
==== Front
7708195
Cogn Sci
Cogn Sci
Cognitive science
0364-0213
1551-6709

36807910
ems198019
10.1111/cogs.13255
Article
From Puzzle to Progress: How Engaging With Neurodiversity Can Improve Cognitive Science
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1564-8865
Manalili Marie A. R. ab†
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7089-6103
Pearson Amy c†
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0978-9496
Sulik Justin d†
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9035-650X
Creechan Louise e‡
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0540-3998
Elsherif Mahmoud f‡
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3233-2689
Murkumbi Inika g‡
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-8513
Azevedo Flavio h§
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9210-8275
Bonnen Kathryn L. i§
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5808-4081
Kim Judy S. j§
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8408-4499
Kording Konrad k§
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7293-8538
Lee Julie J. l§
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7233-5374
Obscura Manifold m§
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4440-1688
Kapp Steven K. n
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7774-3433
Röer Jan P. o‖
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2162-8713
Morstead Talia o‖
a Faculty of Education & Society, https://ror.org/02jx3x895 University College London
b School of Health & Psychological Sciences, City, https://ror.org/04cw6st05 University of London
c School of Psychology, https://ror.org/04p55hr04 University of Sunderland
d Cognition, Values & Behavior, https://ror.org/05591te55 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
e Department of English Studies and Institute for Medical Humanities, https://ror.org/01v29qb04 Durham University
f Department of Psychology, https://ror.org/03angcq70 University of Birmingham
g Department of Social Anthropology, https://ror.org/013meh722 University of Cambridge
h Department of Psychology, https://ror.org/013meh722 University of Cambridge
i School of Optometry, https://ror.org/02k40bc56 Indiana University Bloomington
j University Center for Human Values, https://ror.org/00hx57361 Princeton University
k Departments of Neuroscience and Bioengineering, https://ror.org/00b30xv10 University of Pennsylvania and https://ror.org/01sdtdd95 CIFAR
l Department of Psychology, https://ror.org/0190ak572 New York University
m Independent Scholar
n Department of Psychology, https://ror.org/03ykbk197 University of Portsmouth
o Department for Psychology and Psychotherapy, https://ror.org/00yq55g44 Witten/Herdecke University
p Department of Psychology, https://ror.org/03rmrcq20 University of British Columbia
Correspondence should be sent to Justin Sulik, Cognition, Values & Behavior, 62 Gabelsbergerstrasse, 80333 Munich, Germany. justin.sulik@gmail.com
† Equal levels of contribution (names arranged alphabetically within each level).

‡ Equal levels of contribution (names arranged alphabetically within each level).

§ Equal levels of contribution (names arranged alphabetically within each level).

‖ Equal levels of contribution (names arranged alphabetically within each level).

01 2 2023
12 8 2024
06 9 2024
47 2 e13255e13255
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a BY 4.0 International license.
In cognitive science, there is a tacit norm that phenomena such as cultural variation or synaesthesia are worthy examples of cognitive diversity that contribute to a better understanding of cognition, but that other forms of cognitive diversity (e.g., autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/ADHD, and dyslexia) are primarily interesting only as examples of deficit, dysfunction, or impairment. This status quo is dehumanizing and holds back much-needed research. In contrast, the neurodiversity paradigm argues that such experiences are not necessarily deficits but rather are natural reflections of biodiversity. Here, we propose that neurodiversity is an important topic for future research in cognitive science. We discuss why cognitive science has thus far failed to engage with neurodiversity, why this gap presents both ethical and scientific challenges for the field, and, crucially, why cognitive science will produce better theories of human cognition if the field engages with neurodiversity in the same way that it values other forms of cognitive diversity. Doing so will not only empower marginalized researchers but will also present an opportunity for cognitive science to benefit from the unique contributions of neurodivergent researchers and communities.

Cognitive diversity
Neurodiversity
Norms
Social cognition
Epistemic injustice
Scientific discovery
==== Body
pmcCognitive science recognises the importance of diversity (Barrett, 2020; Bender, 2019; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010; Prather et al., 2022; Puthillam et al., 2022; Whitaker & Guest, 2020). It is puzzling, then, that neurodiversity has been absent from the discussion. After describing potential causes of this exclusion, we discuss its ethical and scientific consequences and propose how cognitive science can break new ground by embracing neurodiversity.

1 What is neurodiversity?

Neurodiversity1* refers to variation in human cognitive functioning (Walker, 2012, 2021), including takiwātanga*/autism*, ADHD*, dyslexia*, dyspraxia*, stuttering*, and plurality*. The neurodiversity paradigm* extends this view by recasting these experiences as differences (neurodivergence*) from common (neurotypical*) forms of cognitive functioning rather than as pathologized disorders (Asasumasu, 2015; Chapman, 2021; Dwyer, 2022; Elsherif et al., 2022; Walker, 2021). It provides an inclusive view of cognitive diversity, consolidating neurobiological differences with evolving sociocultural contexts of human experiences (Manalili, 2021).

The neurodiversity movement* applies this paradigm to political goals (e.g., resisting ableism* or promoting bodily autonomy; Arnold, 2017; Campbell, Constantino, & Simpson, 2019; Constantino, 2018; Walker, 2021). Here, however, we treat neurodiversity as a theoretical framework that makes heterogeneity a fundamental feature of processes such as executive function, attention, social cognition, communication, decision making, and motor control. As these are core topics in cognitive science, it is surprising that cognitive science has a scant engagement with the neurodiversity paradigm.

2 Why has cognitive science had poor engagement with neurodiversity?

Historical approaches misconceptualized neurodivergence as inherently disordered while framing neurotypical functioning as normative rather than common (Bertilsdottir-Rosqvist et al., 2022). This treated neurodivergence as scientifically interesting only when compared to assumed norms (Bertilsdottir-Rosqvist et al., 2022; Karmiloff-Smith, 2009) and cognitive theories of neurodivergence highlighted mechanisms of ‘impairment’ rather than manifestations of natural variation.

Some strands of cognitive science rest on similarly normative assumptions2: that research aims to discover rules or principles governing how the mind works, sometimes with the stronger assumption that these are optimal or rational. Such thinking may have evolutionary motivations, viewing biology as generating solutions to ecological problems that approximate optimal behavior (Körding, 2007; Ritter, Tehranchi, & Oury, 2019). Alternatively, it may derive from common frameworks, such as Bayesian modeling, which invoke rationality as a norm (Griffiths & Tenenbaum, 2006).

A normative frame commonly treats cognitive differences as variation on species-typical rules and principles due to culture or individual experience (Barrett, 2020) or as disordered breakdowns of those principles. However, neurodivergence is neither like cultural variation3 nor inherently disordered. Rather, it is a manifestation of biodiversity (Chapman, 2021).

When cognitive science frames neurodivergence as inherently disordered, it uses obsolete models of disability*. It would be unfortunate if this were the only frame of reference for areas of cognitive science less directly concerned with neurodiversity. Meanwhile, the humanities and social sciences have been applying the neurodiversity paradigm by rejecting oppressive medical models of disability in favor of social models*, which locate disability in the relationship between a person and their environment rather than being inherent to the person alone (Betts et al., in press; Chapman & Carel, 2022; Creechan, 2022; Kapp, 2013; Milton, 2012; Oliver, 1983, 2013; Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021).

3 Why is it wrong that cognitive science has not taken neurodiversity seriously?

It is unethical. Framing neurodivergence as “abnormal” is grounded in eugenics (Czech, 2018; Evans, 2014; Rutherford, 2022). Research maintaining this tradition dehumanizes neurodivergent people by treating them as objects—rather than agentive subjects—of research (Botha, 2021; Botha & Cage, 2022; Kapp, 2019). Theories built on deficit models are used to justify interventions that harm neurodivergent people (Yergeau, 2013), much like how conversion therapy harms gay and trans people by trying to “cure” them. Cognitive science should help prevent this by developing better theories of neurodivergence.

It is unjust. Conducting research about a marginalized group without their inclusion is epistemic injustice* (Byskov, 2021; Fricker, 2007). Neurodivergent people regularly face epistemic injustice (Catala, Faucher, & Poirier, 2021; Chapman & Carel, 2022). For example, even when tasks are modified to allow for cultural differences, similar calls for accommodation of neurodivergence are ignored (Hillary, 2020). Cognitive science should avoid injustice by empowering neurodivergent standpoints in research.

It is unscientific. For instance, although the theory of mind (ToM) is increasingly understood as comprising heterogeneous processes (Ahmed & Miller, 2011; Schaafsma, Pfaff, Spunt, & Adolphs, 2015; Warnell & Redcay, 2019), deficit-based accounts of neurodivergence talk in monolithic terms (e.g., describing autistic people as simply having a weaker ToM; Baron-Cohen, 2000). Claims about such “deficits” do not replicate reliably (Gernsbacher & Yergeau, 2019), further supporting the view that neurodiversity is more about differences than deficits (Astle & Fletcher-Watson, 2020). This view makes better sense of findings that communication failures are as much the fault of neurotypical people as they are of neurodivergent people (the double empathy problem*; Milton, 2012) as neurodivergent people understand each other even when neurotypicals do not (Crompton, Ropar, Evans-Williams, Flynn, & Fletcher-Watson, 2020). Cognitive science must develop more robust accounts of cognitive diversity that situate it in social contexts (e.g., second-person approaches; Schilbach et al., 2013).

4 Why will cognitive science be better if it seriously engages with neurodiversity?

Cognitive science can develop more accurate theories of cognitive diversity by working alongside neurodivergent communities, whereas sidelining of qualitative data from such communities has provided a false sense of objectivity. For instance, community-driven research on autism prioritizes different dimensions than research originating from neurotypical researchers. This has fed into newer quantitative studies and scale development (Garau et al., 2022; Wilson, 2022), though it is still in the minority. Going forward, such work should prioritize intersectionality (e.g., to combat Whiteness-centered stereotypes of autism; Botha, Dibb, & Frost, 2022). By analogy, trans healthcare has improved—not by doing more research into harmful conversion therapy or outdated conceptions of autogynephilia—but rather by doing different research that incorporates diverse trans perspectives (Serano, 2020).

Cognitive science can develop more general theories of cognitive diversity by broadening the range of diversity it considers worthy of attention. For instance, it recognizes the value of synaesthesia* in understanding cognitive diversity (Ward, 2019); neurodiversity should be no different. Kidd, Donnelly, and Christiansen (2018) highlight individual differences in language processing, yet limit their inquiry to neurotypicals. Future research should include non-deficit-framed language processing in neurodivergent people, including common interactions with attention or motor skills.

A weak way to include neurodiversity is in modeling previously unexplained variance (as might otherwise have been relegated to the random effects of a regression). This is weak because it is business as usual. It is like including autism status as a predictor to conclude that some people display worse ToM than others. It draws focus to how people vary along certain dimensions (such as ToM task scores) where neurotypicals are more central in the distribution and others more peripheral. This misconstrues neurotypicality as having an “average brain”4 and treats neurodivergence as defined by its deviation from that average. In any case, as many neurodivergent people do not have formal diagnoses, samples assumed to be neurotypical might not be.

There is a more radical way to embrace the message that neurodiversity is about difference, not deficit. It is analogous to the distinction in diversity metrics between “separation” (e.g., models of means and standard deviations) and “variety” (models of how different types are distributed in a group; Klein & Harrison, 2007). Whereas the weak strategy above treats diversity as separation, neurodiversity includes cognitive variety. This defocuses outcomes (e.g., variation in ToM performance) and instead highlights variety in cognitive mechanisms (e.g., heterogenous ways people tackle ToM tasks, whereby neurotypicality is “common” rather than “average”).5

In some areas, there is already a move in this direction. New research on brain-phenotype relations casts doubt on the validity of unitary cognitive models (Greene et al., 2022); in 3D perception, individuals vary in how they integrate different kinds of cues (Fulvio, Ji, & Rokers, 2021); a variety of mechanisms underlie ganglia circuit rhythms (Marder, Goeritz, & Otopalik, 2015); and some people engage linguistic processing when solving spatial problems, while others do not (Nedergaard, Wallentin, & Lupyan, 2022).

Converging on the point about “variety” from another angle: Even when there are evolutionary pressures on cognition and behavior, these are arguably pressures on the group rather than each individual. If there is no drive to optimize individual behavior, there is no single right way to learn, explore, manage attention, or make inferences. When intelligence is framed as a property of collectives (Falandays et al., 2022), true variety in cognitive processing and problem-solving—as endorsed by the neurodiversity paradigm—can contribute to group outcomes.

Neurodiversity thus presents an opportunity for cognitive science to build fundamentally new models of cognition. These could involve replacing single-agent reinforcement learning models with populations pursuing heterogenous strategies (related to neurodivergence by Dubois & Hauser, 2022; Yechiam, Arshavsky, Shamay-Tsoory, Yaniv, & Aharon, 2010). They could challenge the concept “theory of mind” (Williams, 2004), extending findings that ToM is not monolithic (Ahmed & Miller, 2011; Schaafsma et al., 2015; Warnell & Redcay, 2019) by showing how different neurotypes use different strategies in doing ToM tasks. Models relating group-level success to individual diversity could shift away from varying continuous parameters (Sulik, Bahrami, & Deroy, 2021a) toward studying distinct strategies (Devezer, Nardin, Baumgaertner, & Buzbas, 2019).

Finally, there are benefits for cognitive science qua science. The above points about ethics, justice, and science converge in the larger question—from Indigenous and feminist philosophy of science (Harding & Hintikka, 2003; Pownall et al., 2021; Smith, 2021)—of who gets to contribute to knowledge. A marginalized standpoint allows individuals to see what those in positions of privilege cannot, yielding unique epistemic advantages (Friesen & Goldstein, in press). Diversity is especially important for scientific discovery: identifying questions, framing problems, or uncovering insights (Sulik, Bahrami, & Deroy, 2021b). Neurodivergent people explore in different ways than neurotypicals (Dubois & Hauser, 2022; Yechiam et al., 2010), and exploration is part of discovery (Devezer et al., 2019). A variety of strategies—incorporating research led by both neurodivergent and neurotypical people—could lead to better long-term advances. Increased promotion of Open Science/Scholarship aims may also improve inclusion of neurodivergent researchers (Azevedo et al., 2022; Elsherif et al., 2022).

Without neurodiversity, cognitive science offers an impoverished account of cognitive diversity. It dehumanizes neurodivergent communities, and it is missing out on the invaluable contributions of neurodivergent researchers.

5 Recommendations

For cognitive science as an institution: Explicitly include neurodiversity in institutional diversity statements.

Reject models or theories that frame neurodivergence as inherently disordered.

For research comparing neurodivergent and neurotypical populations: Critically test assumptions that neurodivergence necessarily involves deficits.

Promote neurodivergent-led research and community involvement.

Evaluate whether common tasks are fair measures of heterogeneous cognitive processes.

For research on topics commonly implicated in neurodivergence (e.g., executive function, ToM, decision making): Do not assume that samples are (or should be) neurotypical.

Explore whether human cognition offers a variety of ways to approach superficially similar tasks.

Positionality statement

The meaning of neurodiversity may differ among authors of this article due to our various lived experiences, neurodivergence, ethnicity, gender, epistemological, ontological, and/or methodological perspectives. However, we are united in combating ableism and in believing that cognitive science cannot be truly representative until it empowers and engages with neurodivergent populations and in emphasizing the intersectional nature of neurodiversity. Social and institutional barriers—such as higher rates of misdiagnosis/misidentification of neurodivergence—disproportionately impact disabled people, people of color, and women (Davis, Solomon, & Belcher, 2022; Diemer, Gerstein, & Regester, 2022; Jack, 2011; Malone et al., 2022; Zener, 2019). Neurodivergence also intersects with queerness and variant gender identity (Walker, 2021). Some forms of neurodivergence are more stigmatized than others (Manalili, 2021).

Notes

1 Terms marked * are explained in the accompanying glossary (https://osf.io/hujzq). When the terms are multi-word phrases, they are marked in italics.

2 Cognitive science is not monolithic in its assumptions, though it is all the more puzzling that other strands of research—falling under the broad umbrella of cognitive science but not motivated by such normative assumptions—have ignored neurodiversity.

3 Though degrees and forms of acceptance of neurodiversity vary across cultures

4 Whatever that may mean.

5 Richters (2021) makes the stronger claim that an outcome-variable oriented (in our terms, “separation”) approach to individual differences assumes homogeneity of underlying psychological structures and processes. For a recent account of philosophical characterizations of cognitive diversity and how they map onto statistical models, see Ward (2022).
==== Refs
Ahmed FS Stephen Miller L Executive function mechanisms of theory of mind Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2011 41 5 667 678 10.1007/s10803-010-1087-7 20811770
Arnold L A brief history of “Neurodiversity” as a concept and perhaps a movement Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies 2017 1 5
Asasumasu K [@sherlocksflataffect] PSA from the actual coiner of “neurodivergent.” Tumbler 2015 Retrieved February 12 2023, from https://sherlocksflataffect.tumblr.com/post/121295972384/psa-from-the-actual-coiner-of-neurodivergent
Astle DE Fletcher-Watson S Beyond the core-deficit hypothesis in developmental disorders Current Directions in Psychological Science 2020 29 5 431 437 10.1177/0963721420925518 33071483
Azevedo F Middleton S Phan JM Kapp S Gourdon-Kanhukamwe A Iley B Elsherif M Shaw JJ Navigating academia as neurodivergent researchers: Promoting Neurodiversity Within Open Scholarship APS Observer 2022 35
Baron-Cohen S Theory of mind and autism: A review International Review of Research in Mental Retardation 2000 23 169 184 10.1016/S0074-7750(00)80010-5
Barrett HC Towards a cognitive science of the human: Cross-cultural approaches and their urgency Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2020 24 8 620 638 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.007 32534836
Bender A The value of diversity in cognitive science Topics in Cognitive Science 2019 11 4 853 863 10.1111/tops.12464 31596049
Bertilsdottir-Rosqvist H Botha M Hens K O’Donoghue S Pearson A Stenning A Being, knowing and doing: Importing theoretical toolboxes for Autism studies Autism in adulthood 2022 10.1089/aut.2022.0021
Betts K Creechan L Cawkwell R Finn-Kelcey I Griffin CJ Hagopian A Hartley D Manalili MAR Murkumbi I O’Donoghue S Shanahan C The narratives of neurodiversity network: Exploring intimacy and expressive freedom in the time of COVID-19 Social Inclusion in press
Botha M Academic, activist, or advocate? Angry, entangled, and emerging: A critical reflection on autism knowledge production Frontiers in Psychology 2021 12 727542 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727542 34650484
Botha M Cage E “Autism Research is in Crisis”: A mixed method study of researcher’s constructions of autistic people and autism research 2022 July 14 10.31219/osf.io/w4389
Botha M Dibb B Frost D “Autism is me”: An investigation of how autistic individuals make sense of autism and stigma Disability & Society 2022 37 3 427 453 10.1080/09687599.2020.1822782
Byskov MF What makes epistemic injustice an “injustice”? Journal of Social Philosophy 2021 52 1 114 131 10.1111/josp.12348
Campbell P Constantino C Simpson S Stammering pride and prejudice 2019 Havant J & R Press Limited
Catala A Faucher L Poirier P Autism, epistemic injustice, and epistemic disablement: A relational account of epistemic agency Synthese 2021 199 3 9013 9039 10.1007/s11229-021-03192-7
Chapman R Neurodiversity and the SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONS Perspectives on Psychological Science 2021 16 6 1360 1372 10.1177/1745691620959833 33577400
Chapman R Carel H Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life Journal of Social Philosophy 2022 53 4 614 631 10.1111/josp.12456
Constantino CD What can stutterers learn from the neurodiversity movement? Seminars in Speech and Language 2018 39 4 382 396 10.1055/s-0038-1667166 30142648
Creechan L Killing the letter: Alternate literacies and orthographic distortions in Jude the Obscure Journal of Victorian Culture 2022 27 3 493 506 10.1093/jvcult/vcac034
Crompton CJ Ropar D Evans-Williams CV Flynn EG Fletcher-Watson S Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective Autism 2020 24 7 1704 1712 10.1177/1362361320919286 32431157
Czech H Hans Asperger, national socialism, and “race hygiene” in Nazi-era Vienna Molecular Autism 2018 9 29 10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6
Davis A Solomon M Belcher H Examination of race and autism intersectionality among African American/Black young adults Autism in Adulthood 2022 4 4 306 314 10.1089/aut.2021.0091 36777378
Devezer B Nardin LG Baumgaertner B Buzbas EO Scientific discovery in a model-centric framework: Reproducibility, innovation, and epistemic diversity PLoS One 2019 14 5 e0216125 10.1371/journal.pone.0216125 31091251
Diemer MC Gerstein ED Regester A Autism presentation in female and Black populations: Examining the roles of identity, theory, and systemic inequalities Autism 2022 26 8 1931 1946 10.1177/13623613221113501 35899909
Dubois M Hauser TU Value-free random exploration is linked to impulsivity Nature Communications 2022 13 4542 10.1038/s41467-022-31918-9
Dwyer P The neurodiversity approach(es): What are they and what do they mean for researchers? Human Development 2022 66 2 73 92 10.1159/000523723 36158596
Elsherif M Middleton S Phan JM Azevedo F Iley B Grose-Hodge M Tyler SL Kapp SK Gourdon-Kanhukamwe A Grafton-Clarke D Yeng SK Bridging neurodiversity and open scholarship: How shared values can guide best practices for research integrity, social justice, and principled education MetaArXiv 2022 June 20 10.31222/osf.io/k7a9p
Evans B The Foundations of Autism: The Law Concerning Psychotic, Schizophrenic, and Autistic Children in 1950s and 1960s Britain Bulletin of the History of Medicine 2014 88 2 253 10.1353/bhm.2014.0033 24976162
Falandays JB Kaaronen RO Moser CJ Rorot W Tan J Varma V William T Youngblood M All intelligence is collective intelligence 2022 December 2 10.31234/osf.io/jhrp6
Fricker M Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing 2007 Oxford, England Oxford University Press
Friesen P Goldstein J Standpoint theory and the psy sciences: Can marginalization and critical engagement lead to an epistemic advantage? Hypatia (in press)
Fulvio JM Ji M Rokers B Variations in visual sensitivity predict motion sickness in virtual reality Entertainment Computing 2021 38 100423 10.1016/j.entcom.2021.100423
Garau V Fletcher-Watson S Woods R Development and Validation of a Self-Report Measure of Monotropism in Autism [Poster presentation] Autistica Research Festival 2022 10.13140/RG.2.2.15489.94565
Gernsbacher MA Yergeau M Empirical failures of the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind Archives of Scientific Psychology 2019 7 1 102 118 10.1037/arc0000067 31938672
Greene AS Shen X Noble S Horien C Hahn CA Arora J Tokoglu F Spann MN Carrión CI Barron DS Sanacora G Brain–phenotype models fail for individuals who defy sample stereotypes Nature 2022 609 109 118 10.1038/s41586-022-05118-w 36002572
Griffiths TL Tenenbaum JB Optimal predictions in everyday cognition Psychological Science 2006 17 9 767 773 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01780.x 16984293
Harding S Hintikka MB Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science 2003 New York Kluwer Academic Publishers
Henrich J Heine SJ Norenzayan A The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2010 33 2-3 61 83 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X 20550733
Hillary A Neurodiversity and cross-cultural communication Rosqvist H Chown N Stenning A Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm NMew York Routledge 2020 91 107 10.4324/9780429322297
Jack J “The extreme male brain?” Incrementum and the rhetorical gendering of autism Disability Studies Quarterly 2011 31 3 3 10.18061/dsq.v31i3.1672
Kapp SK How social deficit models exacerbate the medical model: Autism as case in point Autism Policy & Practice 2019 2 1 3 28
Kapp SK Interactions between theoretical models and practical stakeholders: The basis for an integrative, collaborative approach to disabilities Ashkenazy E Latimer M Empowering leadership: A systems change guide for autistic college students and those with other disabilities Washington, DC Autistic Self Advocacy Network 2013 104 113
Karmiloff-Smith A Nativism versus neuroconstructivism: Rethinking the study of developmental disorders Developmental Psychology 2009 45 1 56 63 10.1037/a0014506 19209990
Kidd E Donnelly S Christiansen MH Individual differences in language acquisition and processing Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2018 22 2 154 169 10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006 29277256
Klein KJ Harrison DA On the diversity of diversity: Tidy logic, messier realities Academy of Management Perspectives 2007 21 4 26 33 10.5465/amp.2007.27895337
Kording K Decision theory: What “should” the nervous system do? Science 2007 318 5850 606 610 10.1126/science.1142998 17962554
Malone KM Pearson JN Palazzo KN Manns LD Rivera AQ Mason Martin DL The scholarly neglect of Black autistic adults in autism research Autism in Adulthood 2022 4 4 271 280 10.1089/aut.2021.0086 36777371
Manalili MAR Ableist ideologies stifle neurodiversity and hinder inclusive education Ought: The Journal of Autistic Culture 2021 3 1 6
Marder E Goeritz ML Otopalik AG Robust circuit rhythms in small circuits arise from variable circuit components and mechanisms Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2015 31 156 163 10.1016/j.conb.2014.10.012 25460072
Milton DEM On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’ Disability & Society 2012 27 6 883 887 10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
Nedergaard JSK Wallentin M Lupyan G Verbal interference paradigms: A systematic review investigating the role of language in cognition Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2022 10.3758/s13423-022-02144-7
Oliver M Social work with disabled people 1983 Basingstoke Macmillan
Oliver M The social model of disability: Thirty years on Disability & Society 2013 28 7 1024 1026 10.1080/09687599.2013.818773
Pownall M Talbot CV Henschel A Lautarescu A Lloyd KE Hartmann H Darda KM Tang KTY Carmichael-Murphy P Siegel JA Navigating open science as early career feminist researchers Psychology of Women Quarterly 2021 45 4 526 539 10.1177/03616843211029255
Prather RW Benitez VL Brooks LK Dancy CL Dilworth-Bart J Dutra NB Faison OM Figueroa M Holden LR Johnson C Medrano J What can cognitive science do for people? Cognitive Science 2022 46 6 e13167 10.1111/cogs.13167 35678130
Puthillam A Montilla Doble LJ Delos Santos JI Elsherif MM Steltenpohl CN Moreau D Pownall M Kapoor H Guidelines to improve internationalization in psychological science 2022 August 1 10.31234/osf.io/2u4h5
Richters JE Incredible utility: The lost causes and causal debris of psychological science Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2021 43 6 366 405 10.1080/01973533.2021.1979003
Ritter FE Tehranchi F Oury JD ACT-R: A cognitive architecture for modeling cognition WIREs Cognitive Science 2019 10 3 e1488 10.1002/wcs.1488 30536740
Rutherford A Control: The dark history and troubling present of eugenics 2022 London Hachette UK
Schaafsma SM Pfaff DW Spunt RP Adolphs R Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2015 19 2 65 72 10.1016/j.tics.2014.11.007 25496670
Schilbach L Timmermans B Reddy V Costall A Bente G Schlicht T Vogeley K Toward a second-person neuroscience Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2013 36 4 393 414 10.1017/S0140525X12000660 23883742
Serano J Autogynephilia: A scientific review, feminist analysis, and alternative ‘embodiment fantasies’ model The Sociological Review 2020 68 4 763 778 10.1177/0038026120934690
Smith LT Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples 2021 London Bloomsbury Publishing
Stenning A Rosqvist HB Neurodiversity studies: Mapping out possibilities of a new critical paradigm Disability & Society 2021 36 9 1532 1537 10.1080/09687599.2021.1919503 34703084
Sulik J Bahrami B Deroy O Tolerance for failure unleashes the benefits of cognitive diversity in collective problem solving Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2021a 43 826 832 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2jv0w6kf
Sulik J Bahrami B Deroy O The diversity gap: When diversity matters for knowledge Perspectives on Psychological Science 2021b 17 3 10.1177/17456916211006070
Walker N Throw away the master’s tools: Liberating ourselves from the pathology paradigm Bascom J Loud hands: Autistic people, speaking Washington, DC The Autistic Press 2012 225 237
Walker N Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities 2021 Ff e "fereeference " de the page raort Worth, TX Autonomous Press
Ward J Synaesthesia: A distinct entity that is an emergent feature of adaptive neurocognitive differences Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2019 374 1787 20180351 10.1098/rstb.2018.0351
Ward ZB Cognitive variation: The philosophical landscape Philosophy Compass 2022 17 e12882 10.1111/phc3.12882
Warnell KR Redcay E Minimal coherence among varied theory of mind measures in childhood and adulthood Cognition 2019 191 103997 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.009 31229848
Whitaker K Guest O #bropenscience is broken science The Psychologist 2020 33 34 37 10.5281/zenodo.4099011
Williams E Who really needs a ‘theory’ of mind? An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the autobiographical writings of ten high-functioning individuals with an autism spectrum disorder Theory & Psychology 2004 14 5 704 724 10.1177/0959354304046180
Wilson AC Development and validation of the conversation questionnaire: A psychometric measure of communication challenges generated from the self-reports of autistic people Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 2022 10.1177/2396941522112328
Yechiam E Arshavsky O Shamay-Tsoory SG Yaniv S Aharon J Adapted to explore: Reinforcement learning in autistic spectrum conditions Brain and Cognition 2010 72 2 317 324 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.005 19913345
Yergeau M Clinically significant disturbance: On theorists who theorize theory of mind Disability Studies Quarterly 2013 33 4
Zener D Journey to diagnosis for women with autism Advances in Autism 2019 5 1 2 13 10.1108/AIA-10-2018-0041
