathic' lies in the difference between their empathy deficits: whereas those who are 'autistic' are said to lack cognitive empathy (the ability to identify and understand the thoughts and feelings of others and to respond to these with appropriate emotions), those who are 'sociopathic' are said to lack emotional empathy (which is responsible for inhibiting acts of physical aggression or violence). This would explain why autistic individuals can have elevated testosterone levels without becoming physically aggressive.