Identity Development for LGBTQIA+ Autistic Adults in the United States: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Elizabeth K Schmidt, Jess Bauzá de García, Sage Michaud Espinosa and 1 others
LGBTQIA+ autistic adults built their identities through exposure to others, self-directed research, trial and error, and interactions with people outside their communities.
Positive experiences led to immediate self-acceptance; negative ones required a longer, harder journey.
Key findings
1Participants identified four factors that shaped their identity development: exposure to others with similar identities, personal research into their own experiences, trial and error (testing pronouns, relationships, stimming techniques, creative outlets), and interactions with people outside the autistic and LGBTQIA+ communities (family, educators, medical providers).
2Participants who had more positive experiences during identity exploration reported what the authors call 'narrative gain': an immediate sense of acceptance and peace with their identity. Those who faced more negative experiences (stigma, discrimination, denied or retracted diagnoses) described a longer, ongoing journey toward self-acceptance.
3In the Phase 2 survey, 69.2% (n = 74) said personal research helped their autistic identity development and 63.6% (n = 68) said it helped their LGBTQIA+ identity; 47.7% (n = 51) found community groups beneficial for LGBTQIA+ identity and 46.7% (n = 50) for autistic identity; 46.7% (n = 50) said positive media representation supported LGBTQIA+ identity and 31.8% (n = 34) said it helped autistic identity.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Phase 2 recruited from Phase 1 participants and new participants simultaneously, so response rates could not be calculated. The Phase 2 survey was anonymous, preventing a sensitivity analysis separating Phase 1 participants from new respondents. The survey was built directly from the qualitative themes, creating a risk of confirmation bias; open-text fields were rarely used. Recruitment was limited to LGBTQIA+ and autistic community organizations, introducing selection bias. The Phase 1 qualitative sample (57) exceeded typical IPA guidelines; the Phase 2 sample (107) was too small for confirmatory analyses. Both phases were limited in age range and communication diversity (verbal, AAC, ASL, nonverbal); Phase 2 was less racially and ethnically diverse. The authors state the findings are not generalizable and call for additional research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the Phase 2 percentages (for example, 69.2% found research helpful) as evidence that providing research resources will improve identity development. The survey was built from the qualitative themes it was meant to validate, the sample was recruited from the same community organizations, and the authors state the findings are not generalizable. This is a descriptive account of how people experienced their identity journey, not a test of any intervention.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →