Mock Juror Perceptions of Credibility and Culpability in an Autistic Defendant

Maras, Katie; Marshall, Imogen; Sands, Chloe

doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3803-7

Cited by 33 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also hypothesized that the relationship between ASD diagnosis and perceived deception and credibility would be moderated by the knowledge that the target individual is on the autism spectrum. This hypothesis is not only consistent with Kelley's (1971) discounting principle but also with emerging evidence that providing information on an individual's ASD diagnosis results in more positive interpersonal judgments (Maras, Crane, et al, 2019;Maras, Marshall, et al, 2019;Matthews et al, 2015;Sasson & Morrison, 2019). For example, Maras, Marshall, et al (2019) found that mock jurors who were informed that a defendant was autistic perceived the defendant as more honest and less guilty than those who were not informed of his diagnosis.…”

Section: The Studysupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Consistent with the findings of Maras, Crane, et al (2019), the results of our study indicated that autistic individuals were rated as less deceptive and of higher character when observers were provided with information about their ASD diagnosis. This suggests that appropriate disclosure of an ASD diagnosis, in conjunction with relevant education on autistic behaviors, may be an effective way to reduce the negative bias toward people on the autism spectrum (Maras, Crane, et al, 2019;Maras, Marshall, et al, 2019;Sasson & Morrison, 2019). However, Maras, Crane, et al (2019) caution that research in this area is still preliminary and a better understanding of the mechanisms through which credibility judgments are formed would be necessary to determine how these principles can be applied effectively by stakeholders.…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Autistic Adults May Be Erroneously Perceived as Deceptive and Lacking Credibility

Lim

Young

Brewer

2021

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We hypothesized that autistic adults may be erroneously judged as deceptive or lacking credibility due to demonstrating unexpected and atypical behaviors. Thirty autistic and 29 neurotypical individuals participated in video-recorded interviews, and we measured their demonstration of gaze aversion, repetitive body movements, literal interpretation of figurative language, poor reciprocity, and flat affect. Participants (N = 1410) viewed one of these videos and rated their perception of the individual’s truthfulness or credibility. The hypothesis was partially supported, with autistic individuals perceived as more deceptive and less credible than neurotypical individuals when telling the truth. However, this relationship was not influenced by the presence of any of the target behaviors, but instead, by the individual’s overall presentation.

show abstract

Section: The Studysupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autistic Adults May Be Erroneously Perceived as Deceptive and Lacking Credibility

Lim

Young

Brewer

2021

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…White et al, 2020), who fear that autism-related stigma can harm how they are viewed by others (Jones et al, 2015) and increase their risk for experiencing discrimination and victimization (Zeedyk et al, 2014). Indeed, although NA perceptions of autistic people do improve on average when informed of their diagnosis (Maras et al, 2019;, disclosure is not always a beneficial strategy. In some contexts, disclosure can have little to no effect (R. White et al, 2020) or even be detrimental depending on the autism-related stigma held by the person receiving the disclosure (Morrison et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of autism acceptance training on explicit and implicit biases toward autism

Jones

DeBrabander

Sasson

2021

Autism

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-autistic adults often hold explicit and implicit biases toward autism that contribute to personal and professional challenges for autistic people. Although previous research indicates that non-autistic adults with higher autism knowledge and familiarity express more inclusionary attitudes, it remains unclear whether training programs designed to promote autism acceptance and understanding affect subsequent implicit and explicit biases toward autism. In this study, non-autistic adults ( N = 238) completed an autism acceptance training featuring factual information and engaging first-person narratives, a general mental health training not mentioning autism, or a no-training control, then responded to surveys assessing their autism knowledge, stigma, and impressions of autistic adults, and completed a novel implicit association task about autism. Non-autistic adults in the autism acceptance training condition reported more positive impressions of autistic adults, demonstrated fewer misconceptions and lower stigma about autism, endorsed higher expectations of autistic abilities, and expressed greater social interest in hypothetical and real autistic people. However, training had no effect on implicit biases, with non-autistic adults associating autism-related labels with unpleasant personal attributes regardless of training condition. These findings suggest that the autism acceptance training program in this study, designed to increase autism knowledge and familiarity among non-autistic people, holds promise for reducing explicit but not implicit biases toward autism. Lay abstract Autistic adults face prejudice from non-autistic people. They are often judged unfairly and left out of social activities because of their differences. This can make it difficult for autistic people to make friends and find jobs. Some training programs have tried to teach autistic people to act more like non-autistic people to help them gain acceptance. Fewer have focused on teaching non-autistic people how to be more autism friendly. In this study, we used a short training video that teaches people about autism. The video was created with the help of autistic adults and included clips of real autistic people. We found that non-autistic people who watched this video had better knowledge about autism and showed more autism-friendly attitudes than those who watched a video about mental health or those who did not watch any video. They were more open to having a relationship with an autistic person and had more positive beliefs about autism. However, our video did not affect people’s unconscious attitudes about autism. People in our study connected autism with unpleasant traits, even if they had watched the autism training video. This suggests that teaching non-autistic people about autism may promote more autism-friendly attitudes, but some beliefs may be harder to change.

show abstract

“…Previous research shows that disclosing one’s autism diagnosis can have a profound effect in improving others’ perceptions of them both in everyday contexts (e.g. Brosnan & Mills, 2016 ; Morrison et al, 2019 ; Sasson & Morrison, 2019 ) and in specific settings such as the Criminal Justice System ( Crane et al, 2018 ; Maras, Crane, Walker, & Memon, 2019 ; Maras, Marshall, & Sands, 2019 ). Future research should examine whether diagnostic disclosure has a similar impact upon employer perceptions and whether disclosure together with adaptations to questions is enough to diminish differences in employers’ overall impressions between autistic and non-autistic interviewees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ameliorating the disadvantage for autistic job seekers: An initial evaluation of adapted employment interview questions

Maras

Norris

Nicholson

et al. 2020

Autism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite possessing valuable skills, social communication differences mean that autistic people are frequently disadvantaged in job interviews. We examined how autistic and non-autistic adults compared on standard (unmodified) job interview questions, and then used these findings to develop and evaluate supportive adaptations to questions. Fifty adults (25 autistic, 25 non-autistic) took part in two mock job interviews. Interview 1 provided a baseline measure of performance when answering typical, unmodified interview questions. Employment experts (unaware of participants’ autism diagnoses) rated all interviewees on question-specific performance and overall impressions and then provided feedback about how interviewees could improve and how questions could be adapted to facilitate this. Interviewees also provided feedback about the interview process from their perspective. Adaptations to the questions were developed, with Interview 2 taking place approximately 6 months later. Results demonstrated that, in Interview 1, employment experts rated autistic interviewees less favourably than nonautistic interviewees. Ratings of both autistic and non-autistic participants’ answers improved in Interview 2, but particularly for autistic interviewees (such that differences between autistic and non-autistic interviewees’ performance reduced in Interview 2). Employers should be aware that adaptations to job interview questions are critical to level the playing field for autistic candidates. Lay abstract Despite possessing valuable skills, differences in the way that autistic people understand and respond to others in social situations mean that they are frequently disadvantaged in job interviews. We examined how autistic and non-autistic adults compared on standard (unmodified) job interview questions, and then used these findings to develop and evaluate supportive adaptations to questions. Fifty adults (25 autistic, 25 non-autistic) took part in two mock job interviews. Interview 1 provided a baseline measure of performance when answering typical, unmodified interview questions. Employment experts (unaware of participants’ autism diagnoses) rated all interviewees on their responses to each question and their overall impressions of them and then provided feedback about how interviewees could improve and how questions could be adapted to facilitate this. Interviewees also provided feedback about the interview process, from their perspective. Adaptations to the questions were developed, with Interview 2 taking place approximately 6 months later. Results demonstrated that, in Interview 1, employment experts rated autistic interviewees less favourably than non-autistic interviewees. Ratings of both autistic and non-autistic participants’ answers improved in Interview 2, but particularly for autistic interviewees (such that differences between autistic and non-autistic interviewees’ performance reduced in Interview 2). Employers should be aware that adaptations to job interview questions are critical to level the playing field for autistic candidates.

show abstract

Mock Juror Perceptions of Credibility and Culpability in an Autistic Defendant

Cited by 33 publications

References 94 publications

Autistic Adults May Be Erroneously Perceived as Deceptive and Lacking Credibility

Autistic Adults May Be Erroneously Perceived as Deceptive and Lacking Credibility

Effects of autism acceptance training on explicit and implicit biases toward autism

Ameliorating the disadvantage for autistic job seekers: An initial evaluation of adapted employment interview questions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About