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

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.

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.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 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. Participants 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.