10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Neurotype-Matching, but Not Being Autistic, Influences Self and Observer Ratings of Interpersonal Rapport

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Double Empathy Problem suggests that communicative difficulties between autistic and non-autistic people are due to bi-directional differences in communicative style and a reciprocal lack of understanding. If true, there should be increased similarity in interaction style, resulting in higher rapport during interactions between pairs of the same neurotype. Here, we provide two empirical tests of rapport, with data revealing whether self- and observer- rated rapport varies depending on the match or mismatch in autism status within a pair. An additional opportunity afforded by these data is to examine the effect of the autism status of the rater on the perceived rapport between matched and mismatched pairs. In Study 1 72 participants were allocated to one of three dyad conditions: autistic pairs ( n = 24), non-autistic pairs ( n = 24) and mixed pairs ( n = 12 autistic; n = 12 non-autistic). Each participant completed three semi-structured interactions with their partner, rating rapport after each interaction. Non-autistic pairs experienced higher self-rated rapport than mixed and autistic pairs, and autistic pairs experienced higher rapport than mixed pairs. In Study 2 ( n = 80) autistic and non-autistic observers rated interactional rapport while watching videoed interactions between autistic pairs, non-autistic pairs, and mixed pairs ( n = 18, a subset of participants in Study 1). Mixed pairs were rated significantly lower on rapport than autistic and non-autistic pairs, and autistic pairs were rated more highly for rapport than non-autistic pairs. Both autistic and non-autistic observers show similar patterns in how they rate the rapport of autistic, non-autistic, and mixed pairs. In summary, autistic people experience high interactional rapport when interacting with other autistic people, and this is also detected by external observers. Rather than autistic people experiencing low rapport in all contexts, their rapport ratings are influenced by a mismatch of diagnosis. These findings suggest that autistic people possess a distinct mode of social interaction style, rather than demonstrating social skills deficits. These data are considered in terms of their implications for psychological theories of autism, as well as practical impact on educational and clinical practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians.

            Currently there are no brief, self-administered instruments for measuring the degree to which an adult with normal intelligence has the traits associated with the autistic spectrum. In this paper, we report on a new instrument to assess this: the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Individuals score in the range 0-50. Four groups of subjects were assessed: Group 1: 58 adults with Asperger syndrome (AS) or high-functioning autism (HFA); Group 2: 174 randomly selected controls. Group 3: 840 students in Cambridge University; and Group 4: 16 winners of the UK Mathematics Olympiad. The adults with AS/HFA had a mean AQ score of 35.8 (SD = 6.5), significantly higher than Group 2 controls (M = 16.4, SD = 6.3). 80% of the adults with AS/HFA scored 32+, versus 2% of controls. Among the controls, men scored slightly but significantly higher than women. No women scored extremely highly (AQ score 34+) whereas 4% of men did so. Twice as many men (40%) as women (21%) scored at intermediate levels (AQ score 20+). Among the AS/HFA group, male and female scores did not differ significantly. The students in Cambridge University did not differ from the randomly selected control group, but scientists (including mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills. Within the sciences, mathematicians scored highest. This was replicated in Group 4, the Mathematics Olympiad winners scoring significantly higher than the male Cambridge humanities students. 6% of the student sample scored 32+ on the AQ. On interview, 11 out of 11 of these met three or more DSM-IV criteria for AS/HFA, and all were studying sciences/mathematics, and 7 of the 11 met threshold on these criteria. Test-retest and interrater reliability of the AQ was good. The AQ is thus a valuable instrument for rapidly quantifying where any given individual is situated on the continuum from autism to normality. Its potential for screening for autism spectrum conditions in adults of normal intelligence remains to be fully explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                23 October 2020
                2020
                : 11
                : 586171
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Patrick Wild Centre, Division of Psychiatry, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [2] 2School of Psychology, University of Nottingham , Nottingham, United Kingdom
                [3] 3School of Education, Durham University , Durham, United Kingdom
                [4] 4Salvesen Mindroom Research Centre, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [5] 5School of Psychology, Queen’s University , Belfast, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Christine M. Falter-Wagner, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany

                Reviewed by: Kristen Marie Bottema-Beutel, Boston College, United States; Jacquiline Den Houting, Macquarie University, Australia

                *Correspondence: Catherine J. Crompton, catherine.crompton@ 123456ed.ac.uk

                This article was submitted to Psychology for Clinical Settings, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586171
                7645034
                33192918
                f2cb8cbe-8e0d-4604-8929-44e6403ade87
                Copyright © 2020 Crompton, Sharp, Axbey, Fletcher-Watson, Flynn and Ropar.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 22 July 2020
                : 07 October 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 72, Pages: 13, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: Templeton World Charity Foundation 10.13039/501100011730
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                autism,double empathy theory,rapport,interaction,communication,neurodiversity

                Comments

                Comment on this article