Crompton et al (2021): Crompton, C., DeBrabander, K., Heasman, B., Milton, D. &
Sasson, N. (2021). Double empathy: Why autistic people are often misunderstood.
Frontiers Young Minds.
A theory that helps to describe what happens when autistic and non-autistic people
struggle to understand each other is called the double empathy problem. Empathy is
defined as the ability to understand or be aware of the feelings, thoughts, and
experiences of others. According to the double empathy problem, empathy is a two-way
process that depends a lot on our ways of doing things and our expectations from
previous social experiences, which can be very different for autistic and non-autistic
people. These differences can lead to a breakdown in communication that can be
distressing for both autistic and non-autistic people.
Autistic people can find it exhausting and confusing to understand non-autistic ways of
communicating. Likewise, non-autistic people might feel uncomfortable when they are
around autistic people because their usual ways of communicating do not work as well.
This mismatch between social expectations and experiences can make communication
between autistic and non-autistic people difficult.
The quality of interactions between two autistic people was just as strong as between
two people who were not autistic. Autistic people even shared more information about
themselves with other autistic people, suggesting they felt more comfortable with them.
This shows that autistic people are like everyone else: they find it easier to connect with,
and maybe even form friendships with, people who think and communicate like they do.
Why might autistic people find it easier to understand other autistic people? Research
indicates that autistic people are less likely to rely on typical social expectations for
interacting or be upset if such expectations are not followed. This means that autistic
people give each other more freedom to express themselves in unique ways.
, McKean, C., Law, J., Morgan, A., & Reilly, S. (2018). Developmental Language
Disorder. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer & M. G. Gaskell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Psycholinguistics (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.
Just as the descriptions and diagnoses changed so the research methods used to draw
inferences about language disorder changed too. Single case descriptions, gave way to
group studies, and then case control studies and, most recently epidemiological studies.
Our knowledge of the standardized distribution of these tests indicates that 16.6% of the
population should be scoring below this threshold across the population the
percentage of people that have language impairment.
Those with low language abilities were more likely than their typically developing peers
to have associated difficulties with literacy, socioemotional, and behavioral adjustment,
hyperactivity, and inattention, lower non-verbal IQ, and diagnoses of autistic spectrum
condition.
Language development is the result of complex interactions, played out over time,
between the child’s biological make-up, their family, wider community, and the social
and cultural context in which they live and grow.
Different outcomes emerge regarding heritability estimates for Language Disorder
depending on the diagnostic criteria applied and the age of the child.
Most of the growing body of longitudinal research in the eld of Language Disorder falls
into three groups. Those that aim to:
1. Identify earlier predictors of later language outcomes.
2. Compare long-term outcomes of children with and without a history of poor
language.
3. Examine the stability of language status (Language Disorder or Typically
Developing (TD)) or language prole over time.
However, knowledge about language stability derives largely from longitudinal studies of
clinically referred populations and these represent only a subgroup of the population of
children with language disorder. Clinically referred groups tend to have higher levels of
comorbidity, more severe language difficulties, and are more likely to have persisting
difficulties. Such studies may therefore overestimate the homogeneity in the trajectory
of children with language disorder after five years. Notable exceptions are where
children with language disorder are identified in wider populations.
Further longitudinal population studies with repeated language measures are therefore
needed to determine the level of stability or otherwise of language disorder status over
development.
Predictors of change:
- Social advantage: associated with resolving language proles in young children (up
to four years) and social disadvantage associated with persistent language
disorder proles in older children.
o Children living with disadvantage and limited family resources (e.g., low
SES, low income, low maternal education), had poorer language at four
years and did not “catch up” with their more advantaged peers between
four and eight years, underlining the importance of the early years in
setting up child inequalities which may last a lifetime.
Sasson, N. (2021). Double empathy: Why autistic people are often misunderstood.
Frontiers Young Minds.
A theory that helps to describe what happens when autistic and non-autistic people
struggle to understand each other is called the double empathy problem. Empathy is
defined as the ability to understand or be aware of the feelings, thoughts, and
experiences of others. According to the double empathy problem, empathy is a two-way
process that depends a lot on our ways of doing things and our expectations from
previous social experiences, which can be very different for autistic and non-autistic
people. These differences can lead to a breakdown in communication that can be
distressing for both autistic and non-autistic people.
Autistic people can find it exhausting and confusing to understand non-autistic ways of
communicating. Likewise, non-autistic people might feel uncomfortable when they are
around autistic people because their usual ways of communicating do not work as well.
This mismatch between social expectations and experiences can make communication
between autistic and non-autistic people difficult.
The quality of interactions between two autistic people was just as strong as between
two people who were not autistic. Autistic people even shared more information about
themselves with other autistic people, suggesting they felt more comfortable with them.
This shows that autistic people are like everyone else: they find it easier to connect with,
and maybe even form friendships with, people who think and communicate like they do.
Why might autistic people find it easier to understand other autistic people? Research
indicates that autistic people are less likely to rely on typical social expectations for
interacting or be upset if such expectations are not followed. This means that autistic
people give each other more freedom to express themselves in unique ways.
, McKean, C., Law, J., Morgan, A., & Reilly, S. (2018). Developmental Language
Disorder. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer & M. G. Gaskell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Psycholinguistics (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.
Just as the descriptions and diagnoses changed so the research methods used to draw
inferences about language disorder changed too. Single case descriptions, gave way to
group studies, and then case control studies and, most recently epidemiological studies.
Our knowledge of the standardized distribution of these tests indicates that 16.6% of the
population should be scoring below this threshold across the population the
percentage of people that have language impairment.
Those with low language abilities were more likely than their typically developing peers
to have associated difficulties with literacy, socioemotional, and behavioral adjustment,
hyperactivity, and inattention, lower non-verbal IQ, and diagnoses of autistic spectrum
condition.
Language development is the result of complex interactions, played out over time,
between the child’s biological make-up, their family, wider community, and the social
and cultural context in which they live and grow.
Different outcomes emerge regarding heritability estimates for Language Disorder
depending on the diagnostic criteria applied and the age of the child.
Most of the growing body of longitudinal research in the eld of Language Disorder falls
into three groups. Those that aim to:
1. Identify earlier predictors of later language outcomes.
2. Compare long-term outcomes of children with and without a history of poor
language.
3. Examine the stability of language status (Language Disorder or Typically
Developing (TD)) or language prole over time.
However, knowledge about language stability derives largely from longitudinal studies of
clinically referred populations and these represent only a subgroup of the population of
children with language disorder. Clinically referred groups tend to have higher levels of
comorbidity, more severe language difficulties, and are more likely to have persisting
difficulties. Such studies may therefore overestimate the homogeneity in the trajectory
of children with language disorder after five years. Notable exceptions are where
children with language disorder are identified in wider populations.
Further longitudinal population studies with repeated language measures are therefore
needed to determine the level of stability or otherwise of language disorder status over
development.
Predictors of change:
- Social advantage: associated with resolving language proles in young children (up
to four years) and social disadvantage associated with persistent language
disorder proles in older children.
o Children living with disadvantage and limited family resources (e.g., low
SES, low income, low maternal education), had poorer language at four
years and did not “catch up” with their more advantaged peers between
four and eight years, underlining the importance of the early years in
setting up child inequalities which may last a lifetime.
