College students with autism may be negatively impacted by lack of understanding about autism on college campuses. Thus, we developed an online training to improve knowledge and decrease stigma associated with autism among college students. Participants (N = 365) completed a pre-test, online training, and post-test. Women reported lower stigma towards autism than men. Participation in the training was associated with decreased stigma and increased knowledge about autism. Although participants exhibited relatively high baseline knowledge of autism, misconceptions were common, particularly in open-ended responses. Participants commonly confused autism with other disorders, such as learning disabilities. This study suggests that online training may be a cost-effective way to increase college students' understanding and acceptance of their peers with autism.

Although misconceptions associated with ASD are apparent worldwide, they may differ across cultures. This study compares knowledge and stigma associated with ASD in a country with limited autism resources, Lebanon, and a country with substantial autism resources, the United States (US). College students in the US (N = 346) and Lebanon (N = 329) completed assessments of knowledge and stigma associated with ASD before and after an online ASD training. Although students in the US exhibited higher overall knowledge and lower stigma towards ASD, certain misconceptions were more apparent in the US than in Lebanon. Participation in the training was associated with decreased stigma and increased knowledge in both countries. Thus, online training may be useful for increasing understanding about ASD internationally.

Impairments in statistical learning might be a common deficit among individuals with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Using meta-analysis, we examined statistical learning in SLI (14 studies, 15 comparisons) and ASD (13 studies, 20 comparisons) to evaluate this hypothesis. Effect sizes were examined as a function of diagnosis across multiple statistical learning tasks (Serial Reaction Time, Contextual Cueing, Artificial Grammar Learning, Speech Stream, Observational Learning, and Probabilistic Classification). Individuals with SLI showed deficits in statistical learning relative to age-matched controls. In contrast, statistical learning was intact in individuals with ASD relative to controls. Effect sizes did not vary as a function of task modality or participant age. Our findings inform debates about overlapping social-communicative difficulties in children with SLI and ASD by suggesting distinct underlying mechanisms. In line with the procedural deficit hypothesis (Ullman and Pierpont, 2005), impaired statistical learning may account for phonological and syntactic difficulties associated with SLI. In contrast, impaired statistical learning fails to account for the social-pragmatic difficulties associated with ASD.

Although stigma negatively impacts autistic people globally, the degree of stigma varies across cultures. Prior research suggests that stigma may be higher in cultures with more collectivistic orientations. This study aimed to identify cultural values and other individual differences that contribute to cross-cultural differences in autism stigma (assessed with a social distance scale) between college students in Lebanon ( n = 556) and those in the United States ( n = 520). Replicating prior work, stigma was lower in women than men and in the United States relative to Lebanon. Heightened autism knowledge, quality of contact with autistic people, openness to experience, and reduced acceptance of inequality predicted lower stigma. Collectivism was not associated with heightened stigma. Findings highlight the need to address structural inequalities, combat harmful misconceptions, and foster positive contact to combat stigma.

No abstract

Autistic university students face stigma. Online trainings have been used to improve explicit autism stigma (social distance) and knowledge among university students in different countries. However, autistic university students have not typically been involved in developing such trainings. We developed two autism trainings: a participatory training (developed in collaboration with autistic university students) and a non-participatory training. We evaluated these trainings with undergraduate students in the United States and Lebanon. A pilot study revealed improvements in implicit biases (measured with an Implicit Association Test) and knowledge following both trainings, but no clear benefit of the participatory training in particular. Feedback revealed that participants found the Implicit Association Test tedious, suggesting that it might have dampened effects by boring participants. To increase engagement, we removed the Implicit Association Test and conducted a cross-university training comparison which revealed evidence that the participatory training was more effective than the non-participatory training at improving autism knowledge, explicit stigma, and attitudes toward inclusion. Autistic co-authors coded participant feedback and identified three key themes to guide future training development and adaptation: an (inter)personal element, accessibility, and clarity of information. These studies provide empirical support for the oft-cited, but rarely directed tested, benefits of involving autistic people in research about autism. Lay abstract Autistic university students are often left out because people do not understand autism. We wanted to help people understand autism. Most autism trainings are not made by autistic people. Autistic people know what it is like to be autistic. So autistic people may be the best teachers when it comes to teaching about autism. Autistic students and non-autistic professors made an autism training. The students made videos for the training. They also helped make questions to see what people learned from the trainings. Professors who are not autistic made a training on their own. Students in New York City tried out the trainings. After they answered questions, they did either the training the autistic students helped make or the training made by only professors. Then, they answered questions again. We learned from the students how to make our trainings better. Then, students from two universities in the United States and one university in Lebanon did our trainings and questions. Both trainings made hidden feelings about autism better. The training autistic students helped make taught students more than the training professors made on their own. The autistic-led training also helped students accept autism more. These studies show that autistic students can make autism research and trainings better. At the end of this article, autistic students share their ideas for how to make autism trainings even better in the future.

No abstract

No abstract