Neurodiversity movement identification and perceived appropriateness of terms used to describe autism

Background: Autism terminology is highly controversial. The debate regarding person-first and identity-first language is particularly well-studied, but the present study explores views on different terms commonly used to describe autism, such as “disorder,” “disability,” and “difference.” Furthermore, unlike prior studies, this study explores how terminology views are related to identification with the neurodiversity movement (NDM).

Methods: We collected usable survey data from 475 participants, 271 of whom were autistic and 204 of whom were non-autistic interested parties (e.g., family members, professionals). Participants rated perceived appropriateness of 13 terms as descriptors of autism. They also indicated whether they had heard of neurodiversity and the social model; if yes, they respectively completed a brief measure of NDM identification and/or answered an item rating support for the social model.

Results: Overall, participants rated the terms “condition,” “developmental,” “disability,” “difference,” “neurodiverse,” “neurodivergent,” “neurominority,” and “neurotype” as more appropriate than neutral, whereas “deficit,” “disorder,” “illness,” “psychopathology,” and “syndrome” were seen as inappropriate. As participants identified more strongly with the NDM, they rated the terms “neurodiverse,” “neurodivergent,” “neurominority,” and “neurotype” as more appropriate; however, they rated “condition,” “deficit,” “disorder,” “illness,” and “syndrome” as less appropriate. In non-autistic people only, perceived appropriateness of “developmental” decreased with increasing neurodiversity identification. In autistic participants only, perceived appropriateness of “disability” increased with greater neurodiversity identification.

Conclusion: Both autistic and non-autistic participants in this study robustly preferred neurodiversity-aligned terms, such as “neurodivergent” and “difference,” to traditional terms assuming pathology and deficiency. Participants also generally approved of the term “disability,” particularly autistic participants identifying with the NDM, aligning with the NDM’s recognition of both autism-related strengths and challenges. Although we cannot rule out sample bias, our data suggest an emerging consensus supporting discussion of autism in positive or neutrally descriptive ways or through acknowledging challenges in a nonderogatory manner.