Autism stigma in communication classrooms: exploring peer attitudes and motivations toward interacting with atypical students

ABSTRACT

College students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) face unique social barriers and are often stigmatized by their peers. Communication and instruction researchers are uniquely positioned to foster an inclusive communication climate in the classroom that minimizes stigma and promotes peer acceptance. To do so, instructors must understand how stigma operates in the classroom—including the features, reactions, and effects of peer stigma communication. The present study utilizes the model of stigma communication (MSC; Smith, [2007]. Language of the lost: An explication of stigma communication. Communication Theory, 17, 462–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00307.x) to explore those three facets of the stigma communication process using a mixed methods design. Results showed that attitudes significantly predicted both social distance and openness toward interaction with atypical students. Though participants expressed generally positive attitudes toward classroom inclusion, open-ended feedback revealed stigmatized beliefs and desired social distance from peers with ASD. Based on these results, we provide implications for and strategies to promote an inclusive classroom climate for students with ASD.

KEYWORDS:

• autism spectrum disorder
• stigma communication
• inclusion

Notes

1 A male character was chosen for this hypothetical scenario for multiple reasons. First, there is an estimated 4:1 ratio of male to female ASD diagnosis. Moreover, there are often major differences in the presentation of atypical behavior by college-aged males and females with ASD (Halladay et al., 2015). Research that examines autism stigma using vignettes has featured male characters (Brosnan & Mills, 2016; Butler & Gillis, 2011; Matthews et al., 2015). Overall, analysis showed that male (M = 3.31, SD = .95) and female (M = 3.50, SD = 0.94) participants did not differ in their openness levels toward Taylor, t(192) = −1.44, p = .152. This decision is further discussed in the “Limitations and future research” section.