There are a range of potential environmental and social mechanisms responsible for the negative outcomes experienced by autistic college students. Among these mechanisms, lack of autism and neurodiversity acceptance (i.e., recognition that autistic and other neurodivergent individuals do not need to be fixed or cured but accepted for who they are) is a potentially preventable factor that partially contributes to negative outcomes in college for this population (McLeod et al., 2019; Kim, 2020; Golson et al., 2022). Importantly, acceptance is distinct from awareness, a construct that is often promoted as key for supporting autistic individuals. While awareness seeks to identify autistic differences, acceptance acknowledges that autistic individuals do not need to be fixed or cured (Kim, 2020).

Indeed, despite the proliferation of the neurodiversity movement, lack of autism and neurodiversity acceptance persists in many forms across college campuses. First, it surfaces in stigma in social and interpersonal interactions. Survey research with college students at 14 public institutions finds that autistic college students experience significantly worse bullying and social relationships, relative to non-autistic students (DeNigris et al., 2018; McLeod et al., 2019). In addition, research utilizing hypothetical vignettes and interviews with college students finds that exclusion is deemed more socially acceptable if it involves the exclusion of autistic—rather than non-autistic—peers (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2019).

Importantly, researchers have posited that many of the challenges autistic college students face in college result from the stigma and social rejection associated with disability rather than from the unique characteristics of autism (McLeod et al., 2019). Bullying and exclusion may be particularly detrimental to autistic students due to their heightened experiences of isolation; lower social connectedness; apprehension regarding disclosure of their diagnosis; and anxiety and depression resulting from social demands (Bolourian et al., 2018; Casagrande et al., 2020; Davidson et al., 2021).

Lack of autism and neurodiversity acceptance may also translate into a lack of accessibility in academic and non-academic college activities. In particular, faculty may not recognize the imperative of making classrooms more conducive to diverse learners by implementing Universal Design and other flexible and multi-modal pedagogical strategies (Zeedyk et al., 2019). This lack of recognition may disadvantage autistic students academically (Clouder et al., 2020). In addition, autistic college students report that on-campus activities are not accessible (Davidson et al., 2021) and have low utilization of campus mental health and disability services, suggesting the need to increase campus accessibility (Petcu et al., 2021).

Finally, lack of autism and neurodiversity acceptance may manifest through a lack of autistic inclusion in physical and virtual environments. During and post-pandemic, lack of inclusion in digital spaces is particularly problematic, given that online spaces have become the primary means of engagement between students and institutions. Digital content analysis, for example, reveals that campus websites are unwelcoming for autistic students. The majority of community– and two-year colleges—postsecondary institutions that are typically more inclusive and accessible than four-year colleges and universities—do not reference autism on their websites. When references to autism were present, website content used medical and legal language to depict autistic students as deficient (Nachman and Brown, 2020). Taken together, lack of autism and neurodiversity acceptance is a potential modifiable mechanism underlying much of the disparate negative outcomes in college students.

In contrast, autism acceptance and alignment with the neurodiversity movement in interpersonal, educational, healthcare, and other contexts has been identified as beneficial for autistic college students. Both non-autistic and autistic individuals who are aware of the neurodiversity movement have more positive emotions about autism, relative to those who are unaware of the neurodiversity movement (Kapp et al., 2013). Survey research suggests that autistic college students who experience higher levels of connection with their university and peers report higher satisfaction with life (Casagrande et al., 2020). This finding lends support to the potential that a neurodiversity orientation on campuses may facilitate connectedness. As a result, the college environment represents a potential opportunity to promote autism acceptance and, in turn, prevent the negative health consequences of stigma as autistic college students transition into adulthood.

To be sure, there are emerging initiatives geared towards supporting autistic college students. College transition programs for autistic students, for example, are gradually emerging and yielding promising findings in terms of enhancing self-advocacy, mental health, and a range of other key indicators of quality of life (Hotez et al., 2018; Capriola-Hall et al., 2021). Although these programs provide autistic students with important skills, knowledge, and capacities, they do not address lack of interpersonal and structural acceptance in higher education. Although limited, there are emerging efforts in this specific area. This research suggests that initiatives such as service-learning pedagogy can increase undergraduate student awareness, knowledge, and acceptance of autism (Nowell et al., 2020). These programs, however, remain small and individualized to specific campuses.

Autism acceptance educational programs—featuring factual information about autism and first-person narratives as a basis for education content—have demonstrated positive effects on explicit bias about autism (i.e., conscious ideas and beliefs that often result in negative or exclusionary behaviors towards certain people or groups), but have had no measurable impacts on implicit bias (i.e., unconscious ideas about certain people or groups, operating from outside of the person’s awareness) (Jones et al., 2021; NCCC | home, 2022).

Given these findings, there are opportunities to improve existing interventions and programming that address lack of autism and neurodiversity acceptance in postsecondary institutions. A potential strategy to this end is to conduct research to identify the specific gaps in autism and neurodiversity acceptance among the general student body. This will hone in on specific learning objectives for high-yield neurodiversity-oriented interventions and educational programming in postsecondary schools with maximal relevance to students. As a first, step, there is a need to identify both specific aspects of acceptance that may be lacking, as well as provide opportunities for open-ended data collection to understand broader gaps in neurodiversity acceptance.

The current study aligns with the resounding call in the literature for colleges and universities to promote neurodiversity and inclusion to enhance the acceptance of autistic students by peers, faculty, and staff (Gunin et al., 2021). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the general college student body and describe their (1) level of autism acceptance based on the neurodiversity framework utilizing the Autism Attitude Acceptance Scale (AAAS) and (2) self-reported knowledge and interests about neurodiversity. This research can inform targets for educational programming in postsecondary institutions regarding autism acceptance and neurodiversity.

This study was cross-sectional. A convenience sample of undergraduates enrolled in a public affairs class at a large, diverse, public university in the U.S. completed the Autism Attitude Acceptance Scale (AAAS) (Kim, 2020)—administered to two separate groups of students via an anonymous Qualtrics survey—in February (n = 49) and September (n = 51) of 2022. Each participant had the option of submitting up to three questions about neurodiversity (open-ended). Participants had no known formal training in neurodiversity, autism, or related topics. This study was approved by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Institutional Review Board.

Sample characteristics are reported in Table 1. The sample (n = 90, M age = 21.86, SD = 1.18) was diverse with respect to race (White: n = 41, 45.56%; Asian: n = 21, 23.33%; Black / African American: n = 5, 5.56%; Native American / Alaska Native: n = 1, 1.11%; Multi-Racial: n = 5, 5.56%%) and ethnicity (Hispanic: n = 4, 4.4%). Approximately 32.22% (n = 29) identified as neurodivergent, with 5 identifying as autistic.

This research—although preliminary—can inform the development and implementation of neurodiversity-oriented education and training in postsecondary schools. Based on our study, priority areas for neurodiversity-oriented curricula are: 1) providing foundational knowledge on neurodiversity, including discussing the overall conceptual framework underlying neurodiversity, as well as the practical applications of neurodiversity; 2) discussing the history of the medical and social models of disability and unpacking the implications of cure- or deficit-oriented language; and 3) emphasizing how these concepts can be practically reflected in the college environment. Particular attention should be paid to the specific neurodiversity topics asked about in our qualitative research, including discussing neurodiversity in the context of specific environments (e.g., higher education); conditions and identities (e.g., autism); as well as how to be a neurodiversity advocate or ally (e.g., how to support neurodivergent peers).

Importantly, our recommendations are specifically geared towards informing the content of a potential class, program, or training. Readers should refer to comprehensive recommendations for inclusive postsecondary education generated by autistic researchers (Dwyer et al., 2022). These comprehensive recommendations reflect: (1) diversity, equity, and inclusion-oriented recommendations, (2) support- and accommodation-focused recommendations, and (3) campus-student communication recommendations. In addition, these recommendations specifically pertain to creating high-yield content for students. Future research is necessary to inform trainings for other stakeholders. Similarly, future research should identify the structure and approach that are most feasible and acceptable to learners. Finally, it is well-documented in the literature that autistic individuals experience a lifetime of stigma, discrimination, exclusion, and rejection well before they enter the postsecondary environment; we recommend neurodiversity-oriented efforts occur earlier in development, ideally during elementary school.

The current study had several limitations. Although our sample was diverse with respect to demographics and neurodiversity, it was a small convenience sample at a single institution. Future research should survey larger and more representative samples that facilitate subgroup analyses. This will be particularly important to discern potential subgroup differences in social desirability for this measure (Dalton and Ortegren, 2011). Second, this research was preliminary and utilized exploratory measurement that—as is the case with all survey methodology—may be prone to social desirability effects. Our thematic approach to coding provided suggestions as to students’ baseline knowledge and interests in neurodiversity, yet a more robust, grounded theory approach to coding that better explains “how” and “why” – related questions are warranted (O’Brien et al., 2014). Further, our analysis did not assess prior experiences with the autistic population, which would provide important context to our analyses. Our goal in presenting this research is to spur additional studies that can inform the development of neurodiversity-oriented curricula in higher education. Future research should deploy a wider range of measures to understand factors that predict autism and neurodiversity acceptance. Finally, although our research informed potential content for student education and training around autism and neurodiversity acceptance, additional studies are necessary to develop the specific structure and approach of potential programming. These studies should glean the perspectives of students, faculty, and service providers to inform efforts to address lack of autism and neurodiversity acceptance at all levels in postsecondary environments.