RESUMEN
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.
Why is this an important issue? Autistic adults have difficulty finding work and staying employed. One reason for this is problems they report having with social interactions in non-autistic workplaces. Traditionally, autistic people are assumed to have trouble with social skills because they lack the ability to read what is going on in the minds of other people, something non-autistic people are assumed to be able to do. However, there is another theory that says the problem is not that there is something wrong with autistic people, but rather that autistic and non-autistic people do not understand each other due to being socially and neurologically different. Therefore, the problem lies not within the autistic person but in the autistic/non-autistic social interaction. What was the purpose of this study? This study examined the two competing ways of explaining autistic social difficulties in workplaces that are primarily non-autistic: (1) autistic people having trouble with reading the minds of other people versus (2) autistic and non-autistic people being socially different and mutually misunderstanding each other. What did the researchers do? With help from autistic people, we wrote a story about an autistic employee having a difficult day in a non-autistic workplace, which results in negative social interactions and an emotional reaction. We had 81 autistic and 173 non-autistic people read the story and tell us what they think is going on with the person in the story and the reason for the person's behavior. What were the results of the study? Autistic people who read the story were more likely to accurately understand the autistic employee in the story (50.7% accurate), compared with non-autistic people (31.2% accurate). Autistic study participants who were the best at understanding the autistic person in the story on average also reported having more characteristics of autism. What do these findings add to what was already known? This study adds to a growing group of studies that demonstrate that autistic people have strong social rapport and communicate well with each other and also demonstrate that non-autistic people have trouble in understanding autistic people. This study applied these previous findings to autistic social challenges in non-autistic workplaces. It contributes evidence that autistic people are not impaired socially, but rather that their social difficulties in non-autistic workplaces are due to problems within the autistic/non-autistic social interaction. What are potential weaknesses in the study? Because it was an online survey, people in the study could not ask questions about the story. The researchers also could not confirm participant autism diagnosis. The sample did not have enough people of different races and possibly not enough participants who routinely use the internet or social media and therefore may have been excluded from the study. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future? This work is important because it contributes to changing the way we think about why autistic people struggle to function socially in a world where the majority of people are non-autistic, including in the workplace. Rather than placing sole responsibility on autistic employees for mutual misunderstandings between autistic and non-autistic persons in the workplace, findings of this study point to shifting workplace environment and culture that understands and values autistic social differences.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cannabis policy is rapidly evolving in the United States as more states legalize medical and non-medical marijuana. Public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of marijuana legalization. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the reasons that people support, oppose, or are unsure about marijuana legalization, focusing on the participants' own words. METHODS: A statewide sample of adults (N = 2,608) in Michigan completed an online survey about marijuana legalization (August and September 2016). Participants indicated whether they supported, opposed, or were unsure about marijuana legalization, and were then prompted to complete an open-ended response explaining the main reasons for their view. Thematic analysis was then used to code the open-ended responses (n = 2,054) and analytic induction was used to evaluate the coding. RESULTS: 48.1% of the sample supported cannabis legalization, 41.9% were opposed to legalization, and 10% were unsure. Harms associated with marijuana use were the most commonly given reasons for opposing legalization. Those who supported legalization were most likely to state that marijuana is less dangerous than other substances and has medical benefits. They also cited criminal justice reform and the potential for tax revenue as potential benefits of legalization. Reasons for supporting and opposing legalization differed based on gender, age, and recent marijuana use. Conclusions/Importance: Findings highlight nuances in public attitudes toward cannabis legalization. Many who support cannabis legalization recognize some potential negative consequences of these policy changes. Understanding views of cannabis is important as policies for marijuana use and sales become less restrictive.