What are the autism research priorities of autistic adults in Scotland?

LAY ABSTRACT: Although research has the potential to improve autistic people's lives, lots of funding goes towards research looking at topics which autistic people say has little impact in their everyday lives. Autistic people's lives can be different depending on where they live, and Scotland is a unique country in many ways. We wanted to find out which topics autistic people in Scotland want to see research on. Our team of autistic and non-autistic researchers (including university-based and community researchers) created a survey where 225 autistic adults rated and ranked the importance of possible research topics and shared their thoughts on what topics mattered to them. The five most important topics were mental health and well-being, identifying and diagnosing autistic people, support services (including healthcare and social care), non-autistic people's knowledge and attitudes and issues impacting autistic women. The three least important topics were genetics or biological aspects of autism, autism treatments/interventions and causes of autism. Our findings indicate that autistic people in Scotland want research to focus on things that matter to their day-to-day lives. Also, the Scottish government says they will be listening to autistic people in their latest policy plans, and we believe that considering autistic people's research priorities is an important part of this. Our findings also add to growing calls for change to happen in how and what autism researchers do research on.

Collaborative learning of new information in older age: a systematic review.

Ageing is accompanied by a multitude of changes in cognitive abilities, which in turn affect learning. Learning collaboratively may benefit older adults by negating some of these age-related changes. However, studies on collaborative learning in older age differ in their methodology and findings. This systematic review provides an overview of the current research on collaborative learning in older age, exploring what factors influence collaborative learning in this age group. The titles and abstracts of imported 6629 works were screened, as well as four works added manually, which resulted in 29 studies. These studies were conducted across five countries (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Belgium) between 1993 and 2023. Most studies were quantitative with a non-randomized (n = 16) design. Of the 29 studies, almost all studied collaboration in pairs (n = 28). The results suggest that the benefits of collaborating in older age may depend on the type of learning material, that familiarity between partners does not affect learning, and that age differences appear to decrease or disappear when older adults are provided with adequate time or trials. In addition, this systematic review identifies several gaps in the literature that future research should investigate further. This study was preregistered prior to its commencement on 21 January 2022. The accepted Stage 1 manuscript, unchanged from the point of in-principle acceptance, may be viewed at https://osf.io/tj4w7/. The data and materials of this study can be found at https://osf.io/8xvqf/.

Innovation through neurodiversity: Diversity is beneficial.

LAY ABSTRACT: Neurodivergences such as autism have been previously viewed from a negative, 'deficit', perspective. However, research is beginning to show the benefits of being autistic, and the positive outcomes of neurodiverse interactions. Diversity in the way we think can lead to diversity in the outcomes we produce. In this study, we asked independent raters to compare the similarity of towers built by autistic and non-autistic individuals in single-neurotype (both people were autistic or both people were non-autistic) and neurodiverse (one autistic person and one non-autistic person) pairs, to see whether people would be more or less likely to copy someone who shared their diagnostic status. Our results showed there was the least similarity in design in the neurodiverse pairs; people were less likely to copy the design of the previous builder if that person had a different autistic status to themselves. This could imply people felt more confident in copying someone with a similar neurotype, mirroring results from rapport studies where autistic individuals reported greater rapport with other autistic participants than with non-autistic participants. This also shows there was more evidence of creativity in designs, and innovation from stimulus design (the tower they had watched being built) when the pairs had different autistic diagnoses. This could inform practice and support involving autistic people, encouraging education and care providers to create more diverse methods and designs for support mechanisms, content delivery, and research data collection.

'Someone like-minded in a big place': Autistic young adults' attitudes towards autistic peer support in mainstream education.

LAY ABSTRACT: Autistic young people may struggle in mainstream schools and feel disconnected from their peers and their school. We know that autistic adults can benefit from spending time with other autistic people, but we don't know if this is the case for younger autistic people. We conducted interviews with 13 autistic young adults in the United Kingdom who recently left mainstream schooling. We asked them if they would have been interested in being involved in autistic peer support when they were at school, and if so, what that peer support should look like. Results indicated that autistic young people were enthusiastic about the idea of peer support. They thought it was important that peer support was flexible to suit their needs at different times, as well as inclusive, positive, and embracing neurodiversity. They also discussed the potential benefits and difficulties of having a peer support system within a school setting. This adds to the growing body of research on the potential benefits of autistic-autistic interactions on autistic people's well-being and sense of belonging. Findings can be used to help design pilot peer support projects in schools that can be tested to see how effective they are.

"A Group of Fellow Travellers Who Understand": Interviews With Autistic People About Post-diagnostic Peer Support in Adulthood.

Receiving a diagnosis of autism in adulthood can be a life changing event, impacting identity, relationships, and mental health. A lack of post-diagnostic support has been highlighted by autistic adults, their allies, clinicians, and service providers. It can be a source of distress for autistic adults, reinforcing feelings of social isolation and rejection. Peer support could be a cost-effective, flexible, and sustainable model to provide community-based support for autistic adults. However, there is little research on the value of peer support, despite calls from the autistic community. This qualitative study explored autistic experiences and needs post-diagnosis, identifying specific ways that peer support may benefit them, and exploring the limitations of peer support. Twelve autistic adults who had all received an autism diagnosis in adulthood completed a semi-structured interview focussing on the diagnostic experience, post-diagnostic support needed and provided, engagement with the autistic community, and post-diagnostic peer support. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts resulted in four themes: (1) Mismatch in support needed and provided; (2) Community connection; (3) Flexible and personalised support; and (4) Sustainability. Participants indicated that peer support may be a useful mechanism to support autistic adults' post-diagnosis and offers unique opportunities not available through other support channels. Though informal peer support exists, it could be more sustainable and effective if well-supported and funded.

Learning with friends and strangers: partner familiarity does not improve collaborative learning performance in younger and older adults.

Collaborative learning with a familiar partner can reduce age-related differences in learning and memory compared to learning alone. This study compares younger and older adults' learning with familiar and unfamiliar partners to determine whether familiarity is beneficial for collaborative learning. Twenty-four younger adults aged 18-28 years and 24 older adults aged 60-80 years participated in familiar and unfamiliar pairs. Participants were asked to arrange abstract tangram shapes in a specific order on a grid over multiple trials; the directors' tangram cards were arranged in a specific order on the grid and this order was communicated to the matcher. Older adults initially took longer to complete the task, using more words to correctly arrange the tangrams. Over multiple trials, a learning effect was observed in both groups, although older adults did not perform with similar efficiency to younger adults. Familiarity had no effect on performance. These findings suggest that the familiarity of a partner does not affect learning outcomes in younger or older adults when learning in a social context. Collaborative learning may be beneficial for older adults, even if they do not know their learning partner, which may have implications for adult education and lifelong learning.

Investigating Markers of Rapport in Autistic and Nonautistic Interactions.

Background: Autism is considered to entail a social impairment whereby autistic people experience difficulty interpreting others' mental states. However, recent research has shown that nonautistic people also have difficulty understanding the mental states of autistic people. This mismatch of understanding may explain lower rapport in interactions between autistic and nonautistic people. As mental states can be expressed externally through socially normed signals, it is important to investigate the role of such signals in autistic, nonautistic, and mixed interactions. This study explores variability in two social signals between autistic, nonautistic, and mixed interactions, and how their use may affect rapport within interactions. Methods: Videos from a previous study of autistic, nonautistic, and mixed pair interactions in a diffusion chain context in which participants were aware of others' diagnostic status were video coded for mutual gaze and backchanneling as candidate indicators of interactional rapport. Results: Although use of mutual gaze and backchanneling was lower in mixed pairs than in nonautistic pairs, corresponding to lower ratings of interactional rapport, less backchanneling in autistic pairs of both nonverbal and verbal subtypes corresponded to higher ratings of rapport. Conclusions: We observed differences in the use of candidate rapport markers between autistic, mixed, and nonautistic interactions, which did not map onto patterns of rapport scores, suggesting differences in reliance on these cues between autistic and nonautistic people. These results suggest that visible markers of rapport may vary by neurotype or pairing and give clues to inform future investigations of autistic interaction.

Why is this an important issue?: When someone is autistic, society generally assumes they have difficulty interacting with others. Social difficulties between autistic and nonautistic people are thought to be due to the autistic person not being able to interact using nonautistic social behaviors. This belief can lead to many autistic people feeling alienated. However, recent research supports what autistic people have been saying for a long time: that autistic people are capable of having successful and rewarding interactions with other autistic people. This suggests that social difficulties between autistic and nonautistic people may be due to a mismatch in social norms leading to difficulty for both people, not just the autistic person. What was the purpose of this study?: In this study, we wanted to investigate whether certain social signals are used differently between autistic and nonautistic people. We also questioned whether using these signals helped or hurt the interaction depending on who was involved. What did the researchers do?: We recorded people passing a story down a chain of people, like the game telephone, to see how they interacted with each other. Afterward, people wrote down scores for how much they enjoyed their interaction. We focused on two parts of the interaction: how much people were looking at each other and when they made short verbal responses such as "mhm" to show they were listening (backchanneling). We watched the recordings back and analyzed how long or how many times these actions were occurring. What were the results of the study?: We found that when one autistic and one nonautistic person were interacting, they looked at each other and backchanneled less than two nonautistic people. This seemed to be linked with a less enjoyable interaction for them. However, backchanneling seemed to matter less in interactions between two autistic people. They backchanneled less while still having enjoyable interactions. What do these findings add to what was already known?: Research has previously suggested that different social norms exist between autistic and nonautistic people. This study shows specific examples of this and how they may affect the interaction in a natural setting. What are potential weaknesses in the study?: This study has some weaknesses. For example, we measured when people looked at each other's faces rather than eye contact specifically, which can only be done with an eye tracker. Also, the people in the study knew whether the person they were talking to was autistic. This can be similar to normal life, as people do sometimes know this, although we would also be interested to see what the effect of not knowing would be. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?: This line of research has important implications for how autistic people can be supported in society. Not only will understanding of social differences between autistic and nonautistic people help the way autistic people are perceived, but it will also help nonautistic people better understand and support the autistic people in their lives.

Co-development of a Best Practice Checklist for Mental Health Data Science: A Delphi Study.

Background: Mental health research is commonly affected by difficulties in recruiting and retaining participants, resulting in findings which are based on a sub-sample of those actually living with mental illness. Increasing the use of Big Data for mental health research, especially routinely-collected data, could improve this situation. However, steps to facilitate this must be enacted in collaboration with those who would provide the data - people with mental health conditions. Methods: We used the Delphi method to create a best practice checklist for mental health data science. Twenty participants with both expertise in data science and personal experience of mental illness worked together over three phases. In Phase 1, participants rated a list of 63 statements and added any statements or topics that were missing. Statements receiving a mean score of 5 or more (out of 7) were retained. These were then combined with the results of a rapid thematic analysis of participants' comments to produce a 14-item draft checklist, with each item split into two components: best practice now and best practice in the future. In Phase 2, participants indicated whether or not each item should remain in the checklist, and items that scored more than 50% endorsement were retained. In Phase 3 participants rated their satisfaction with the final checklist. Results: The final checklist was made up of 14 "best practice" items, with each item covering best practice now and best practice in the future. At the end of the three phases, 85% of participants were (very) satisfied with the two best practice checklists, with no participants expressing dissatisfaction. Conclusions: Increased stakeholder involvement is essential at every stage of mental health data science. The checklist produced through this work represents the views of people with experience of mental illness, and it is hoped that it will be used to facilitate trustworthy and innovative research which is inclusive of a wider range of individuals.

What Do New Findings About Social Interaction in Autistic Adults Mean for Neurodevelopmental Research?

Deficit-based accounts of social and communication abilities continue to dominate autism research. However, emerging findings suggest that this view may be overly simplistic and discount the two-way nature of interaction. Here we discuss the reconceptualization of social cognition to consider such difficulties as examples of bidirectional, multifaceted misattunement between autistic and nonautistic individuals. Aligned with progressive theoretical frameworks, emerging empirical research indicates that mismatches in communication styles can contribute to autistic social difficulties and the important role that nonautistic difficulties play. We highlight two areas of future research with the aim of providing empirical support for the views that the autistic community has proposed over the past 2 decades. We discuss the impact of such a paradigm shift on a number of levels, including how bridging the gap between different interaction styles can reduce stigma and increase understanding. Adopting such a framework will provide radical opportunities for transformative societal changes and education around inclusion.

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

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.

Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective.

LAY ABSTRACT: Sharing information with other people relies on the ability to communicate well. Autism is defined clinically by deficits in social communication. It may therefore be expected that autistic people find it difficult to share information with other people. We wanted to find out whether this was the case, and whether it was different when autistic people were sharing information with other autistic people or with non-autistic people. We recruited nine groups, each with eight people. In three of the groups, everyone was autistic; in three of the groups, everyone was non-autistic; and three of the groups were mixed groups where half the group was autistic and half the group was non-autistic. We told one person in each group a story and asked them to share it with another person, and for that person to share it again and so on, until everyone in the group had heard the story. We then looked at how many details of the story had been shared at each stage. We found that autistic people share information with other autistic people as well as non-autistic people do with other non-autistic people. However, when there are mixed groups of autistic and non-autistic people, much less information is shared. Participants were also asked how they felt they had got on with the other person in the interaction. The people in the mixed groups also experienced lower rapport with the person they were sharing the story with. This finding is important as it shows that autistic people have the skills to share information well with one another and experience good rapport, and that there are selective problems when autistic and non-autistic people are interacting.

'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.

LAY ABSTRACT: Although autistic people may struggle to interact with others, many autistic people have said they find interacting with other autistic people more comfortable. To find out whether this was a common experience, we did hour-long interviews with 12 autistic adults. We asked them questions about how it feels when spending time with their friends and family, and whether it felt different depending on whether the friends and family were autistic or neurotypical. We analysed the interviews and found three common themes in what our participants said. First, they found spending with other autistic people easier and more comfortable than spending time with neurotypical people, and felt they were better understood by other autistic people. Second, autistic people often felt they were in a social minority, and in order to spend time with neurotypical friends and family, they had to conform with what the neurotypical people wanted and were used to. Third, autistic people felt like they belonged with other autistic people and that they could be themselves around them. These findings show that having time with autistic friends and family can be very beneficial for autistic people and played an important role in a happy social life.