Autism-pedia / Communication and relationships / Double empathybrianspringer.com
Communication and relationships

Double empathy

The idea that misunderstandings between autistic and non-autistic people run both ways. Where the term came from, why it resonates, what studies of same and mixed pairs show, and the arguments over it.

The idea that when autistic and non-autistic people misunderstand each other, the problem goes both ways. Where the idea came from, why many autistic people like it, and what scientists have found so far.

Last reviewed 12 October 2026 · one person's reading of the research · 36 research and 16 community sources

What people mean Community

In community writing, the double empathy problem means that when autistic and non-autistic people misunderstand each other, the difficulty belongs to both of them, not only to the autistic person. Megan Anna Neff describes it as a shared struggle to understand each other's frames of reference: social difficulties "occur in the space between two different styles and are not due to one person only."c1 Her summary for autistic readers is that "you possess a distinct social interaction style and culture, not a deficit in social skills."c1

Neff writes of people with different neurotypes, meaning different kinds of brain, autistic or not, and adds that the wider the gap between two people's styles, the harder the communication.c1 Megan Griffith uses allistic to mean non-autistic.c3 Devon Price describes the two groups as "speaking separate languages" who routinely misread each other's signals.c2

Sometimes autistic and non-autistic people misunderstand each other. The double empathy problem is the idea that this is a two-way problem. It is not just the autistic person's fault. Megan Anna Neff says the trouble happens "in the space between two different styles".c1 She tells autistic readers that they have their own style, not a lack of social skills.c1

People with different neurotypes have different kinds of brain, autistic or not. Neff says the bigger the gap between two styles, the harder it is to talk.c1 Some writers say allistic, which means not autistic.c3 Devon Price says the two groups are like people "speaking separate languages".c2

Suggest a correction
Community

How autistic writers use the term. It describes usage; the research is in later sections.

See also
Community

This part tells you how autistic writers use the words. It is not a science finding.

See also

Where it came from Established

Damian Milton, an autistic sociologist, set out the double empathy problem in a short "Current issues" paper in Disability & Society in 2012.1,c1 He had first used the term in a seminar talk in 2011.1 He defined it as "a disjuncture in reciprocity between two differently disposed social actors", which grows more marked the wider the gap between them.1 Both people experience it, he wrote, so it is not located in either one. The disjuncture is more severe for the non-autistic person, for whom it is unusual; for autistic people it is a common, often traumatic, experience.1

The paper is an argument and reports no study. It criticizes the definition of autism as a deficit in "theory of mind".1 Milton wrote that autistic people often lack insight into non-autistic culture, and that it is "equally the case" that non-autistic people lack insight into autistic minds. Differences in neurology, he argued, may produce differences in sociality, but not a "social deficit".1 He credits the autistic writer Jim Sinclair (1993) and the non-autistic writer Ian Hacking (2009) with earlier versions of the idea that empathy is a two-way street.1

The thought is older than the name. Steve Silberman tells how Sinclair, watching a film about an autistic young man, found: "For the first time in my life, I could understand the body language of someone I was watching".c4 Silberman also quotes the researcher Bernard Rimland imagining the autistic child's view of a world run by "demanding, ritualistic, arbitrary and inconsistent psychotics—us!"c5 Eric Garcia quotes Mel Baggs: "failure to learn your language is seen as a deficit but failure to learn my language is seen as so natural that people like me are officially described as mysterious and puzzling".c6

Damian Milton is an autistic sociologist. A sociologist studies how people live together. He wrote about the double empathy problem in a short paper in 2012.1,c1 He had first used the name in a talk in 2011.1 He said both people in a conversation feel the problem. So it does not belong to just one of them.1 He said it is a bigger shock for the non-autistic person. For autistic people it happens all the time, and it can hurt.1

His paper was an argument, not an experiment.1 Many scientists said autistic people lack "theory of mind". That means working out what other people think and feel. Milton said autistic people often miss things about non-autistic people. He said non-autistic people miss just as much about autistic people.1 Milton said other writers had the same idea before him. One was the autistic writer Jim Sinclair.1

The idea is older than the name. Steve Silberman tells how Sinclair watched a film about an autistic young man. For the first time, Sinclair could understand someone's body language.c4 Eric Garcia quotes Mel Baggs, who pointed out something unfair. When autistic people do not learn the usual way of talking, it counts as a problem. When others do not learn theirs, nobody calls it a problem.c6

Suggest a correction
Established

The origin rests on a dated publication, Milton's 2012 paper, read in full. The earlier statements come from historical and community writing.

Word
Theory of mind

The ability to work out what other people think, know or feel.

Established

We know exactly where the name comes from. It is in a paper from 2012, and we read the whole paper.

Why it resonates Community

Many autistic writers recognize the idea from their own lives. Bianca Toeps writes: "Autistics among each other usually have far fewer communication problems."c7 She adds that although the problem runs both ways, the non-autistic majority decides what the "normal" reaction to an event is.c7 Price once believed that missing what lies between the lines of neurotypical speech meant being inept, and now writes that "most neurotypicals aren't all that good at it, either."c8

Others describe the same gap without using the term. Sol Smith writes that late-diagnosed autistic people use their native language "more like a second language".c9 Garcia speaks of learning the majority's language but speaking it "with an autistic accent".c10 Daniel M. Jones frames the task as finding "people who can understand us on our level and who we can understand on their level".c11

Griffith offers an image of the gap. Many non-autistic people, she writes, "stretch 70 percent of the way across the chasm" and expect the listener to cover the rest, while autistic people tend to "give 100 percent of the info", which many non-autistic people find "overwhelming, maybe even condescending or rude."c12 The practical advice drawn from the idea is shared work. In Price's version, across neurotypes "no meaning should be taken for granted", so people should ask how others feel and say how they feel.c2

Nick Walker puts the gap in terms of power. The difficulties "run both ways", Walker writes, but because autistic people are a minority with less power, they "are always attributed to a deficit on the part of an autistic person." Walker borrows the political scientist Karl Deutsch's line that power is "the ability not to have to learn."c14

Many autistic writers say the idea fits their lives. Bianca Toeps writes that autistic people usually have "far fewer communication problems" with each other.c7 She says the problem goes both ways. But the non-autistic majority decides what counts as a "normal" reaction.c7 Price used to think missing hidden meanings was a personal failing. Now Price thinks most non-autistic people are not very good at it either.c8

Other writers describe the same gap in their own words. Sol Smith says some autistic people use their own language "more like a second language".c9 Garcia talks about speaking with "an autistic accent".c10 Daniel M. Jones says the job is finding people who understand you, and whom you understand.c11

Megan Griffith gives a picture of the gap. Many non-autistic people say about 70 percent of what they mean. They expect you to guess the rest. Autistic people tend to say all of it. Many non-autistic people find that too much, or even rude.c12 Price says nobody should assume they know what someone means. Ask how people feel, and say how you feel.c2

Nick Walker says the gap is about power. The trouble goes both ways. But autistic people are fewer and have less power, so the blame always lands on them. Walker quotes a saying that power means not having to learn.c14

Suggest a correction
Community

From autistic writers' own accounts. Whether autistic people do communicate better with each other is a research question, covered in the next sections.

Community

These are autistic writers talking about their own lives. Whether autistic people really talk better with each other is a science question. The next parts cover it.

What autistic people report Established

A systematic review of 52 qualitative studies found that many autistic adults describe their experiences with other autistic people as positive, and participants related these experiences to many aspects of their quality of life.2 The experiences varied, and the review found little data on autistic people with an intellectual disability.2

In one survey, autistic and non-autistic respondents each believed they read people of their own group better than people of the other group. Asked about reading autistic people, autistic respondents rated their own skill at least as high as non-autistic respondents did.3 These are beliefs about skill, not measured accuracy.

Some studies ask people about their lives instead of measuring them. A review gathered 52 of these studies. Many autistic adults said time with other autistic people was good for them. They said it made many parts of their life better.2 Not everyone said the same thing. Very few of the studies included autistic people with an intellectual disability.2

In one survey, autistic and non-autistic people each thought they understood their own group best. Autistic people rated their skill at reading autistic people at least as high as non-autistic people did.3 This is what people believe about themselves. It is not a test of how well they read others.

Suggest a correction
Established

A systematic review of 52 qualitative studies of what autistic adults say. It records their experiences; it does not measure how well anyone communicates.

Word
Qualitative study

Research that analyses what people say in interviews or writing, rather than measuring them.

Established

A large review looked at 52 studies. They agree on what autistic adults say. But they did not measure how well anyone talks.

First impressions Established

From a few seconds of video, or a single still image, non-autistic students formed less favorable first impressions of autistic adults and children than of non-autistic ones, and were less willing to interact with them. The child sample was small (seven autistic boys). For adults, the gap disappeared when raters saw only a transcript of what was said.4 A separate group found the same less favorable ratings, using silent videos of 20 autistic and 20 non-autistic teenage boys and young men. In that study, targets who were harder to read were rated less favorably whatever their diagnosis; this is a correlation, and the authors note other explanations are possible.5

Three further studies come from the first group. Autistic raters also rated autistic adults less favorably on several traits, but this did not reduce their interest in meeting them, as it did for non-autistic raters. Telling non-autistic raters the diagnosis improved their impressions; it made no difference for autistic raters.6 In five-minute conversations between strangers, both autistic and non-autistic partners rated autistic adults as more awkward, yet only non-autistic participants preferred non-autistic partners. Autistic participants reported disclosing more to autistic partners.7

Scientists showed strangers a few seconds of video of autistic and non-autistic people. Non-autistic students liked the autistic people less. They also wanted to spend less time with them.4 When students only read what the adults said, the gap went away.4 A second team found the same thing with videos of teenage boys and young men. People who were harder to read got lower ratings. That is a link, not proof of a cause.5

In another study, autistic viewers also rated autistic adults less well on some things. But they still wanted to meet them.6 Telling non-autistic viewers about the diagnosis made their ratings kinder.6 In short chats between strangers, only non-autistic people preferred non-autistic partners. Autistic people said they shared more with autistic partners.7

Suggest a correction
Established

Two independent research groups agree that non-autistic strangers rate autistic people less favorably from brief clips. That is a one-way bias more than a mutual mismatch. The targets in the second group's study, and the children in the first, were all male. The other findings here are single studies, all from the first group.

See also
Established

Two separate research teams found this. It shows non-autistic people judging autistic people, which is one-way. The people filmed were mostly male. Each other finding comes from just one study.

See also

Reading each other Emerging

Several studies find that non-autistic people read autistic people less accurately than they read each other. Non-autistic perceivers were worse at telling, from a silent video of his reaction, which of four events an autistic teenager or young man had just experienced. The autistic targets were rated as just as expressive for three of the four events, which the authors take to mean they react differently rather than less.8 The targets were all male; a later study reused the same videos.5 In another study, non-autistic adults read mental states less well in animations of moving triangles made by autistic adults than in those made by non-autistic adults, while autistic adults read both sets about equally well.9 A 2025 study, sharing an author with that one, found the same in a British sample but not in a Japanese one.10 In an empathic accuracy task, 81 adults from the general population, grouped by autistic traits rather than diagnosis, tracked autistic narrators' emotions less accurately than non-autistic narrators', especially happiness and sadness.11

The other half of the idea, that autistic people read each other especially well, has less support. In a 2026 study of 235 adults, with a mean age of 49, neither the rater's nor the storyteller's neurotype significantly changed empathic accuracy. A weak trend (p = .059, d = 0.13) pointed toward autistic raters doing relatively better with autistic storytellers, and non-autistic raters reported more empathy and interest in the storytellers whatever their neurotype.12 In another 2026 study of 106 adults, autistic adults were no better at inferring other autistic adults' thoughts and were less accurate overall, and the autistic people in the videos were rated as harder to read.13 A 2026 motion-capture study, from the same group as the triangle studies, found that autistic adults formed expressions of anger, happiness and sadness differently; how precisely people made expressions went with how well they recognized emotions only in the non-autistic participants.29

Often saidNon-autistic people are worse at reading autistic people than autistic people are at reading them.
Evidence

Price makes this claim.c2 The triangle study found that pattern: non-autistic perceivers lost accuracy with autistic-made animations, while autistic perceivers read both sets equally.9 The repeat found it in Britain but not in Japan.10 Two 2026 studies tested whether autistic people read each other better and found no clear advantage; in one, autistic adults were less accurate overall.12,13

Some studies found that non-autistic people find it harder to read autistic people. In one, non-autistic people watched silent videos of autistic teenagers and young men reacting to something. They were worse at guessing what had happened. But the autistic people were not less expressive. They reacted in a different way. All of them were male.8 In another study, people made cartoons of moving triangles that act out feelings. Non-autistic adults read the autistic adults' cartoons less well. Autistic adults read both kinds about equally well.9 A later study found the same in Britain, but not in Japan.10 In a third study, people found it harder to follow autistic storytellers' feelings.11

The other half of the idea is less clear. It says autistic people read each other especially well. Two studies from 2026 did not find this.12,13 In one, autistic adults were less accurate than non-autistic adults overall.13 Another study filmed faces closely. Autistic adults showed anger, happiness and sadness in different ways from non-autistic adults.29

Often saidNon-autistic people are worse at reading autistic people than the other way round.
Evidence

Price says this.c2 One study found it, and a repeat found it in Britain but not in Japan.9,10 Two newer studies did not find that autistic people read each other better.12,13

Suggest a correction
Emerging

Single studies using different tasks. Several report that non-autistic people read autistic people less accurately, but not all do; that autistic people read each other especially well has little support so far. In the video studies the autistic targets were teenage boys and young men.

Word
Empathic accuracy

How closely one person's reading of another's feelings or thoughts matches what that person reports.

Emerging

Each finding comes from a single study. Studies used different tests, and some disagree.

Same and mixed pairs Emerging

The best-known test is a 2020 "diffusion chain" study, in which a story is passed from person to person, as in the game of telephone. Among 72 adults in chains of eight, autistic chains passed on as much of the story as non-autistic chains; mixed chains passed on less, and people in mixed chains reported lower rapport.14 The participants had IQs in the typical range, spoke, and were likely diagnosed as adults; the authors write that it is not known whether the result holds for autistic people with an intellectual disability.14 A companion study by the same group, with the same 72 adults, found mixed pairs lowest on both their own and outside observers' ratings of rapport. Non-autistic pairs rated their own rapport highest, while observers rated autistic pairs above non-autistic pairs.15 In another study from the same network, 102 non-autistic undergraduates watching such conversations rated mixed pairs least successful and non-autistic participants most favorably; the people in the conversations rated autistic partners more favorably than these observers did.30

Later studies from the same network are mixed. A preregistered replication with 311 adults found no difference in how much information passed along single- and mixed-neurotype chains. People passing the story on rated rapport highest in non-autistic chains; people receiving it rated autistic and non-autistic chains alike, both above mixed chains. Knowing a partner's diagnosis raised rapport.16 A chain study using a visual puzzle (310 adults) also found no difference.17 In groups of four (143 adults), all-autistic groups matched all-non-autistic groups on overall rapport and rated enjoyment and friendliness higher than mixed groups. Autistic participants' rapport fell as more non-autistic people joined; non-autistic participants' stayed about the same.18 In a study of pairs (108 adults, 17 of the 57 autistic participants self-diagnosed), autistic participants reported lower rapport whatever their partner's diagnosis, though knowing that diagnosis changed the effect.19

Studies from other groups also disagree. In a task of giving drawing instructions, matched pairs were more accurate than mixed pairs, mixed pairs were fastest, and clarity did not differ; matched autistic pairs reported the lowest rapport.20 In a second study sharing an author with that one, matched autistic pairs were more accurate but less efficient than matched non-autistic pairs, and mixed pairs reported lower rapport.21 A 2026 study of 62 adults found that same-neurotype pairs did not communicate more efficiently than mixed pairs.22 In a study of 40 adults who were not told their partner's neurotype, autistic adults reported lower rapport and more masking than non-autistic adults whatever the partner. One person's rapport tracked their partner's only in same-neurotype pairs, and the author suggests masking may have hidden a matching effect.23 In one school club of six autistic and six non-autistic adolescents, students in both groups more often interacted with peers of their own group, a preference that grew over five months; same-group exchanges were more reciprocal and more often social. It is one small observational study.24

Adding up the studies does not settle the question. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis included 2,622 behavioral studies, with 94,114 autistic and 172,847 non-autistic people across 32 countries, and found a substantial average difference in social functioning between the groups (Hedges' g = -0.744). The authors treat atypical social functioning as a core feature of autism; they also caution that the studies were methodologically varied, underpowered and unevenly spread across cultures.34 That kind of gap is what both accounts would predict, so it cannot decide between them. The double empathy problem is a claim about mismatched partners, and what it predicts is a difference between mixed and same-neurotype pairs, which a comparison of group averages does not test. A 2026 systematic review of 249 language and communication articles published in 2023 found that about half compared autistic and non-autistic groups, a share that rose to about three-quarters once intervention studies and studies of people with intellectual disability or few or no words were left out; of those that stated a prediction, 60% expected autistic people to do worse.35 Catherine Crompton, who led both diffusion-chain studies, makes the argument directly. In a 2026 letter in the British Journal of Psychiatry she writes that many social difficulties are "not due to an individual deficit" but to "a mismatch" between autistic and non-autistic ways of communicating, and that in mixed interactions both parties experience similar difficulty.36 The letter argues from the 2020 findings, which her own larger replication of 2025 did not repeat.16 She draws consequences for diagnosis and support, including the deficit language of the diagnostic criteria and peer support after diagnosis.36

The most famous test was like the game of telephone. People passed a story along a chain. In 2020, autistic chains passed on as much of the story as non-autistic chains. Mixed chains passed on less. People in mixed chains also got on less well.14 Everyone in it could speak, and their IQ scores were in the usual range. The scientists said they do not know if the result holds for everyone.14 A related study found mixed pairs got on least well.15 In another study, non-autistic students watched these chats. They also rated mixed pairs as going least well.30

Later studies did not all agree. A bigger repeat of the telephone study found no difference between chains.16 Another chain study using a puzzle found no difference either.17 In groups of four, all-autistic groups enjoyed themselves more than mixed groups. Autistic people got on less well as more non-autistic people joined.18 One study found that autistic people felt less connection with any partner.19

Other teams also found mixed results. In some studies, matched pairs were more accurate. Yet matched autistic pairs did not always get on best.20,21 One study found matched pairs were not faster at a shared task.22 In another, autistic adults felt less connection and hid themselves more with any partner. Hiding your autistic ways to fit in is called masking.23 In one small school club, students more often talked with students like themselves. Those talks were more two-way.24

Adding the studies up does not settle the question. One big review added up 2,622 studies. On average, autistic people scored lower than non-autistic people on tests of social skills.34 But this kind of study compares groups, and both sides would expect that. The double empathy idea is about mismatched partners. It predicts a difference between mixed pairs and pairs who share a neurotype. A comparison of groups does not test that. Another review looked at 249 studies of language and talking from 2023. About half compared autistic people with non-autistic people. That rose to about three-quarters when some studies were left out. Those were studies of people with an intellectual disability, or people who use few or no words. Of those that made a guess, 60 out of every 100 expected autistic people to do worse.35 Catherine Crompton led both the 2020 and the 2025 studies. She wrote about this in 2026. She said many social problems are not the autistic person's fault. They come from "a mismatch" between autistic and non-autistic ways of talking. In mixed pairs, both people find it hard.36 But the 2025 study did not find the same result as the 2020 one.16 She said this should change how autism is described and how support is given.36

Suggest a correction
Emerging

Results disagree, and a larger preregistered study did not repeat the best-known finding. Most of these studies come from one network of researchers; samples were adults who speak, mostly without intellectual disability.

Word
Rapport

The sense of getting on with someone: ease, warmth and flow in an interaction.

See also
Emerging

The studies disagree. A bigger, carefully planned study did not get the same result as the famous one. Most of these studies were done by one network of scientists, with adults who speak.

See also

Debates Emerging

The double empathy idea is set against the older view that the difficulty lies in the autistic person. Uta Frith, a co-author of the 1985 false-belief test study behind the theory-of-mind account, writes that "most of us are born to read minds" and that the autistic boy in a well-known novel "can't read minds."32 Her advice follows from that: "you should not tease them, not make jokes, and not use irony", and she calls social skills training "popular and effective".32,33 The adjustment she describes runs one way. Sarah Nannery, writing about her own autism, keeps the clinical vocabulary ("A common ASD trait is to lack 'theory of mind' abilities") while observing that "neurotypical people really do read minds—at least a little."c13

Griffith accepts the research but objects to how it is used. She writes that many white autistic people with low support needs say "we just communicate differently", while nonspeaking, non-white and high support needs autistic people, "none of whom were included in the double-empathy problem study", often say "many autistic folks do have communication deficits." She argues for accepting autistic people as whole people regardless of their abilities.c3 Her note cites Milton's 2012 paper, which reports no study; the 2020 diffusion-chain study she seems to describe did leave out people with an intellectual disability.1,14 As of October 2026, one small study has looked at ten young people with autism and severe learning disabilities at a college that uses a client-led approach, and found balanced, two-way movement synchrony with their support workers.28 A 2024 scoping review found only seven studies of how interactions unfold with minimally verbal autistic people, and called the evidence limited.31 Evidence on nonspeaking autistic people and those with high support needs is minimal.

The idea has reached clinical writing. A guide for clinicians by Donna Henderson, Sarah Wayland and Jamell White introduces nonverbal communication with it, suggesting that autistic and non-autistic people be thought of as "two groups of people from entirely different cultures".c15 Some autistic scholars reject the theory-of-mind framework outright rather than asking for a better version of it. Melanie Yergeau writes: "I believe all incarnations of ToM to be decidedly inhumane."c16

Researchers also dispute the concept itself. Livingston and colleagues argue that it is poorly specified and conflated with other ideas, and caution against applying it in practice until it is better defined.25 Bollen and van Grunsven reply that this caution is itself flawed on ethical and scientific grounds.26 A 2026 review of 20 studies argues that most of them do not measure cognitive or affective empathy, so they say little about empathy in that sense.27 No meta-analysis found as of October 2026 pools the experimental results.

The older view says the problem is inside the autistic person. Uta Frith helped run an early "theory of mind" study. She writes that most people are "born to read minds" and autistic people cannot.32 So she says not to tease autistic people, joke with them or use irony.32 She thinks social skills training works well.33 Her advice asks only the autistic person to change. Sarah Nannery is autistic. She uses the same clinical words, but says non-autistic people do read minds "at least a little".c13

Megan Griffith agrees with the research but worries about how people use it. Some autistic people say "we just communicate differently". But many nonspeaking autistic people, and people who need a lot of support, were not in these studies. Many of them say some autistic people really do have trouble communicating. Griffith says autistic people should be accepted whatever their abilities.c3 The famous study did leave out people with an intellectual disability.14 One small study did include young people with severe learning disabilities. They and their support workers moved in time with each other, both ways.28 A review found only seven studies about people who use few or no words.31 So we know very little about them yet.

Books for doctors now use the idea too. A guide for doctors by Donna Henderson, Sarah Wayland and Jamell White uses it. They say to think of autistic and non-autistic people as two different cultures.c15 Some autistic writers want to drop the "theory of mind" idea completely. Melanie Yergeau calls every version of it "inhumane", which means cruel.c16

Scientists also argue about the idea itself. Some say it is not clearly defined yet. They say people should be careful about using it in practice.25 Others say that warning is unfair.26 A review says most studies did not measure empathy itself.27 In the studies we looked at, nobody has combined all the experiments into one big analysis yet.

Suggest a correction
Emerging

The positions come from books and theoretical papers. The evidence they draw on is the mixed research in the sections above.

Word
Cognitive and affective empathy

Working out what someone feels, and feeling something in response.

See also
Emerging

These are arguments from books and papers. The evidence behind them is the mixed research above.

See also

Sources

Research

  1. 1Milton DEM. On the ontological status of autism: the 'double empathy problem'. Disability & Society, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
  2. 2Watts G, Crompton C, Grainger C, et al. 'A certain magic' – autistic adults' experiences of interacting with other autistic people and its relation to Quality of Life: A systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis. Autism, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241255811
  3. 3Sheppard E, Webb S, Wilkinson H. Mindreading beliefs in same- and cross-neurotype interactions. Autism, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231211457
  4. 4Sasson NJ, Faso DJ, Nugent J, et al. Neurotypical Peers are Less Willing to Interact with Those with Autism based on Thin Slice Judgments. Scientific Reports, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700
  5. 5Alkhaldi RS, Sheppard E, Mitchell P. Is There a Link Between Autistic People Being Perceived Unfavorably and Having a Mind That Is Difficult to Read?. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04101-1
  6. 6DeBrabander KM, Morrison KE, Jones DR, et al. Do First Impressions of Autistic Adults Differ Between Autistic and Nonautistic Observers?. Autism in Adulthood, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0018
  7. 7Morrison KE, DeBrabander KM, Jones DR, et al. Outcomes of real-world social interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared to typically developing partners. Autism, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319892701
  8. 8Sheppard E, Pillai D, Wong GTL, et al. How Easy is it to Read the Minds of People with Autism Spectrum Disorder?. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2662-8
  9. 9Edey R, Cook J, Brewer R, et al. Interaction takes two: Typical adults exhibit mind-blindness towards those with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000199
  10. 10Schuster BA, Okamoto Y, Takahashi T, et al. A cross-cultural examination of bi-directional mentalising in autistic and non-autistic adults. Molecular Autism, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-025-00659-z
  11. 11Cheang RT, Skjevling M, Blakemore AI, et al. Do you feel me? Autism, empathic accuracy and the double empathy problem. Autism, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241252320
  12. 12Rum Y, Feldman N, Genzer S, et al. Nuances of double empathy in autistic and non-autistic people: examination using the empathic accuracy paradigm. Molecular Autism, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-026-00723-2
  13. 13De Laet H, Nijhof AD, Wiersema JR. Inferring Thoughts by and of Individuals With and Without Autism: An Empathic Accuracy Study. Autism, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613261451897
  14. 14Crompton CJ, Ropar D, Evans-Williams CV, et al. Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective. Autism, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320919286
  15. 15Crompton CJ, Sharp M, Axbey H, et al. Neurotype-Matching, but Not Being Autistic, Influences Self and Observer Ratings of Interpersonal Rapport. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586171
  16. 16Crompton CJ, Foster SJ, Wilks CEH, et al. Information transfer within and between autistic and non-autistic people. Nature Human Behaviour, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02163-z
  17. 17Wilks CEH, Foster SJ, Dodd M, et al. Visuospatial information transfer and task self-assessment within and between autistic and non-autistic adults. PLOS One, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329825
  18. 18Foster SJ, Ackerman RA, Wilks CE, et al. Rapport in same and mixed neurotype groups of autistic and non-autistic adults. Autism, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251320444
  19. 19Efthimiou TN, Lewis S, Foster SJ, et al. Diagnostic status influences rapport and communicative behaviours in dyadic interactions between autistic and non-autistic people. PLOS One, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330222
  20. 20Oates M, Bean A, Kickbusch R, et al. Extending Double Empathy: Effects of Neurotype-Matching on Communication Success in an Expository Context. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00393
  21. 21Jameson M, Bean A. Mutual Understanding: The Role of Neurotype-Matching and Perceptions in Communication Effectiveness. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-25-00043
  22. 22De Laet H, Nijhof AD, Wiersema JR. Communication Efficiency in Autism is Unaffected by Neurotype Match: Findings From a Collaborative Referencing Task. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07466-2
  23. 23Wolford GW. Effects of Neurotype and Neurotype Matching on Conversational Rapport and Masking. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00463
  24. 24Chen YL, Senande LL, Thorsen M, et al. Peer preferences and characteristics of same-group and cross-group social interactions among autistic and non-autistic adolescents. Autism, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211005918
  25. 25Livingston LA, Hargitai LD, Shah P. The double empathy problem: A derivation chain analysis and cautionary note. Psychological Review, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000468
  26. 26Bollen C, van Grunsven J. In defense of the double empathy problem hypothesis: An urgently needed alternative to fallacies and injustices in mainstream autism research. Psychological Review, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000605
  27. 27Fellowes S. Cognitive Empathy, Affective Empathy and Empirical Research on the Double Empathy Problem: A Critical Methodology Review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07315-2
  28. 28Glass D, Yuill N. Evidence of mutual non-verbal synchrony in learners with severe learning disability and autism, and their support workers: a motion energy analysis study. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2024.1353966
  29. 29Keating CT, Sowden-Carvalho S, O'Donoghue H, et al. Mismatching Expressions: Spatiotemporal and Kinematic Differences in Autistic and Non-Autistic Facial Expressions. Autism Research, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70157
  30. 30Jones DR, Botha M, Ackerman RA, et al. Non-autistic observers both detect and demonstrate the double empathy problem when evaluating interactions between autistic and non-autistic adults. Autism, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231219743
  31. 31Boorom O, Liu T. A scoping review of interaction dynamics in minimally verbal autistic individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1497800
  32. 32Frith U. Autism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 5, "Social communication: the heart of the matter". https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199207565.003.0005
  33. 33Frith U. Autism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 7, "From theory to practice". https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199207565.003.0007
  34. 34Li S, Wang H, Chen G, et al. Social functioning in autism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02457-w
  35. 35Reynolds H, Benders T, Verhagen J. Comparing to a Neurotypical Norm Is Normal in Autistic Language and Communication Research: A Cross-Sectional Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of Recent Literature. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415261441522
  36. 36Crompton CJ. Autism diagnosis and the double empathy problem. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2025.10478

Community sources

  1. c1Neff MA. Self-Care for Autistic People: 100+ Ways to Recharge, De-Stress, and Unmask! Adams Media, 2024. Chapter 5, "Social Self-Care", section "Understand the Double Empathy Problem". Megan Anna Neff's site
  2. c2Price D. Unmasking for Life: The Autistic Person's Guide to Connecting, Loving, and Living Authentically. Harmony Books, 2025. Chapter 5, "Love and Sex", section "Tolerate Discomfort". Devon Price's site
  3. c3Griffith M. Welcome to AuDHD: How to Survive (and Thrive) as an Adult with Autism and ADHD. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2026. Chapter 2, "Making Sense of Who You Are", section "What comes after diagnosis??". Megan Griffith's site
  4. c4Silberman S. NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity. Avery, 2015. Chapter 11, "In Autistic Space". Steve Silberman's site
  5. c5Silberman S. NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity. Avery, 2015. Chapter 7, "Fighting the Monster". Steve Silberman's site
  6. c6Garcia E. We're Not Broken: Changing the Autism Conversation. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2021. Epilogue. Eric Garcia's site
  7. c7Toeps B. But You Don't Look Autistic at All. Self-published (English edition), 2020. Chapter "An alien in Tokyo", section "A double empathy problem". Bianca Toeps's site
  8. c8Price D. Unmasking Autism: Discovering the New Faces of Neurodiversity. Harmony Books, 2022. Chapter 7, "Cultivating Autistic Relationships", section "Reduced Sensory/Social Load". Devon Price's site
  9. c9Smith S. The Autistic's Guide to Self-Discovery: Flourishing as a Neurodivergent Adult. New World Library, 2025. Chapter 4, "We Have Our Differences in Common", section "Communication Challenges". Sol Smith's site
  10. c10Garcia E. We're Not Broken: Changing the Autism Conversation. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2021. Chapter "Say It Loud" (Race). Eric Garcia's site
  11. c11Jones DM. Autism for Adults: An Approachable Guide to Living Excellently on the Spectrum. Page Street Publishing, 2023. Chapter 2, "Friendship and You". Daniel M. Jones's site
  12. c12Griffith M. Welcome to AuDHD: How to Survive (and Thrive) as an Adult with Autism and ADHD. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2026. Chapter 4, "How to Succeed at Work", section "How to get a job". Megan Griffith's site
  13. c13Nannery S, Nannery L. What to Say Next: Successful Communication in Work, Life, and Love—with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Tiller Press, 2021. Chapter 5, "Long-Term Neurodiverse Relationships".
  14. c14Walker N. Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Autonomous Press, 2021. Chapter "Autism and Social Trauma". Nick Walker's site
  15. c15Henderson D, Wayland S, White J. Is This Autism? A Guide for Clinicians and Everyone Else. Routledge, 2023. Chapter 3, "Nonverbal communication".
  16. c16Yergeau M. Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness. Duke University Press, 2018. Introduction, "Involution".