First impressions matter − they shape how we’re judged in mere seconds, research shows. People are quick to evaluate others’ competence, likability and honesty, often relying on superficial cues such as appearance or handshake strength. While these snap judgments can be flawed, they often have a lasting impact. In employment, first impressions not only affect hiring choices but also decisions about promotion years later.
As a researcher in cognitive science, I’ve seen firsthand how first impressions can pose a challenge for individuals with autism spectrum disorder, or ASD. People with ASD often display social behaviors − such as facial expressions, eye contact, gestures and sense of personal space − that can differ from those of neurotypical individuals.
These differences are often misunderstood, leading people with ASD to be perceived as awkward, odd or even deceptive. People form these negative impressions in just seconds and report being reluctant to talk to, hang out with or even live near people on the spectrum.
It’s not surprising, then, that unfavorable first impressions create barriers for people with ASD in the workplace.
The interview trap
It starts with the job interview. Whether you’re seeking a position as a computer programmer at a tech firm or a dog groomer at a vet clinic, the job interview is a critical gateway. Success depends on your ability to think on your feet, communicate your qualifications and present yourself as likable, agreeable and collegial.
My research demonstrates that job seekers with ASD often perform poorly in interviews due to the social demands of the situation. This is true even when the candidate is highly qualified for the job they are seeking.
In one study, my colleagues and I videotaped mock job interviews with 30 young adults − half with ASD, half neurotypical − who were all college students without an intellectual disability. We asked them to discuss their dream jobs and qualifications for five minutes. Afterward, evaluators rated them on social traits, such as likability, enthusiasm and competence, and indicated how likely they were to hire each interviewee. As in most professional interviews, the evaluators weren’t aware that some candidates were on the autism spectrum.
Candidates with autism spectrum disorder were consistently rated less favorably on all social dimensions compared with people without the condition, and those unfavorable social ratings weighed heavily on hiring decisions. Even though candidates with ASD were rated as equally qualified as neurotypical candidates, they were significantly less likely to be hired.
Interestingly, when evaluators only read the candidates’ interview transcripts without watching the interviews, ratings for ASD candidates were the same as, or even better than, those for neurotypical candidates. This suggests that it’s not just what candidates say in an interview but how they present themselves socially that affects hiring decisions.
This is especially problematic for jobs that require minimal social interaction − think data analyst or landscaper − where a candidate’s qualifications should be the main consideration. By relying on interviews as a primary screening tool, employers may miss out on competent, qualified applicants with unique strengths.
Rethinking what makes a good candidate
Scientists have explored whether it’s possible to teach adults with ASD how to improve their interview skills, for example by maintaining more eye contact or standing at a socially acceptable distance from an interviewer.
While such training can help, it addresses only a small part of the problem, and I think this approach may not significantly improve employment outcomes for autistic adults.
For one, it reduces the challenges faced by adults with ASD to a limited set of behaviors. ASD is a complex condition, and research shows that the negative evaluations of individuals with ASD are not driven by a single difference or a collection of specific differences, but rather by the individual’s overall presentation.
In addition, this type of training often encourages individuals to mask their autistic traits, which could make a stressful interview even more difficult. Finally, if ASD candidates successfully mask their autism during the interview but can’t maintain that mask once they are hired, their longevity in the position could be at risk.
A more effective approach may be to change how interviews are conducted and how candidates are perceived. This includes giving employers meaningful education about autism and giving job applicants a way to disclose their diagnosis without penalty. Research shows that when people know more about autism spectrum disorder, they have more positive views of people with ASD. In addition, ratings of people with ASD are often more favorable when evaluators know about their diagnosis. Combining these two approaches − that is, pairing ASD education for employers with diagnostic disclosure for candidates − may lead to better outcomes.
My colleagues and I explored this possibility in a series of studies. Again, we showed raters the mock job interviews of candidates with and without ASD. This time, however, some evaluators watched a brief educational video about autism, learning about characteristics and strengths often associated with ASD before evaluating the mock interviews. In addition, these raters knew which candidates had an ASD diagnosis.
Even though raters still perceived the candidates with ASD as more awkward and less likable, they rated those candidates as equally qualified as neurotypical candidates and were just as likely to hire them. This boost in hiring ratings persisted even when the educational video about autism was viewed months before candidates were evaluated.
Notably, neither of these interventions was effective on its own. In different conditions, some evaluators simply got the training but didn’t receive diagnostic information about candidates; others received no education about autism but were aware of which candidates had ASD. Both groups continued to select against candidates with ASD in hiring decisions, even though the candidates with ASD were rated as highly qualified. It appears that both knowing a person has autism and understanding more about autism are important for overcoming negative first impressions.
We believe that our training fostered a greater understanding of the atypical interactive style and behaviors that can be common among adults with ASD. This understanding, when coupled with the knowledge of a candidate’s diagnosis, may have helped evaluators contextualize those behaviors and, in turn, place more emphasis on qualifications when making hiring decisions.
When hiring decisions are based on merit, both employees and employers benefit. First impressions, though impactful, can be deceptive and often bias decisions, particularly for individuals with ASD. Our findings highlight an important truth: Understanding autism enables employers to focus on qualifications, giving candidates with ASD a fair opportunity to succeed based on their true potential.
Cindi May is a board member for Disability Rights South Carolina and a member of the National Accreditation Team for Inclusive Postsecondary Education.
