AUTISM IN ADULTHOOD Original Research

Volume 3, Number 4, 2021

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/aut.2020.0075

Barriers to Employment:
Raters’ Perceptions of Male Autistic and Non-Autistic
Candidates During a Simulated Job Interview
and the Impact of Diagnostic Disclosure

Rebecca L. Flower, PhD,1,2,i Louise M. Dickens, BPsych (Hons),1 and Darren Hedley, PhD1,ii
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.

Abstract
Background: Autistic individuals face low rates of engagement in the labor force. There is evidence that job
interviews pose a significant barrier to autistic people entering the workforce. In this experimental study, we
investigated the impact of diagnostic disclosure on decisions concerning candidate suitability during job
interviews.
Methods: Participants (n = 357; 59% female) from the general population rated 10 second ‘‘thin slices’’ of
simulated job interviews of one male autistic and one male non-autistic candidate. In a between-subjects design,
autism diagnostic disclosure was manipulated (None, Brief, and Detailed), so that neither (‘‘None’’ condition)
or both (‘‘Brief’’ and ‘‘Detailed’’ conditions) candidates were labeled as autistic before the simulated interview
(with additional information provided about autism in the ‘‘Detailed’’ condition).
Results: Results for 255 non-autistic raters (57.6% female) were analyzed. Participants gave more favorable
ratings of first impressions, employability, and endorsement for candidates labeled as autistic, irrespective
of the actual diagnostic status (i.e., autistic and non-autistic) of the individual. Participants rated non-
autistic candidates more favorably on all employment measures (first impressions, employability, and
endorsement), and ‘‘hired’’ non-autistic candidates more frequently, compared with autistic candidates.
Providing additional information about autism did not result in improved ratings. However, the discrepancy
between autistic and non-autistic people chosen for ‘‘hire’’ was reduced when more information was
provided.
Conclusions: Although we found some support for the benefits of diagnostic disclosure during a simulated
interview, these benefits were not restricted to autistic candidates and may be a positive bias associated with the
diagnostic label. Contrary to our predictions, providing information about autism in addition to the diagnostic
label did not have an overall impact on results. More research is required to determine whether benefits
outweigh any risks of disclosure for autistic job candidates, and whether training interviewers about autism
might improve employment outcomes for autistic job seekers.

Keywords: disclosure, employment, first impressions, job interview, autism

Lay Summary
Why was this study done?
Job interviews seem to be a barrier to employment for autistic people. This is problematic, as job interviews are
typically a part of the job application process.

1
Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
2
Department of Psychology and Counselling, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia.
i
ORCID ID (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0480-5215).
ii
ORCID ID (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6256-7104).

300
 BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT 301

What was the purpose of this study?

We wanted to explore how non-autistic people perceive male autistic job candidates, and how this compares
with male non-autistic candidates. We also wanted investigate whether disclosing that the candidate was autistic
changed the raters’ judgments of candidates, and if these judgments improved if more information about autism
and employment was provided.

What did the researchers do?

We showed 357 non-autistic participants short video snippets (*10 seconds) of two ‘‘job candidates’’ (people
who had completed a simulated job interview). Each participant was shown one video of an autistic job
candidate, and one video of a non-autistic job candidate. Participants rated the candidates on two scales
(employability and first impressions). After watching both videos, they chose which of the two candidates they
would ‘‘hire’’ and gave an endorsement rating for each.

Participants were in one of three conditions. Participants in the first condition (‘‘None’’) were not given
information about autism before watching the two videos. Participants in the second condition (‘‘Brief’’) were
told that both of the candidates were autistic. Participants in the third condition (‘‘Detailed’’) were told that both
candidates were autistic and were also provided with information about autism and the workplace. We told
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.

raters in the Brief and Detailed conditions that both the autistic and non-autistic candidate were autistic to
explore if the diagnostic label influenced raters’ perceptions of candidates separately to the actual diagnostic
status of candidates.

What were the results of the study?

Overall, the participants rated non-autistic candidates more favorably compared with autistic candidates. Par-
ticipants gave more favorable job interview ratings for candidates when they were labeled as autistic, showing
the autism label made a difference to how raters perceived candidates. Participants given information about
autism and employment did not rate the candidates any higher than those in other two conditions, but they did
‘‘hire’’ more autistic candidates than the other participants.

What do these findings add to what was already known?

The findings of this study provide some support that diagnostic disclosure may improve perceptions of autistic
candidates (by non-autistic people) at job interview. Providing information about autism and the workplace in
addition to disclosure may also provide some benefit, but more data are needed.

What are potential weaknesses in the study?

Our findings may not reflect real-world settings. Further studies are also needed that include people of other
genders. Given the small number of stimuli videos, and the many differences between autistic people, the less
favorable ratings of autistic people should be interpreted with caution.

How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?
The results of this study provide some evidence that there may be some benefit of disclosing an autism
diagnosis during a job interview to non-autistic people. However, diagnostic disclosure is a complex and
personal choice.

Introduction The job interview

A utistic people face significant challenges accessing

the job market1 reflected in low labor force engagement
and high rates of unemployment or underemployment (e.g.,
25%–60%).2–4 Unemployment has multidimensional im-
pacts on autistic adults, including financial hardship, social
exclusion, increased mental health challenges, and reduced
quality of life and well-being.5,6 It is imperative to understand
these barriers to employment, given that many autistic people
have strong ambitions to work,7 and can make exceptional
employees.8
Job interviews remain the most frequent method of re-
cruitment,9 but pose a significant barrier for autistic job
seekers.10,11 Applied social skills (e.g., being able to quickly
build rapport with interviewers), account for at least 75% of
the evaluation of job candidates.12,13 Autistic individuals re-
port challenges with job interviews, such as uncertainty
around the level of detail required for responses to questions14
and having to practice social ‘‘niceties.’’15 Moreover, autistic
people are likely to be literal and honest8,16,17; thus, they may
fail to downplay their weaknesses and/or amplify strengths.
 302
First impressions
First impressions of others are formed rapidly and are re-
sistant to change.18,19 Candidates who are perceived more
favorably during the initial moments of a job interview re-
ceive higher post-interview ratings.20–23 However, experi-
mental research suggests that autistic people are judged less
favorably than non-autistic candidates, with this bias
emerging early in an interaction or observation (i.e., within
10 seconds).24,25
Disclosure and knowledge
Disclosing one’s diagnosis may have a positive influence
on how people are perceived. Indeed, autistic people tend to
be rated more favorably when they are labeled as autistic
compared with when they are not,26,27 and autistic adults who
have disclosed their diagnosis to their employer report higher
rates of employment.28 However, although disclosure may
lead to improved awareness and accommodations, it can also
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.
lead to stigma and discrimination.29 Knowledge about autism
may reduce stigma,30 and has been shown to improve per-
ceptions of autistic job candidates in a simulated context.31
There may even be interaction effects whereby diagnostic
disclosure might engage positive effects of knowledge.19 To
date, the impact of diagnostic disclosure of autism and po-
tential benefits of providing information about autism within
the context of a job interview has received little attention.31
The present study
In this study, we manipulated diagnostic disclosure of
autism in a simulated job interview. Each participant
viewed brief interview extracts from one autistic and one
non-autistic actor. To experimentally isolate the label/
identity, actors’ actual diagnostic status (i.e., autistic and
non-autistic) was manipulated across experimental condi-
tions. Therefore, we were able to assess raters’ perceptions
of autistic candidates who were correctly identified as au-
tistic, their perceptions of non-autistic actors who were in-
correctly identified as being autistic, and of course both
autistic and non-autistic actors in the absence of any diag-
nostic label. We aimed to better understand how autistic
people are perceived during job interviews by non-autistic
people; specifically, the impact of autism, the impact of
disclosing a diagnosis, and potential benefits of providing
information about autism to job interviewers.
Therefore, in this study our aims were to use a simulated
job interview to (1) compare participant first impressions and
employment related ratings of autistic and non-autistic male
job candidates, (2) evaluate the impact of autism disclosure
on these ratings (controlling for actual diagnosis), and (3)
examine potential benefits of providing information about
autism to raters during the diagnostic disclosure. We hy-
pothesized that (H1) there would be a main effect for diag-
nosis whereby autistic candidates would be rated less
favorably on all employment measures (consistent with
previous research24,27), and (H2) would be less likely to be
‘‘hired’’ by raters than non-autistic candidates. We predicted
positive main effects for autism disclosure on ratings, based
on prior research.19,27,30 Specifically, we hypothesized (H3)
participants would provide higher ratings on employment
measures and (H4) ‘‘hire’’ more autistic candidates when
FLOWER ET AL.
autism was disclosed (‘‘Brief’’ condition) than when no di-
agnostic information was provided (‘‘None’’ condition), and
(H5) the effect would be stronger when participants were
provided with more information about autism during the
disclosure (‘‘Detailed’’ condition). We also hypothesized
that the effect of information would be greater for autistic
candidates such that (H6) there would be an interaction be-
tween diagnosis and disclosure condition, where there would
be a greater improvement in ratings of autistic candidates
based on the level of autism information provided relative to
non-autistic candidates.
Although we predicted autistic candidates would be rated
less favorably than their non-autistic counterparts (H1 and
H2), this hypothesis was not a key focus of the study. Rather,
we were specifically interested in the subsequent hypotheses
(H3–6), namely the impact of disclosure, information, and
the interactions between these factors, as well as with the
actual diagnostic status (autistic and non-autistic) of the
candidate. Thus, we offer a nuanced understanding of bias
faced by autistic job seekers, and potential mitigation of this
bias through explicit identification of diagnosis and knowl-
edge, during the job interview. Given sex differences in
previous research exploring first impressions of autistic and
non-autistic job candidates,25 this study focused only on the
perception of non-autistic raters on autistic and non-autistic
male job candidates.
Methods
Participants
Participants were n = 357 (59% female) United Kingdom
residents aged 18 years and older (Mage = 36.33 years,
SDage = 12.69, range = 18–74), recruited and reimbursed
through online research platform Prolific Academic.32 In-
clusion criteria required participants to be age 18 or older and
speak English as a first language. Recruitment experience
was not a requirement to participate in the study; hence, we
did not obtain each participant’s recruitment experience (e.g.,
as an interviewer or recruiter).
Measures
Simulated interview stimuli. Four Caucasian males (two
autistic, Candidates A, D; two non-autistic, Candidates B, C)
were recruited to serve as ‘‘stimulus candidates’’ for the in-
terview videos (six candidates were interviewed but two [one
autistic, one non-autistic] were removed to ensure matching
between candidates). The two autistic candidates provided
their diagnostic report to the research team as evidence of
autism diagnosis. Non-autistic candidates reported no autism
diagnosis for themselves or first-degree family members;
non-autistic status was supported by scores below the clinical
cutoff (q6) on the Autism Spectrum Quotient-10.33 No
candidate reported having a clinical diagnosis of depression
or anxiety. Candidates were carefully matched on the
Weschler Verbal Comprehension Index34 (autistic: 102, 103;
non-autistic: 105, 105), appearance (one candidate per group
had dark wavy hair and was clean shaven; one candidate per
group had light colored hair and facial hair of a similar
shape), attire (buttoned long-sleeved shirt, tie, no jacket), and
age (autistic: 25, 31 years; non-autistic: 27, 30 years).
 BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
Candidates attended an interview where they were asked
10 common job interview questions.35 Interviews were
standardized by using (1) a single interviewer (L.M.D.), (2)
an interview protocol, (3) professional attire, and (4) a con-
sistent environment (i.e., room, lighting, furnishings, seating,
and camera angles). All candidates were treated formally and
were instructed to treat the session as a real job interview.
Pilot testing of stimuli. Based on previous research,24,25
short 10-second excerpts were selected from the interviews
for pilot testing. To ensure equivalence of verbal content
between candidates, we recruited Australian residents aged
18 years and above (trial one: n = 64; Mage = 29.22 years,
SD = 10.42; trial two: n = 40, Mage = 39.67, SD = 10.74) and
asked them to rate the extent that they endorsed the candidate
(1 = Very low endorsement to 7 = Very high endorsement)
after reading transcripts of the excerpts. Two trials were
necessary to identify transcript excerpts that were rated
similarly. A one-way repeated measure analysis of variance
(ANOVA) indicated that transcript ratings did not differ
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.
significantly in response to the question ‘‘How would you
describe yourself as a worker?’’ (autistic: MA = 4.15,
SD = 1.31, MD = 4.43, SD = 1.30; non-autistic: MB = 4.30,
SD = 1.40, MC = 4.43, SD = 1.34), F(3, 117) = 0.55, p > 0.05.
We selected the videos of candidate’s response to this
question for the study. Final sections varied slightly in length
to capture full sentences (autistic: 8, 10 seconds; non-autistic:
8, 12 seconds). Final transcripts are included in Table 1.
Diagnostic disclosure. We created three videos that
provided different levels of diagnostic disclosure of autism
(Fig. 1): ‘‘None’’ (diagnosis not disclosed); ‘‘Brief’’ (candi-
date labeled as autistic); ‘‘Detailed’’ (candidate labeled as
autistic, additional information about autism and employ-
ment provided). A professional with 12 years’ experience
assisting autistic adults into employment contributed to the
development of the ‘‘Detailed’’ video script. All candidates
Table 1. Transcripts for the ‘‘Job
Candidate’’ Videos
Diagnostic Response to interview question
status Candidate (time in seconds)
Autistic A ‘‘I’d like to see myself as the
committed worker- like you
give me the job and I’ll get
onto that- so that’s kind of
more my sort of comfort
zone.’’ (8 seconds)
D ‘‘I’m loyal. I like really like
talking to people and uh, yeah
I guess like, really like
interacting with people and
stuff like that.’’ (10 seconds)
Non-autistic B ‘‘I think I’m quite creative when
I need to be. And when I’m
passionate I work really
hard.’’ (8 seconds)
C ‘‘I suppose my best asset as a
worker is um, initiative, um, I
kind of, I like to do my best at
whatever I’m doing.’’
(12 seconds)
303
were introduced as having an ‘‘excellent CV [curriculum
vitae] and relevant industry experience’’ to explicitly indicate
equivalence in terms of skills and experience.
Candidate employability. The Candidate Employability
Scale36 measures perceptions of employability along 10 di-
mensions (e.g., ‘‘Work motivation,’’ ‘‘Potential for quality
ability’’). Ratings range from Extremely Low (1) to Extremely
High (7), with higher scores indicating greater ‘‘employ-
ability.’’ The scale demonstrates good psychometric prop-
erties (Herold, unpublished data, 1995),37 for this study,
a = 0.90.
First impressions of candidates. The First Impression
Scale for Autism24,38 comprises 10 items: Impressions (six
items, e.g., ‘‘likeability’’) and behavioral intent (four items,
e.g., ‘‘I would hang out with this person in my free time’’).
Responses are reported on a 4-point scale, ranging from
Strongly Agree (1) to Strongly Disagree (4). Items were co-
ded so that higher scores for all items indicated more favor-
able first impressions.27 In this study, a = 0.81.
Hiring decision. We developed a dichotomous ‘‘Hiring
Decision’’ question (‘‘Which candidate would you be most
willing to hire as a worker for any job?’’), which was modeled
on prior research.36,39
Endorsement Scale. Participants were asked: ‘‘If Can-
didate A/B was offered employment, how highly would you
endorse the candidate for the position?’’ Responses ranged
from Very low endorsement (1) to Very high endorsement (7),
with higher scores indicating higher levels of endorsement.
Demographic questions. Participants were asked about
their sex and gender, and whether they were autistic, had an
autistic family member, autistic friend, or if they ‘‘worked
often with one or more autistic individuals.’’
Procedure
Ethics approval was received from the university Human
Research Ethics Committee and consent was obtained from
all participants, who completed the study on Qualtrics.40
We employed a within-between subjects design (Fig. 2).
Participants were randomly allocated into one of three con-
ditions: ‘‘None,’’ ‘‘Brief,’’ or ‘‘Detailed.’’ Each participant
viewed the interview segment video for one autistic and one
non-autistic candidate (candidate presentation order coun-
terbalanced). The condition allocation influenced the infor-
mation participants were given before each candidate video
(Fig. 1). In the ‘‘None’’ condition, neither the autistic nor the
non-autistic candidate were labeled as autistic. In the ‘‘Brief’’
condition, both the autistic and non-autistic candidate were
labeled as autistic. Finally, in the ‘‘Detailed’’ condition, both
the autistic and non-autistic candidate were labeled as au-
tistic, and participants were provided additional information
about autism and employment (Fig. 1).
Participants completed an audio check to ensure the vol-
ume was at an appropriate level, before being provided
the relevant disclosure information about the job candidate
(introduction/disclosure video), and then the first candi-
date video. The participant then rated the candidate on
 304
FIG. 1. Video scripts for the three study conditions. CV, curriculum vitae.
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.
employability and first impressions. This procedure was then
repeated with the second candidate, with the same disclosure
information provided as the first candidate. After viewing and
providing ratings for both candidates, participants were asked
to choose which of the two candidates they would ‘‘hire,’’
and then provide an endorsement rating for each.
To check whether participants attended to the videos, we
placed attention checks after both the introduction/disclosure
video and candidate video. After the introduction/disclosure
video, participants in the Brief and Detailed groups were
required to identify which condition was mentioned from
three options: ‘‘Schizophrenia,’’ ‘‘Autism spectrum disor-
der,’’ and ‘‘Don’t know.’’ After each candidate video, par-
ticipants identified a shape (triangle, rectangle, circle, don’t
know) displayed for 3 seconds after the candidate.
Analysis
Participants who reported being autistic or having an au-
tistic family member (n = 86) were excluded from analyses as
per previous studies,19,27 given the possible impact of high
autism knowledge on results. Exclusion from the sample was
justified, as although the pattern of results was similar with
these groups included, the level of autism information made
more of a difference to the employability and hiring decision
outcome. Participants were excluded for failing an attention
check (n = 12), and when time taken to complete the survey
fell outside three standard deviations of the mean (M = 9.82,
SD = 4.45 minutes), leaving a sample of n = 255 non-autistic
raters for analysis (57.6% female, Mage = 35.91, SD = 12.19).
Of these, n = 48 (18.8%) reported having an autistic friend,
and n = 36 (14.0%) reporting working often with one or more
autistic individuals. These data are reported to characterize
the sample. Owing to sample size restrictions, analyses were
not conducted separately for those with some level of re-
ported autism familiarity.
Social desirability was assessed to ensure responses were
not due to participants responding in a socially desirable
manner. To rule out social desirability as a possible reason for
varied ratings between disclosure conditions, Pearson’s
product-moment correlations were calculated to determine
FLOWER ET AL.
relationships between social desirability41 and employability,
first impressions, and endorsement scales. Correlations were
found to be nonsignificant (all p’s > 0.07). A one-way between
subjects ANOVA showed no differences in social desirability
between disclosure conditions, F(2, 254) = 0.24, p > 0.05;
hence, social desirability was not considered further.
Using a criterion of z = –3.29, two outliers identified for
first impressions scores were reassigned the next most ex-
treme value – one unit.42 Response data were normally
distributed.
Results
Diagnosis and disclosure effects on employment ratings
We conducted a series of 2 (Diagnosis: Autistic and
Non-autistic) · 3 (Disclosure: None, Brief, and Detailed)
mixed-model ANOVAs to examine main effects and inter-
actions for the employability, first impression, and endorse-
ment scales. Means (SDs) by diagnostic group (autistic and
non-autistic) are provided in Table 2. Effect sizes for gp2 were
interpreted using Cohen’s (1969)43 guidelines for small
(0.009), medium (0.059), and large (0.138), considered ap-
propriate for partial eta-squared.44 Effect sizes for d were
interpreted using Cohen’s45 guidelines for small (0.2), me-
dium (0.5), and large (0.8).
Employability. There was a large significant main effect
for diagnosis on employability, F(1, 252) = 46.39, p < 0.001,
gp2 = 0.155, where participants rated autistic candidates lower
on the Candidate Employability Scale than non-autistic can-
didates (Table 2). There was a small but statistically signifi-
cant main effect for disclosure, F(2, 252) = 3.43, p = 0.034,
gp2 = 0.027; however, Bonferroni corrected pairwise compar-
isons failed to reveal significant differences between condi-
tions (all p > 0.05). The Diagnosis · Disclosure interaction was
not significant, F(2, 252) = 2.22, p = 0.111, gp2 = 0.017.
First impressions. There was a medium to large signifi-
cant main effect for diagnosis on first impressions, F(1,
252) = 37.34, p < 0.001, gp2 = 0.129, where participants rated
autistic candidates lower on the First Impression Scale for
 BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.
FIG. 2. Study flow.
Autism than non-autistic candidates. There was a small to
medium significant main effect for disclosure, F(2,
252) = 7.05, p = 0.001, gp2 = 0.053, with ratings differing be-
tween disclosure conditions. The Diagnosis · Disclosure in-
teraction was not significant, F(2, 252) = 0.91, p = 0.403,
gp2 = 0.007. Follow-up Bonferroni corrected pairwise com-
parisons indicated significant differences in first impressions
ratings between None and Brief ( p = 0.019, d = 0.36), and
None and Detailed ( p = 0.001, d = 0.46) conditions, with
305
small to medium effect sizes. The difference between Brief
and Detailed conditions was not significant ( p > 0.05,
d = 0.10).
Endorsement. There was a medium to large significant
main effect for diagnosis on endorsement, F(1, 252) = 39.25,
p < 0.001, gp2 = 0.135, where participants rated autistic can-
didates lower on the Endorsement Scale than non-autistic
candidates. There was a small to medium significant main
 306 FLOWER ET AL.

Table 2. Employability, First Impressions, and Endorsement Ratings for Autistic and Non-Autistic
Candidates Across Disclosure Conditions
Autistic Non-autistic
Scale Disclosure condition n M (SD) M (SD)
Candidate Employability Scale None 86 43.77 (9.65) 49.85 (8.68)
Brief 82 47.09 (9.48) 51.76 (8.45)
Detailed 87 47.82 (9.05) 50.54 (8.09)
First Impressions Scale for Autism None 86 25.58 (3.48) 27.41 (3.12)
Brief 82 26.94 (3.40) 28.46 (3.46)
Detailed 87 27.55 (3.77) 28.60 (3.25)
None 86 4.09 (1.41) 4.97 (1.14)
Endorsement Scale Brief 82 4.63 (1.42) 5.38 (1.12)
Detailed 87 4.78 (1.18) 5.15 (1.01)
Scores for the Candidate Employability Scale could range between 10 and 70. Scores for the First Impressions Scale could range between
10 and 40. Endorsement ratings could range between 0 and 7.

effect for disclosure on endorsement ratings, F(2, 252) = 7.66, 8.12]; Brief, OR = 7.44, p < 0.001, 95% CI [3.73–14.84];
p = 0.001, gp2 = 0.057, with endorsement ratings differing be- Detailed, OR = 2.68, p = 0.002, 95% CI [1.45–4.94]. Overall,
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.

tween disclosure conditions. The Diagnosis · Disclosure in-
teraction was not significant, F(2, 252) = 2.09, p = 0.126,
gp2 = 0.016. Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons
showed significant differences in endorsement ratings be-
tween None and Brief conditions ( p = 0.002, d = 0.35), and
None and Detailed conditions ( p = 0.004, d = 0.37), with
small to medium effect sizes. The difference between Brief
and Detailed conditions was not significant ( p > 0.05,
d = 0.03).
Diagnosis and disclosure effects on hiring decision
We conducted a chi-square test of independence to com-
pare how frequently participants chose to ‘‘hire’’ the autistic
candidate compared with the non-autistic candidate within
each disclosure condition. The chi-square test of indepen-
dence showed a significant association between diagnosis
and hiring selections for None, v2 (1) = 10.47, p = 0.001,
Brief, v2 (1) = 17.61, p < 0.001, and Detailed, v2 (1) = 5.07,
p = 0.024 conditions (Fig. 3). Across conditions, participants
were more likely to select non-autistic candidates than au-
tistic candidates, with odds ratios (OR) of46: None,
OR = 4.29, p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) [2.27–
FIG. 3. Percentage of autistic and non-autistic candidates
‘‘hired’’ in each of the three conditions. Error bars represent
standard error.
participants were over four times more likely to select non-
autistic candidates than autistic candidates, OR = 4.29,
p < 0.001, 95% CI [2.96–6.22].
Endorsement ratings by hiring decision. Endorsement
rating was examined separately for selected (i.e., ‘‘hired’’)
and unselected candidates using one-way ANOVAs. There
was no significant difference in participant endorsement
ratings of the autistic (M = 5.47, SD = 0.94) and non-autistic
(M = 5.52 SD = 0.86) selected candidates F(1, 253) = 0.20,
p = 0.652, gp2 < 0.001. By contrast, there was a significant
difference in participant endorsement ratings of autistic
(M = 4.03, SD = 1.29) and non-autistic (M = 4.41 SD = 1.17)
unselected candidates, F(1, 253) = 5.00, p = 0.026,
gp2 = 0.019 with a small effect size, where participants pro-
vided lower endorsement ratings of unselected autistic can-
didates than non-autistic candidates.
Discussion
In this study, we examined the impact of the disclosure of
an autism diagnosis on the perceptions of job interview
performance of male autistic and non-autistic job candidates.
We found that participants gave autistic candidates less fa-
vorable ratings across all employment measures compared
with non-autistic candidates, and that when the diagnostic
label was provided, participants gave candidates (both au-
tistic and non-autistic) more favorable ratings.
Across all conditions (‘‘None,’’ ‘‘Brief,’’ and ‘‘Detailed’’)
autistic job candidates were rated less favorably and were less
likely to be ‘‘hired’’ by participants, compared with their
non-autistic counterparts. Unfavorable perceptions of autistic
people by non-autistic raters have been consistently reported
in various contexts24,25,27 and were, therefore, anticipated
(H1 and H2). Although interesting, given the small number of
stimuli videos, and the heterogeneity of autism, this finding
should be interpreted with caution.
Participants gave more favorable ratings of candidates
when an autism diagnostic label was provided (supporting
H3), and this finding held regardless of actual diagnostic
status (i.e., ratings were higher in the ‘‘Brief’’ label condition
for both autistic and non-autistic candidates than in the
‘‘None’’ condition). This finding of a positive impact of a
 BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
diagnostic label is consistent with Sasson and Morrison,27
and our results extend this finding to the job interview
context. Sasson and Morrison posit that provision of the
diagnostic label may improve perceptions of autistic people
by non-autistic people by way of providing an explanation
for ‘‘atypical’’ or different behavior. In contrast, the ap-
parent advantage of non-autistic over the autistic candidates
who were ‘‘hired’’ was unaffected when a diagnosis was
disclosed (thus, there was no support for H4). Indeed, we
found that the discrepancy increased in favor of non-autistic
candidates.
Given greater autism knowledge has been associated with
improved ratings of autistic people,27,31 we examined whe-
ther ratings of autistic candidates would improve if we pro-
vided additional information about autism and employment
(i.e., ‘‘Detailed’’ condition). We predicted that this effect
would be stronger than diagnostic disclosure alone (H5).
Although employment ratings (employability, first impres-
sions, and endorsement) were more favorable when more
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.
information about autism was provided compared with when
there was no diagnostic disclosure, this effect was no stronger
than in the disclosure without information condition. No-
tably, however, we observed a slightly lower preference for
‘‘hiring’’ the non-autistic candidate in this condition com-
pared with the other two conditions—Although participants
were over four times more likely to hire the non-autistic than
the autistic candidate in the no disclosure and disclosure only
conditions, this rate was reduced by approximately one third
when participants were provided with additional information
about autism and the workplace.
Autistic job seekers are likely to undertake careful risk-
benefit analyses when they consider whether or not to in-
form prospective employers that they are autistic, and those
who refrain from disclosing are often concerned mostly
about negative perceptions from others.47 Taken together,
the findings of this study provide some support for diag-
nostic disclosure as improving perceptions of autistic can-
didates at job interview. Nevertheless, as our findings relate
to a contrived environment, these findings may not translate
to a ‘‘real-world’’ setting and caution is recommended when
considering disclosure during a job interview. Every situa-
tion must be assessed on its own merits as there remains a
risk that disclosure may disadvantage applicants. Although
our findings were not overwhelmingly in support of ad-
vantages when providing information about autism, we do
recommend that workplaces and recruiters be informed
about autism, and particularly the often simple ways in
which autistic employees can be supported in the workplace
thereby enabling them to excel. It is likely, however, that
targeted training is required to change people’s behavior
with respect to how autistic people are perceived, under-
stood, and supported in the workplace.
Limitations
In this study, we explored the perception non-autistic
raters had of autistic and non-autistic male job candidates.
Although we recognize that the job interview is a likely
barrier for autistic people of all genders, we wanted to
control for as much variability as possible in the experi-
mental stimuli for this initial pilot study as possible. We
recognize that there is a need for more research including
307
autistic cisgender and transgender women and gender
nonconforming participants. Males were chosen as the fo-
cus for this initial study, given recent research reporting
that male autistic job candidates received poorer ratings in a
simulated job interview than autistic females.25 It was also
beyond the scope of this study to include recruiters as
participants. Although first impressions have been found to
be similar for experienced versus inexperienced recruit-
ers,48 it would be of interest to know whether results might
be different if all raters were people with recruitment ex-
perience. Similarly, examining the influence of rater famil-
iarity with autism on ratings is an important future avenue for
research. Training for job interviewers (e.g., that includes
presentations from autistic people), or by including autistic
people, or people familiar with autism on interview panels,
may be beneficial for improving employment outcomes for
autistic people.
Implications and conclusion
Diagnostic disclosure seems to have largely positive im-
pacts on the ratings by non-autistic people of autistic (and
non-autistic) job candidates, at least under experimental
conditions. Providing additional autism information did not
seem to improve these ratings further, but did have a positive
impact on the hiring decision by reducing the gap (OR) be-
tween autistic and non-autistic selections. Importantly, our
findings suggest both explicit and implicit bias (i.e., when
diagnosis was provided and when it was concealed) on the
part of non-autistic raters will likely need active intervention
and education to mitigate. Given the primary differences in
the way that autistic individuals communicate, close exami-
nation of hiring processes, and particularly the job interview
is warranted to improve equity of access to employment for
autistic people.
Acknowledgments
We thank the actors who appeared in the stimulus videos,
and the participants in this study. We also thank Kat Denney
for her assistance in formatting the article.
Authorship Confirmation Statement
R.L.F. and D.H. conceived and designed the study. L.M.D.
conducted the study and collected the data under the super-
vision of R.L.F. and D.H. L.M.D. and R.L.F. analyzed the
data. R.L.F., L.M.D., and D.H. wrote the article, R.L.F. for-
matted and led the revision of the article, and all authors
approved the final version.
We confirm that the study described here has not been
published previously, that it is not under consideration for
publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all
authors and by the responsible authorities where the study
was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published
elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other lan-
guage, including electronically, without the written consent
of the copyright holder.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
 308
Funding Information
At the time of the study, Darren Hedley was supported by
funding from DXC Technology, the Australian Government
Department of Defence, and the ANZ Bank. During a period
of time while the article was being prepared, Rebecca
Flower’s position was supported by the Cooperative Re-
search Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC), es-
tablished and supported under the Australian Government’s
Cooperative Research Centres Program. Darren Hedley is
currently supported by a Suicide Prevention Australia Na-
tional Suicide Prevention Research Fellowship. The authors
declare no further conflicts of interest.
References
1. Hedley D, Uljarević M, Cameron L, Halder S, Richdale A,
Dissanayake C. Employment programs and interventions
targeting adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A sys-
tematic review of the literature. Autism. 2017;21(8):929–
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.
941.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Disability, Ageing and
Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2018. Cat No.
4430.0. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government; 2019.
3. Roux AM, Shattuck PT, Rast JE, Rava JA, Anderson KA.
National autism indicators report: Transition into young
adulthood. April 15, 2015. https://drexel.edu/autismoutcomes/
publications-and-reports/publications/National-Autism-
Indicators-Report-Transition-to-Adulthood (last accessed
June 8, 2020).
4. Taylor JL, Seltzer MM. Employment and post-secondary
educational activities for young adults with autism spec-
trum disorders during the transition to adulthood. J Autism
Dev Disord. 2011;41(5):566–574.
5. Howlin P. Social disadvantage and exclusion: Adults with
autism lag far behind in employment prospects. J Am Acad
Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52(9):897–899.
6. Howlin P, Goode S, Hutton J, Rutter M. Adult outcome for
children with autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;
45(2):212–229.
7. Baldwin S, Costley D, Warren A. Employment activities
and experiences of adults with high-functioning autism and
Asperger’s disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2014;44(10):
2440–2449.
8. Hillier A, Campbell H, Mastriani K, et al. Two-year eval-
uation of a vocational support program for adults on the
autism spectrum. Career Dev Transit Except Individ. 2007;
30(1):35–47.
9. Ryan AM, Ployhart RE. A century of selection. Annu Rev
Psychol. 2014;65:693–717.
10. Higgins K, Koch LC, Boughfman EM, Vierstra CV.
School-to-work transition and Asperger syndrome. Work.
2008;31(3):291–298.
11. Strickland DC, Coles CD, Southern LB. JobTIPS: A tran-
sition to employment program for individuals with autism
spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013;43(10):
2472–2483.
12. Huffcutt A, Conway J, Roth PL, Stone NJ. Identification
and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs
measured in employment interviews. J Appl Psychol. 2001;
86(5):897–913.
13. Salgado JF, Moscoso S. Comprehensive meta-analysis of
the construct validity of the employment interview. Eur J
Work Organ Psychol. 2002;11(3):299–324.
FLOWER ET AL.
14. Müller E, Schuler A, Burton BA, Yates GB. Meeting the
vocational support needs of individuals with Asperger
syndrome and other autism spectrum disabilities. J Vocat
Rehabil. 2003;18(3):163–175.
15. Hurlbutt K, Chalmers L. Employment and adults with
Asperger syndrome. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabil.
2004;19(4):215–222.
16. Kalandadze T, Norbury C, Nærland T, Næss KB. Figura-
tive language comprehension in individuals with autism
spectrum disorder: A meta-analytic review. Autism. 2018;
22(2):99–117.
17. Zalla T, Amsellem F, Chaste P, Ervas F, Leboyer M,
Champagne-Lavau M. Individuals with autism spectrum
disorders do not use social stereotypes in irony compre-
hension. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95568.
18. Ambady N, Bernieri FJ, Richeson JA. Toward a histology of
social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the
behavioral stream. In Zanna MP, ed. Adv Exp Soc Psychol.
Vol. 32. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2000;201–271.
19. Morrison KE, Debrabander KM, Faso DJ, Sasson NJ.
Variability in first impressions of autistic adults made by
neurotypical raters is driven more by characteristics of the
rater than by characteristics of autistic adults. Autism. 2019;
23(7):1817–1829.
20. Barrick MR. Swider BW, Stewart, GL. Initial evaluations
in the interview: Relationships with subsequent interviewer
evaluations and employment offers. J Appl Psychol. 2010;
95(6):1163–1172.
21. Dougherty TW, Turban DB, Callender JC. Confirming first
impressions in the employment interview: A field study of
interviewer behavior. J Appl Psychol. 1994;79(5):659–665.
22. Macan TH, Dipboye RL. The effects of interviewers’ initial
impressions on effects gathering. Organ Behav Hum Decis
Process. 1988;42:364–387.
23. Swider BW, Barrick MR, Harris TB. Initial impressions:
What they are, what they are not, and how they influence
structured interview outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2016;
101(5):625–638.
24. Sasson NJ, Faso DJ, Nugent J, Lovell S, Kennedy DP,
Grossman RB. Neurotypical peers are less willing to in-
teract with those with autism based on thin slice judgments.
Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–10.
25. Cage E, Burton H. Gender differences in the first impres-
sions of autistic adults. Autism Res. 2019;12(10):1495–
1504.
26. Butler RC, Gillis JM. The impact of labels and behaviors
on the stigmatization of adults with Asperger’s disorder.
J Autism Dev Disord. 2011;41(6):741–749.
27. Sasson NJ, Morrison KE. First impressions of adults with
autism improve with diagnostic disclosure and increased
autism knowledge of peers. Autism. 2019;23(1):50–59.
28. Ohl A, Grice Sheff M, Small S, Nguyen J, Paskor K,
Zanjirian A. Predictors of employment status among
adults with autism spectrum disorder. Work. 2017;56(2):
345–355.
29. Lindsay S, Osten V, Rezai M, Bui S. Disclosure and
workplace accommodations for people with autism: A
systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;7:1–14.
30. Gillespie-Lynch K, Brooks PJ, Someki F, et al. Changing
college students’ conceptions of autism: An online training
to increase knowledge and decrease stigma. J Autism Dev
Disord. 2015;45(8):2553–2566.
31. McMahon C M, Henry S, Linthicum M. Employability in
autism spectrum disorder (ASD): Job candidate’s diag-
 BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
nostic disclosure and ASD characteristics and employer’s
ASD knowledge and social desirability. J Exp Psychol
Appl. 2021;27(1):142–157.
32. Palan S, Schitter C. Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online
research. J Behav Exp Finance. 2018;17:22–27.
33. Allison C, Auyeung B, Baron-Cohen S. Toward brief ‘‘red
flags’’ for autism screening: The short autism spectrum
quotient and the short quantitative checklist for autism in
toddlers in 1,000 cases and 3,000 controls. J Am Acad Child
Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(2):202–212.
34. Wechsler D. WASI: Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of In-
telligence. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 1999.
35. Bolles R. What Color Is Your Parachute? A Practical
Manual for Job-Hunters and Career-Changers. 2016 ed.
Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press; 2015.
36. Krefting LA, Brief AP. The impact of applicant disability
on evaluative judgments in the selection process. Acad
Manag J. 1976;19(4):675–680.
37. Dalgin RS, Bellini J. Invisible disability disclosure in an
employment interview: Impact on employers’ hiring deci-
Downloaded by 81.157.53.226 from www.liebertpub.com at 02/14/22. For personal use only.
sions and views of employability. Rehab Couns Bull. 2008;
52(1):6–15.
38. Morrison KE, DeBrabander KM, Jones DR, Faso DJ,
Ackerman RA, Sasson NJ. Outcomes of real-world social
interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared
to typically developing partners. Autism. 2020;24(5):1067–
1080.
39. Roberts LL, Macan TH. Disability disclosure effects on
employment interview ratings of applicants with nonvisible
disabilities. Rehabil Psychol. 2006;51(3):239–246.
40. Qualtrics [computer program]. Version 2.16. Provo, UT:
Qualtrics; 2017.
309
41. Stöber J. The social desirability scale-17 (SDS-17): Con-
vergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship
with age. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2001;17(3):222–232.
42. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics.
6th ed. New York: Pearson; 2013.
43. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sci-
ences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 1969.
44. Richardson JT. Eta squared and partial eta squared as
measures of effect size in educational research. Educ Res
Rev. 2011;6(2):135–147.
45. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sci-
ences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
1988.
46. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics.
5th ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2018.
47. Romualdez M, Heasman B, Walker Z, Davies J, Remington
A. ‘‘People might understand me better’’: Diagnostic dis-
closure experiences of autistic individuals in the workplace.
Autism Adulthood. 2021;3(2):157–167.
48. Derous E, Buijsrogge A, Roulin N, Duyck W. Why your
stigma isn’t hired: A dual-process framework of interview
bias. Hum Resour Manage Rev. 2016;26(2):90–111.
Address correspondence to:
Rebecca L. Flower, PhD
Department of Psychology and Counselling
School of Psychology and Public Health
La Trobe University
Bendigo 3552
Australia
Email: r.flower@latrobe.edu.au