Autism and Employment Challenges: The Double Empathy Problem and Perceptions of an Autistic Employee in the Workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: High unemployment rates are found among autistic adults. Difficulties with social functioning in non-autistic workplaces can be significant barriers to employment success. Autistic social functioning challenges in non-autistic spaces have traditionally been attributed to assumed impairments in Theory of Mind (ToM). Alternatively, the Double Empathy Problem (DEP) posits that autistic social challenges arise not from assumed impairments within the autistic person but instead from mutual misunderstandings in the autistic/non-autistic social interaction. The purpose of this study was to compare the ToM impairments explanation of autistic social functioning with the DEP, within the context of autistic employee social functioning in a non-autistic workplace. Methods: This study compared autistic and non-autistic participants' ability to accurately interpret the behaviors of an autistic employee at work. A sample of 254 participants (173 non-autistic and 81 autistic) read a vignette about a hypothetical autistic employee having difficulty coping in the workplace. Participants answered open-ended questions regarding their interpretation of the employee's behavior and emotional state. Results: A significantly greater proportion of autistic participants (50.7%) accurately interpreted the behavior of the employee compared with non-autistic participants (31.2%) ( χ 2 = 8.65, p = 0.003). Autistic participants with the highest behavior interpretation scores had significantly higher mean self-reported autism traits scores ( M = 26.8) compared with autistic participants who scored lowest on behavior interpretation ( M = 19.3, p < 0.001). The opposite relationship was found for non-autistic participants. Conclusions: Results from this study contribute to evidence supporting the DEP, shifting the paradigm of autistic social functioning away from a deficit model and toward addressing mutual misunderstandings in the autistic/non-autistic social interaction. The pattern of findings between neurotype groups by behavior interpretation abilities on an autism traits measure points to mutual misunderstandings as a clash of neurologically different social cultures. Addressing the DEP in the workplace would contribute to removing barriers to successful employment for autistic adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".