How behavioral differences between autistic and nonautistic suspects in forensic interviews affect observers' evaluations: Evidence for expectancy violations theory but not the double empathy hypothesis.
Neil Brewer, Carmen A Lucas, Katie Logos, Robyn L Young, Alliyza Lim
{"title":"How behavioral differences between autistic and nonautistic suspects in forensic interviews affect observers' evaluations: Evidence for expectancy violations theory but not the double empathy hypothesis.","authors":"Neil Brewer, Carmen A Lucas, Katie Logos, Robyn L Young, Alliyza Lim","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite suggestions that autistic individuals' behavioral characteristics may arouse suspicion and undermine credibility during police and courtroom questioning, specific contributing behaviors have not been identified. We examined whether (a) suspects' figurative language difficulties and speech hesitations led to unfavorable evaluations, especially for autistic suspects, (b) evaluations of autistic and nonautistic suspects reflected the observer's diagnostic status as predicted by the double empathy hypothesis, and (c) evaluations were predicted by expectancy violations theory.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted harsher evaluations of suspects (a) with figurative language difficulties and speech hesitations, particularly for autistic suspects, (b) when the diagnostic status of observers and suspects differed, and (c) following violations of expected behavior.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Autistic and nonautistic observers (Experiment 1 <i>N</i>s = 212 and 215; Experiment 2 <i>N</i>s = 125 and 125) watched online interviews with autistic or nonautistic chatroom participants suspected of computer hacking. Suspects with relatively high or low levels of either figurative language difficulties (Experiment 1) or speech hesitations (Experiment 2) were rated on suspiciousness, credibility, guilt, and expectancy violations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Harsher evaluations were detected for autistic than nonautistic male suspects and when autistic suspects displayed more marked speech hesitations. The observer's diagnostic status did not affect evaluations of suspects, but expectancy violations did, regardless of the suspect's autism diagnostic status.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Male autistic suspects, and autistic suspects displaying more pronounced speech hesitations, appear vulnerable to negative evaluations. More extreme expectancy violations may exacerbate such evaluations. The double empathy hypothesis was not supported, but findings aligned with expectancy violations theory predictions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000679","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Despite suggestions that autistic individuals' behavioral characteristics may arouse suspicion and undermine credibility during police and courtroom questioning, specific contributing behaviors have not been identified. We examined whether (a) suspects' figurative language difficulties and speech hesitations led to unfavorable evaluations, especially for autistic suspects, (b) evaluations of autistic and nonautistic suspects reflected the observer's diagnostic status as predicted by the double empathy hypothesis, and (c) evaluations were predicted by expectancy violations theory.
Hypotheses: We predicted harsher evaluations of suspects (a) with figurative language difficulties and speech hesitations, particularly for autistic suspects, (b) when the diagnostic status of observers and suspects differed, and (c) following violations of expected behavior.
Method: Autistic and nonautistic observers (Experiment 1 Ns = 212 and 215; Experiment 2 Ns = 125 and 125) watched online interviews with autistic or nonautistic chatroom participants suspected of computer hacking. Suspects with relatively high or low levels of either figurative language difficulties (Experiment 1) or speech hesitations (Experiment 2) were rated on suspiciousness, credibility, guilt, and expectancy violations.
Results: Harsher evaluations were detected for autistic than nonautistic male suspects and when autistic suspects displayed more marked speech hesitations. The observer's diagnostic status did not affect evaluations of suspects, but expectancy violations did, regardless of the suspect's autism diagnostic status.
Conclusions: Male autistic suspects, and autistic suspects displaying more pronounced speech hesitations, appear vulnerable to negative evaluations. More extreme expectancy violations may exacerbate such evaluations. The double empathy hypothesis was not supported, but findings aligned with expectancy violations theory predictions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
