Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 41, Issue 12, pp 1619–1628 | Cite as

College Students’ Openness Toward Autism Spectrum Disorders: Improving Peer Acceptance

Original Paper


One probable consequence of rising rates of autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in individuals without co-occurring intellectual disability is that more young adults with diagnoses or traits of ASD will attend college and require appropriate supports. This study sought to explore college students’ openness to peers who demonstrate ASD-characteristic behaviors. Results showed a significant difference in openness between students who had a first-degree relative with an ASD (n = 18) and a gender-matched comparison group of students without such experience (F = 4.85, p = .035). Engineering and physical science majors did not demonstrate more overall openness. Universities should make efforts to prevent social isolation of students with ASD, such as programs to educate students about ASD and supports to ease college transition.


Autism College student Adult Openness Acceptance College transition 


It has recently been reported that approximately 1 in 110 children has an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (Centers for Disease Control 2009). Given the chronic nature of these disorders and associated long-term negative sequelae (Billstedt et al. 2007; Kelly et al. 2008; Sterling et al. 2008; White et al. 2009), more scientific attention on ASD in adulthood is warranted. Heightened public and scientific attention on autism and related conditions have contributed to methods for improved identification and diagnosis as well as effective methods of treatment, such as applied behavior analysis, pivotal response training, and school-based accommodations, to name a few (Naoi 2009; Ho 2008; Lerman et al. 2008). Most of the available intervention programs target children and occasionally adolescents, but very rarely do they target adults on the spectrum.

Individuals who have ASD without a co-occurring intellectual disability may be capable of meeting the demands of college academia. It is indeed possible that effective support and intervention services received in childhood have contributed to more opportunities for such individuals to pursue higher education (Lundine and Smith 2006; Taylor 2005). Compared to even a decade ago, individuals with ASD have more opportunities for securing higher education. In 2010, the United States Department of Education began a 5-year funding program to 27 postsecondary institutions (Table 1) across the country in order to establish comprehensive Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) under the Free Application to Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), beginning with $10.9 million for the 2010–2011 fiscal year. This program has begun to present opportunities for students with cognitive disabilities, including ASD, to enter the college environment and gain access to academia, social activities, employment training, and assistance in establishing an independent living environment (Glickman 2010).
Table 1

Colleges awarded federal aid toward TPSID programs (U.S. Secretary of Education 2010)




Phone number

Email address


University of Massachusetts-Boston (TPSID Coordinating Center)

Debra Hart



University of Alaska-Anchorage

Karen Ward



University of Arizona

Stephanie Z. C. MacFarland



California State University-Fresno

Charles Arokiasamy



University of California

Carlos O. Cortez



West Kern Community College District

Jeffrey G. Ross



Colorado State University

Catherine L Schelly



University of Delaware

Laura T. Eisenman



University of South Florida-St. Petersburg

Jordan T. Knab



University of Hawaii

Robert A. Stodden

808- 956-9199


Indiana University

David M. Mank



University of Iowa

Jo Hendrickson



University of Kentucky

Beth Harrison

859-257-3586 x225


Louisiana State University

K. Alisa Lowrey



Central Lakes College

Suresh Tiwari



University of Rochester

Martha Mock



Bergen Community College

Tracy Rand



College of New Jersey

Jerry G. Petroff



Western Carolina University

David L. Westling




Minot State University

Janet Green



Ohio State University

Margo V. Izzo



Kent State University

Robert Baer



College of Charleston

Cynthia May



University of Tennessee

Elizabeth Fussell



Houston Community College

Sue Moraska



University of Vermont and State Agricultural College

Susan Ryan



Virginia Commonwealth University

Elizabeth E. Getzel



Highline Community College

Jennifer Sandler

206-878-3710 x3474

Such opportunities, however, come with certain challenges for students with ASD. Experiencing success at the undergraduate and graduate levels calls for an individual’s ability to demonstrate advanced social skills (Carneiro 2010), as well as communicative and adaptive skills. Impairments in these domains, however, are the hallmarks of ASD (American Psychiatric Association 2000). Furthermore, though postsecondary education is not the only means through which a higher income can be attained, having a higher income and better quality of life have been frequently attributed to having a professional degree (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010; Gilmore et al. 2002; Grigal 2009; Migliore et al. 2009). Impaired social and communicative skills during young adulthood can decrease opportunities to find life partners and form support networks outside of one’s family, as friendships which are shorter in duration and increased loneliness are directly correlated to the degree of ASD characteristics a student displays (Jobe and White 2007; Howlin et al. 2004). Such impairments are also capable of negatively impacting one’s self-concept and hindering academic success (Howlin et al. 2000), counteracting the increases in self-esteem and sense of belonging that arise from being part of a college community (Hart et al. 2010). ASD has also been linked to the development of other psychiatric disorders. In a large sample (n = 122) of high-functioning adults with autism, Hofvander et al. (2009) found that 80% met criteria for one or more Axis I diagnoses, including mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders.

One potential moderator of academic and social success for college students with ASD is the attitudes held by their peers displaying typical development. Peers’ level of openness and acceptance towards behaviors that are characteristic of ASD may affect the degree of social connectedness, or isolation, experienced by the student displaying such behavior. There is evidence that, for children, the peer group has an impact on one’s formation of social skills, self-esteem, academic achievement and motivation, and future outcomes (Wertsch 1985). A fair amount of research has been conducted to understand the influences of peers in a pre- and elementary school environment on children diagnosed with ASD (Campbell et al. 2005; Morton and Campbell 2008; Swaim and Morgan 2001). Through this research, primary school teachers and school administrators may be better prepared to meet the needs of students on the spectrum. There has unfortunately been minimal empirical study of potential peer influence on college students who have ASD.

Eaves and Ho (2008) conducted a longitudinal study of a sample who had received ASD diagnoses as children, to examine outcomes in young adulthood. Results showed that at the age of 24, approximately half of their sample had positive outcomes, while 46% showed comorbid mental illness diagnoses, obesity, and/or use of prescription medications, along with continued struggles in social settings. The authors concluded that the adults in this study were faring better than previous studies had reported (e.g., Howlin et al. 2000), perhaps owing to their birth after the movement towards community-based services and their participation in targeted intervention programs following early identification (Eaves and Ho 2008). Mahoney (2008) surveyed college students to assess their attitudes towards individuals with autism via measures of knowledge on the disorder, quality of previous interactions with individuals who have autism, and their views of appropriate social behaviors. Students reported relatively positive views and acceptance levels, which were positively correlated to the participants’ knowledge of ASD and the number of previous encounters with individuals who have autism. The question remains, however, of the consistency between students’ self-reported levels of openness and their openness in a lifelike setting. Self-reports of being open to peers who have ASD may not translate into a willingness to spend free time with that peer or consider him a friend, for example. As found in studies of children with ASD, peer rejection can lead to aggression, depression, and school dropout (Harnum et al. 2007), making it necessary to explore such variables as peer openness and acceptance.

Having a first-degree relative with ASD may increase exposure to, and understanding of, the disorder. Depending on how often the relatives interact, opportunities may be provided to become accustomed to ASD-characteristic behaviors (e.g., stimming, posturing, social oddities) that the person would otherwise not encounter (Petalas et al. 2009). Such first-hand experience may contribute to less uncertainty toward, and increased acceptance of, such behaviors when meeting individuals outside one’s family.

Field of study in college may also influence peers’ openness towards ASD. In developing the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ), Baron-Cohen and colleagues (2001) compared the degree of ASD characteristics self-reported by college students with typical development majoring in mathematics, physical sciences, humanities, and social sciences, as well as UK Mathematics Olympiad winners. Physical science students and UK Mathematics Olympiad winners reported having significantly more ASD characteristics. More specifically, computer science and mathematics students showed higher levels of ASD characteristics than biology, engineering, medicine, and other physical science students (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). Indeed, as computer scientists and mathematicians are stereotypically more reclusive and internalizing by nature of their studies (Kokosh 1976; Baron-Cohen et al. 1998), they may be more open to ASD-characteristic behaviors when compared to social science and humanities scholars.

The purpose of this study was to assess college students’ openness (i.e., acceptance, tolerance) to ASD characteristics in peers. In order to assess openness in this population, a vignette developed by Harnum and colleagues (2007) to assess elementary school children’s perceptions of a child with an ASD or ADHD was modified for college students. We sought to determine if the scale structure would replicate when used with adults, hypothesizing that, similar to the initial study, a two-factor model would be derived. It was hypothesized that students who reported having a first-degree relative with an ASD would be more open to a peer’s ASD-characteristic behaviors than would students without a first-degree relative with ASD. Peers majoring in engineering and physical sciences were also anticipated to be more readily accepting of behaviors characteristic of ASD than peers whose majors are based on social interaction, such as social sciences.



Data for this study came from a two-phase project on the prevalence and risks of ASD symptoms among college students. The study took place at a large public university located in the Southeast United States, and was approved by the institution’s Internal Review Board for human subject research. Data collection for the present study occurred electronically via a secure server, with all undergraduate students at the university invited to participate. Participant recruitment involved utilization of the university psychology department’s online experimental database through which student participation earned class credit, email distribution lists in other academic departments and student groups, and posted flyers around campus, including on- and off-campus counseling centers. Modest honoraria in the form of a raffle for gift certificates to local restaurants were offered as incentive for participation.


From the full sample (n = 685) of undergraduate students, analyses are based on participants who had complete data on Harnum et al.’s (2007) modified openness scale and the Autism Spectrum Quotient (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001), n = 652. Demographic data are presented in Table 1. The sample was predominantly female (66%), and fairly diverse in terms of college major—Social Sciences (e.g., Psychology, Sociology), 32%; Engineering, 28%; and Physical Sciences (e.g., Biology, Mathematics), 20%.


Autism-Spectrum Quotient

(AQ; Baron-Cohen et al. 2001) A 50-item questionnaire with four-point response options (definitely disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, definitely agree), the AQ was developed as a self-report measure of autistic characteristics in adults. It is typically scored in a binary manner, so that a response is scored as a 1 if it is in the direction of autistic and 0 if in the opposite direction, to yield a total score that ranges from 0 to 50. Higher scores indicate more symptoms of ASD and, using this scoring approach, the optimal cutoff was determined as 32 or higher for identifying people with clinically significant levels of autistic traits (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). The AQ can also be scored according to the four-point responses (Austin 2005) to yield a dimensional, and perhaps more sensitive, index of ASD severity. In this sample, internal consistency was acceptable for the total score, with an alpha of .80.

Openness Scale

Created by Harnum et al. (2007) to measure children and parents’ attitudes towards a child with ADHD, a child with ASD, and a typically-functioning child, this scale was modified to explore only attitudes towards a peer with ASD among college students. Harnum et al.’s (2007) ASD vignette describes a child who engages in social withdrawal, has impaired communication, and exhibits restricted behaviors within the classroom setting. For the purpose of this study, the vignette was altered to a description of a college student living in the same apartment building as the reader, with a gender-neutral name to eliminate gender as a confounding variable. Seven statements follow the vignette, each of which is rated on a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. Items 1 and 6 are reverse-scored (see Table 2), as they imply an attitude opposing those of the remaining questions. The seven item responses can be summed to yield a summary score, with higher scores indicating more openness to a peer with ASD characteristics.
Table 2

Demographic and descriptive data for total openness score (n = 652)



M (SD)




22.99 (4.114)



22.46 (3.919)

Age [n]

 17–19 years


22.44 (4.191)

 20–22 years


22.74 (3.781)

 23–25 years


23.92 (2.843)

 26+ years


24.50 (4.928)

Class standing



22.52 (4.183)



22.06 (4.159)



23.08 (3.438)



23.12 (3.975)

Ethnicity [n]



22.58 (4.005)



23.42 (3.927)



21.83 (3.682)



23.00 (3.000)



22.10 (4.841)

College major



18.95 (3.931)

 Physical sciences


19.24 (4.235)

 Social sciences


19.39 (3.981)



19.75 (3.889)

Including Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Origins in North, Central, or Southern America/Tribal Affiliation, and No information given

Including all Humanities, Double Majors, and Interdisciplinary Studies

Data Analysis

All analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics 17.0. It was first sought to determine whether the two-factor model of openness (Harnum et al. 2007) would be replicated with the scale modified for use with college students via a principal components factor analysis. A series of one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were used to determine if openness to ASD varied based on gender, family history of ASD, college major, or severity of ASD symptoms. Bivariate correlations were also conducted to explore the degree to which openness was related to the degree to which one exhibited ASD-characteristic behaviors themselves.


Initial analyses showed no problems with out-of-range or non-random missing data. Each vignette item on the Openness scale was found to be significant (p < .05) on the Komogorov-Smirnov test of normality; however, such a result is common in large samples such as this (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). Examination of histograms revealed the shape of data distribution approximated normality, and therefore no transformations were made.

In the principal component analysis of Openness Scale responses, communality values were all acceptably high (≥.789). One component emerged with an eigenvalue above one (eigenvalue = 3.09), which explained 44% of the variance. By lowering the critical eigenvalue to .9, a three-component model emerged, which explained a total of 71.15% variance. However, given that all seven variables loaded substantially onto the single component (loadings ranged from .339 to .813) and that the scree plot indicated a one-component solution to be most parsimonious, we arrived at a final one-component explanatory model.

Based on this single-component model of the scale, scores on the seven statements were summed to yield a total score (with total scores ranging from 7 to 35) for ‘openness to ASD.’ Lower scores on this index reflect less openness or acceptance of ASD-like behaviors. The scale was found to have acceptable internal consistency (α = .77). Only one item (2: “This person is as smart as I am”), if removed, would increase the internal consistency of the scale slightly (to .79). The mean summary score on the scale for the sample as a whole was 22.64 (±3.99). The item with the highest mean response, which reflected the most openness, was item one “This person makes me feel afraid,” whereas the lowest openness score was for item six, “This person is different from me.” On each of the scale items, scores ranged from one to five (Table 2).

There were few group differences in openness based on gender. Males reported significantly more openness than females to two of the vignette items: item 4 (hang out with person), F (1,650) = 3.94, p = .048, and item 5 (feel comfortable around this person), F (1,650) = 9.96 (1,650), p = .002. On these items (4 and 5), males obtained mean scores of 2.98 ± .99 and 3.32 ± .95, respectively, whereas female participants had scores of 2.83 ± .89 and 3.07 ± .95, respectively. There was not a significant male–female difference in total scores, F (1,650) = 2.56, ns.

Only four participants (<1% of sample) reported having ever been given an ASD diagnosis, preventing any analyses of openness based on self-reported ASD diagnosis of the participant. Eighteen participants (2.6% of sample), 14 of whom were male, reported having a first-degree relative with ASD. In terms of the relationship of the relative with ASD to the participant, for 10 participants it was a brother, step-brother, or half-brother; for six it was a sister, step-sister, or half-sister; one participant did not indicate relative type; and one reported having multiple relatives affected by ASD: a mother, father, and brother. A comparison group of 18 students was selected randomly from the full sample, excluding those who reported having a previous ASD diagnosis, matched for gender. Participants who reported having a relative with ASD obtained a mean openness score (M = 25.44 ± 4.48) which was significantly higher than that of the students without a relative with ASD (M = 22.50 ± 3.49), F (1,34) = 4.85, p = .035.

Given that three academic majors characterized a sizeable proportion of the full sample, the sample was divided into four groups based on college major: (1) social sciences, (2) physical sciences, (3) engineering, and (4) other, which included all dual majors which crossed two or more of the broad categories of majors. As such, a student majoring in art or foreign language would be coded as ‘other’ as would a student dual majoring in engineering and psychology. Significant group differences emerged on three of the seven items on the openness scale (Table 3). Follow-up comparisons were conducted with the Tukey HSD test with alpha set at .05. On the first item (person makes me feel afraid), students majoring in the social sciences had a significantly higher mean score, indicating less fear, than students in either engineering or the physical sciences. On item four (would hang out with person), engineering and physical sciences majors reported they were more likely to hang out with Jamie (person with ASD) than would students in the ‘other’ category. Finally, on item six, a significant difference emerged between engineering majors and ‘other’ majors, with the engineering students reporting the vignette character with ASD to be less different from themselves (Table 4).
Table 3

Openness scale: items and descriptive data


M (SD)

% of sample at each response option

Strongly agree


Don’t know


Strongly disagree



1. This person makes me feel afraid

3.83 (.94)






2. This person is probably as smart as I am

3.57 (.83)






3. I would not mind Jamie living in my hallway or apartment building

3.82 (.88)






4. I would hang out with Jamie in my free time

2.88 (.93)






5. I would feel comfortable around this person

3.15 (.96)






6. This person is different from me

1.89 (.84)






7. Overall, I think I would like Jamie as a person

3.49 (.75)






Total score

22.64 (3.99)

Response options: Strongly Agree = 1, Agree = 2, Don’t Know = 3, Disagree = 4, Strongly Disagree = 5

Table 4

Openness scale scores across college majors




Engineering (n = 165)

Social science (n = 164)

Physical science (n = 131)

Other (n = 192)

1. This person makes me feel afraida

3.69 ± 1.00

4.01 ± .84

3.73 ± .99

3.86 ± .91


2. This person is probably as smart as I am

3.61 ± .86

3.54 ± .82

3.64 ± .75

3.52 ± .86


3. I would not mind Jamie living in my hallway or apartment building

3.85 ± .91

3.90 ± .84

3.85 ± .82

3.71 ± .91


4. I would hang out with Jamie in my free time

3.00 ± .89

2.80 ± .95

3.03 ± .91

2.74 ± .94


5. I would feel comfortable around this person

3.24 ± .92

3.20 ± .95

3.15 ± 1.01

3.04 ± .95


6. This person is different from mea

2.03 ± .88

1.82 ± .80

1.95 ± .86

1.80 ± .82


7. Overall, I think I would like Jamie as a person

3.52 ± .70

3.48 ± .80

3.55 ± .74

3.43 ± .76


Total score

22.94 ± 3.86

22.74 ± 3.83

22.90 ± 4.11

22.10 ± 4.12


Major: Engineering (ex: aerospace/chemical/other engineering, computer science); Social Science (ex: psychology, sociology, human development); Physical Science (ex: biology, chemistry, biochemistry); Other (ex: art, university studies, foreign language, dual majors that span across two or more categories)

a Item is reverse-scored

p < .05, ** p < .01

Thirteen participants (eight females) scored above the clinical cutoff of 32 on the AQ, with scores ranging from 32 to 39. To compare their level of openness to participants who scored below the AQ cutoff, a random, gender-matched sample was selected from the full sample. There was no group difference in overall openness based on the sum scores, F (1,24) = .53, ns. The group with high-AQ scores obtained a mean openness score of 25.54 (±4.65), compared to those below the cutoff (24.46 ± 2.67). There was, however, a significant group difference on item 6 (person is different from me), F (1,24) = 4.65, p = .04. The high-AQ group reported a mean openness score on this item of 3.08 ± 1.26, compared to the low-AQ group’s mean of 2.15 ± .90, indicating the high-AQ participants felt the vignette character to be more similar to themselves than did the participants with lower AQ scores. For the full sample, the correlation between ASD symptoms (based on the continuous total score on the AQ) and openness was not significant (r = .15).


The goals of this study were to explore potential mediators of college students’ openness toward peers with ASD, and examine the replicability of Harnum et al. (2007)’s openness scale for use with young adults. In this sample, a two-factor model was not derived. Harnum et al. (2007) found two components related to openness: like versus dislike and impression of similarity to the student described in the vignette. In the present study, a one-component solution was found to most accurately characterize the scale (Fig. 1a–e).
Fig. 1

Openness scale (Harnum et al. 2007) modified for use with college students

Students who reported having a first-degree relative on the spectrum obtained significantly higher openness scores, which may be the function of having increased exposure and an understanding of ASD through interactions with their relative. Eighteen students reported having such a relative, with most students reporting a sibling. A limitation of this finding, however, is that we neither determined the degree of exposure these students had to their relative nor measured of the students’ knowledge or understanding of ASD. Though first-degree relatives may imply closeness, a family member with a developmental disability may spend a fair amount of time in treatment and support programs, thus limiting actual contact between relatives. Further research is needed to explore this relationship.

Differences across college majors were found. Engineering students indicated the most comfort, yet also most fear, around peers with ASD. Since engineering students typically present behavioral similarities to students with ASD (e.g., Kokosh 1976; Baron-Cohen et al. 1998), in being reclusive and studious, they may experience a higher comfort level around such peers than social science and other majors. Though the comfort level may be higher as a consequence, their higher degree of social withdrawal (Jobe and White 2007) may also result in the experience of fear towards any possible interactions with peers, regardless of the peers’ possible ASD characteristics or any similarities with their peers. Physical science students indicated the highest willingness to spend their free time with a peer with ASD, and the strongest belief that the person would be likeable and possesses an equal level of intelligence to themselves. These findings concur with those of Baron-Cohen et al. (2001), who demonstrated that mathematics and engineering students of a university student sample were more likely to display ASD phenotypes than students with more socially-based majors, such as theatre arts and social sciences. Social science majors received the lowest fearfulness score, and indicated the least concern about having the peer live in the same hallway or building, while those in the ‘other major’ category received the highest score on the belief that the student with ASD is different from themselves. Social science curriculums emphasize the study and understanding of diversity and varying personality attributes, in order to build an understanding of one’s social environment. As a result students in these fields may show more acceptance toward others, regardless of their background, and may show the least concern or discomfort over a peer with ASD living in one’s vicinity. Lastly, males showed higher openness than females. Males have been found to be more introverted in their emotional and social expressiveness (Shields 1995), which may result in more behavioral similarities between themselves and the peer, as females have been found to be typically more emotionally expressive and socially-oriented, and as a result males may display the least fearfulness (Brody 1985).

Limitations of this study stem from its population base. In selecting from a technical university, the sample was drawn from a more science and engineering-oriented community. Results may consequently be different if the study were to be replicated in a typical liberal arts school. The university’s student population, being predominantly male (approximately 57%), may have increased, and therefore normalized, students’ exposure to masculine-typical behaviors that are also associated with ASD, such as introversion and emotional reclusiveness. It is plausible that the participants in this sample reported greater openness compared to some other college student populations, because of increased exposure to such behaviors. Additionally, with participants in this sample being predominantly female, the sample may have presented a higher prevalence of ASD characteristics had there been gender-matched sampling, since ASD is more common among males (Fombonne 1999). Investigating peer openness toward ASD using a sample drawn from multiple universities would yield more representative results. The effect of having a first-degree relative with ASD on one’s openness towards peers exhibiting ASD phenotypes requires further investigation. In this study, there was no measure of intimacy between the participant and the relative. Acceptance of ASD behaviors in peers may be more directly related to amount of previous exposure to individuals with ASD; having a relative with ASD is an imperfect proxy for amount of prior exposure. Discrepancies may also exist between self-reported levels of openness and behaviors of acceptance demonstrated in a real-life setting. Humans’ innate tendency towards a self-serving bias and the tendency to view oneself positively (Miller and Ross 1975) may have led participants to provide answers which would describe their behaviors as more open and accepting than they would necessarily manifest themselves in their actual behavior, should they face an interaction with a peer with ASD.

Increased public education on ASD has provided opportunities for more extensive etiological and treatment research; however, there still exists a lack of awareness across college campuses of the daily obstacles faced by adults on the spectrum (Huws and Jones 2010). Since the 1970s, the Autism Society of America has celebrated April as Autism Awareness Month, with the primary goal of educating the public on this disorder and the issues it currently faces within the community. University student organizations could use this month to provide increased information to student bodies on ASD and its increased prevalence. The provision of explanatory information on ASD to students on college campuses can help decrease negative evaluations and promote peer acceptance. There is evidence for the positive impact of such programs with children (Campbell et al. 2005). The Organization for Autism Research (OAR) has created an informational DVD, Understanding Asperger Syndrome: A College Professor’s Guide, targeted towards the college professor and teacher audience, which provides information on the perspective of a student on the spectrum and specifies steps professors can take towards helping such students succeed in the classroom. Websites have also been created, such as,, and, which provide information on college transition for students with intellectual and developmental considering postsecondary education (Hart et al. 2010).

University preparation for the transition of students with ASD into their communities calls for substantial work, especially due to the unique needs of this population (Lurie and Gurian 2010). Since social agencies and school guidance counselors frequently work with students to assist them in adjusting and excelling throughout their elementary and secondary school years, there is a call for providing continued assistance to these students as they are increasingly entering the college environment (Stodden and Zucker 2004). Campus Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) offices can offer summer transition programs for students with ASD prior to entering college, similar to Upward Bound programs held for non-disabled high school students, in providing skill-building workshops and the assignment of a campus-based counselor to act as secondary advisor to the student throughout his or her college career.

An emphasis on acceptance of new students with ASD by the student body can be demonstrated by the institution’s administration through emphasizing inclusion during freshmen orientation meetings and beginning-of-year student activities. Within the classroom setting, as students with physical, learning, or sensory disabilities receive accommodations such as interpreters or extended time for test completion. Likewise, students with ASD can benefit from additional accommodations such as social coaches who would assist in the comprehension of verbal and nonverbal interactions, coping with the stress of overstimulating environments, and in the development of skills for peer interactions and future employment opportunities. Students already benefit from the use of technological devices such as personal digital assistance and palm pilots to help organize schedules and task lists; these devices can further be used as means to communicate with counselors and peer mentors throughout the day when assistance is needed (Robertson and Ne’eman 2008; Hart et al. 2010; Welkowitz and Baker 2005). Tracking of students’ academic success may also enable university officials to facilitate the provision of support, when necessary. Information on autism may also be included in appropriate academic courses (e.g., introductory psychology) to enhance understanding and openness. Peer mentoring programs can be implemented to help students develop social, academic, and daily living skills (e.g., time management), all of which may be impaired by their ASD symptoms. Lastly, peer support groups for students with ASD or related disabilities can be established to enable students with similar experiences to connect. Physical science and engineering students self-reported more openness in this study, suggesting the benefit of forming peer support groups across these majors, especially since students with ASD characteristics are more likely to be drawn to these areas of study (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). TPSIDs, implementing a comprehensive transition program model, prove beneficial to students with ASD due to the number of aforementioned services they cover with their key components: academic enrichment programs, the provision of information on and preparation for college admissions, financial aid assistance, mentoring through both adults and peers, and social enrichment activities (United States Department of Education 2003). As a result, post-secondary institutions must continue to capitalize on the extension of the federal support to comprehensive transition services for students with disabilities and continue to explore opportunities to enhance peer openness and ultimately social integration of students with ASD.



The authors wish to thank the students of Virginia Tech and the administrative staff who enabled us to conduct this study.


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. (text revision).Google Scholar
  2. Austin, E. J. (2005). Personality correlates of the broader autism phenotype as assessed by the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Wright, S., Stott, C., Bolton, P., & Goodyer, I. (1998). Engineering and autism: Exploring the link further: Reply to Wolff, Braunsberg and Islam. Autism, 2(1), 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billstedt, E., Gillberg, I., & Gillberg, C. (2007). Autism in adults: Symptom patterns and early childhood predictors. Use of the DISCO in a community sample followed from childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(11), 1102–1110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody, L. (1985). Gender differences in emotional development: A review of theories and research. Journal of Personality, 53(2), 102–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Education pays… [Data file]. Retrieved from
  8. Campbell, J., Ferguson, J., Herzinger, C., Jackson, J., & Marino, C. (2005). Peers’ attitudes toward autism differ across sociometric groups: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 17(3), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carneiro, P. (2010). The economic importance of social skills: A short (and selective) survey of recent research. In C. Cooper, J. Field, U. Goswami, R. Jenkins, & B. Sahakian (Eds.), Capital and wellbeing (pp. 389–393). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders-Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, United States, 2006. MMWR Surveill Summ, 58 (SS-10).Google Scholar
  11. Eaves, L. C., & Ho, H. H. (2008). Young adult outcome of autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 739–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fombonne, E. (1999). The epidemiology of autism: A review. Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 29(4), 769–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilmore, D., Bose, J., & Hart, D. (2002). Vocational rehabilitation and postsecondary education. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.Google Scholar
  14. Glickman, J. (2010). U.S. secretary of education Duncan announces $10.9 million in awards under new programs that help students with intellectual disabilities transition to postsecondary education. Retrieved from
  15. Grigal, M. (2009). The postsecondary education research center project. Unpublished raw data. Rockville, MD: TransCen.Google Scholar
  16. Harnum, M., Duffy, J., & Ferguson, D. (2007). Adults’ versus children’s perceptions of a child with autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(7), 1337–1343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. (2010). Expanding the paradigm: Postsecondary education options for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ho, A. (2008). The effect of classroom-based DIR treatment on young children with autism: IEP goals, parents’ and educational professionals’ sense of coherence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(6-B), 3847.Google Scholar
  19. Hofvander, B., Delorme, R., Chaste, P., Nyden, A., Wentz, E., Stahlsberg, O., et al. (2009). Psychiatric and psychosocial problems in adults with normal-intelligence autism spectrum disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 9(35), 1–9.Google Scholar
  20. Howlin, P., Goode, J., Hutton, J., & Rutter, M. (2004). Adult outcome for children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 212–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howlin, P., Mawhood, L., & Rutter, M. (2000). Autism and developmental receptive language disorder—A follow-up comparison in early adult life. II: Social, behavioural, and psychiatric outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(5), 561–578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huws, J., & Jones, R. (2010). ‘They just seem to live their lives in their own little world’: Lay perceptions of autism. Disability and Society, 25(3), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jobe, L., & White, S. W. (2007). Loneliness, social relationships, and a broader autism phenotype in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1479–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelly, A., Garnett, M., Attwood, T., & Peterson, C. (2008). Autism spectrum symptomatology in children: The impact of family and peer relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 36(7), 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kokosh, J. (1976). Psychology of the scientist: XXXIV. MMPI characteristics of physical and social science students: Replication and reanalysis. Psychological Reports, 39(3), 1067–1071.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lerman, D., Sansbury, T., Hovanetz, A., Wolever, E., Garcia, A., O’Brien, E., et al. (2008). Using behavior analysis to examine the outcomes of unproven therapies: An evaluation of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for children with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(2), 50–58.Google Scholar
  27. Lundine, V., & Smith, C. (Eds.). (2006). Career training and personal planning for students with autism spectrum disorders: A practical resource for schools. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  28. Lurie, A., & Gurian, A. (2010). Introduction to special issue. Social Work in Mental Health, 8(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahoney, D. (2008). College students’ attitudes toward individuals with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11-B), 7672.Google Scholar
  30. Migliore, A., Butterworth, J., & Hart, D. (2009). Postsecondary education and employment outcomes for youth with intellectual disabilities (Fast Facts Series, No. 1). Boston, MA: Institute for Community Inclusion.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, D., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality. Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morton, J., & Campbell, J. (2008). Information source affects peers’ initial attitudes toward autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(3), 189–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naoi, N. (2009). Intervention and treatment methods for children with autism spectrum disorders. In J. Matson (Ed.), Applied behavior analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 67–81). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  34. Petalas, M., Hastings, R., Nash, S., Dowey, A., & Reilly, D. (2009). “I like that he always shows who he is”: The perceptions and experiences of siblings with a brother with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(4), 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robertson, S., & Ne’eman, D. (2008). Autistic acceptance, the college campus, and technology: Growth of neurodiversity in society and academia. Disability Studies Quarterly, 28(4). Available at
  36. Shields, S. (1995). The role of emotion beliefs and values in gender development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social development (pp. 212–232). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Sterling, L., Dawson, G., Estes, A., & Greenson, J. (2008). Characteristics associated with presence of depressive symptoms in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(6), 1011–1018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stodden, R., & Zucker, S. (2004). Transition of youth with disabilities to postsecondary education. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
  39. Swaim, K., & Morgan, S. (2001). Children’s attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a peer with autistic behaviors: Does a brief educational intervention have an effect? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(2), 195–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor, M. (2005). Teaching students with autistic spectrum disorders in HE. Education and Training, 47(7), 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United States Department of Education. (2003). Archived: College transition programs. Retrieved from
  43. Welkowitz, L. A., & Baker, L. J. (2005). Supporting college students with Asperger’s syndrome. In L. A. Welkowitz & L. J. Baker (Eds.), Asperger’s syndrome: Intervening in schools, clinics, and communities (pp. 173–187). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Mass and London: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. White, S., Oswald, D., Ollendick, T., & Scahill, L. (2009). Anxiety in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(3), 216–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations