This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: A new study led by Flinders University finds both autistic and nonautistic suspects may be judged more harshly if any idiosyncratic behaviors in interviews stray beyond what observers consider normal. The research also undermines the widely held perspective—referred to as the "double empathy hypothesis"—that autistic people can better "read" differing intentions and motivations in other autistic people than nonautistic people can.
In making fair courtroom judgments or conducting police interviews, the researchers warn that law enforcement agencies must guard against assumptions of guilt based on communication styles and interpretations of suspects' responses, intentions and motivations. The research, published in Law and Human Behavior, explores two main issues. "First, there is the view that autistic people will be judged more harshly, purely because of any 'unusual' behavioral characteristics commonly associated with autism," says experimental psychologist and Emeritus Professor Neil Brewer, who has a lengthy research career focusing on eyewitness accounts and adults with autism.
"Second, we also assessed the widely held view that both autistic and nonautistic people might only have trouble 'reading' the intent of suspects who do not share the same diagnostic status and, hence, potentially judge their intentions and motivations more harshly. "However, we found no decisive evidence in line with either of these expectations." The two experiments tested the widely held view that autistic people are more likely to be evaluated unjustly by others because of society's "normative expectations" for communication, as well as the "double empathy" hypothesis concerning the ability of autistic and nonautistic observers to accurately "read" an autistic suspect's responses. Large samples of autistic and nonautistic observers were asked to evaluate autistic and nonautistic "suspects" who took part in mock police interviews about accusations of computer hacking.
The observers rated the suspects on dimensions of suspiciousness, credibility, guilt and expectancy violations (when a suspect doesn't communicate in a way an observer would expect). Suspect participants were chosen because, when involved in a mock police interview, they displayed either high or low levels of speech hesitation or difficulties interpreting figurative language—two behaviors that strongly differentiated samples of autistic and nonautistic interviewees. Brewer, from the College of Human Sciences and Culture, and colleagues including fellow Flinders University autism expert professor Robyn Young, say the findings suggest that some autistic suspects may face particular credibility risks in investigative or legal contexts—but the same probably applies to some nonautistic suspects.
"The important thing is the extent to which someone's behavior violates expectations about how a suspect 'should' behave," says Young, who leads the Flinders Autism Research Initiative at the College of Human Sciences and Culture at Flinders University. Another Flinders University co-author of the article, clinical psychologist Dr. Alliyza Lim, says the study provides important information for both policing and courtroom contexts, because communication behavior may affect perceived credibility without necessarily providing evidence about whether the person actually committed an offense.
Neil Brewer et al, How behavioral differences between autistic and nonautistic suspects in forensic interviews affect observers' evaluations: Evidence for expectancy violations theory but not the double empathy hypothesis., Law and Human Behavior (2026). DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000679 BSc Life Sciences & Ecology. Microbiology lab background with pharmaceutical news experience in oil, gas, and renewable industries.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
