Boundaries in Neurodiverse Relationships

When Two Architectures Meet

There is a moment, early in many neurodiverse relationships, that both people tend to remember with something close to wonder. A moment when the difference between them felt not like a problem but like a completion. The high body empathetic partner, whose nervous system has always been pulled in multiple directions by the social field, meeting someone whose relationship with their own perspective is so clear and so stable that it feels like solid ground.

The autistic partner, whose developmental pathway has so rarely found a person who could genuinely attune to them, meeting someone whose capacity for presence and relational sensitivity feels like being finally, fully received (Craig, 2009; Gallese, 2007; MacMillan, 2018).
The attraction is real. The sense of complementarity is real. And it is not simply the product of infatuation or the temporary blindness that new relationships produce. It is neurologically grounded: two atypical nervous systems at opposite ends of a spectrum of embodied simulation and interoceptive sensitivity and awareness, each finding in the other something their own architecture has always reached for and rarely found (Craig, 2009; Gallese, 2007; MacMillan, 2018).

What neither person can yet see, in that early moment of recognition, is that the same neurological differences producing the sense of completion are also, in MacMillan's theoretical framework, almost precisely designed to activate each other's deepest boundary vulnerabilities over time. Not through malice, not through failure of love or effort or intention, but through the structural logic of what each nervous system does when it is in sustained close contact with the other (MacMillan, 2018; Milton, 2012; Yew et al., 2023).

This post is about what that structural logic produces, what it costs, and what understanding it makes possible for both people, whatever the relationship's outcome turns out to be.

What Each Person Brings

The autistic partner arrives in the relationship carrying the boundary architecture this series has traced across six posts. A self whose felt sense of where it ends and another person begins may not have been adequately built, depending on the developmental environments it has moved through. A self that may cross others' limits without the automatic feedback that would signal the crossing before it occurs. A self that may simultaneously allow its own limits to be overridden without being able to name or protect them. And a self that may have developed some degree of the narcissistic behavioral patterns that both over-control and over-support environments can produce, not from disregard for others but from a developmental history that did not consistently provide the conditions for the boundary sense to build robustly in either direction (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982).

The high body empathetic partner arrives carrying the boundary architecture Post 7 described. A nervous system whose exceptionally high levels of embodied simulation and interoceptive sensitivity and awareness orient it continuously and powerfully toward others' experience. A self whose developmental pathway may have consolidated around caretaking and accommodation across a range of environments, not because those environments specifically demanded it but because the neurological architecture makes it the path of least internal resistance. A self whose own limits, needs, and relational ground may be less robustly developed than its capacity for attunement to others, because the nervous system's pull toward others has always been stronger than the pull back toward itself (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014).

In the early relationship, these two architectures fit together in ways that feel, from the inside, like genuine mutual recognition. The autistic partner's clear and stable relationship with their own perspective gives the high body empathetic something to orient toward, a relational center of gravity that is not constantly shifting in response to the social field. The high body empathetic partner's exceptional attunement gives the autistic partner something their developmental pathway has rarely encountered: a person who can receive them with something close to genuine fluency, who does not require the performance of a different self in order to remain present (Jaswal & Akhtar, 2019; MacMillan, 2018; Milton, 2012).

For a time, this works. And then, gradually and without either person fully noticing it happening, the same qualities that created the fit begin to create the friction.

How the Vulnerabilities Activate Each Other

The autistic partner's boundary architecture, as this series has described, includes a structural tendency to cross others' limits without awareness that a crossing is occurring, because the automatic feedback mechanism that would signal the approach of another person's boundary is not operating with the same immediacy and continuity that it does in the non-autistic nervous system (Fletcher-Watson & Bird, 2020; Gates et al., 2023; Milton, 2012). In most relationships, this tendency meets some degree of direct resistance: the other person names the crossing, holds their ground, or signals clearly enough that the autistic partner receives something they can work with.

In the relationship with a high body empathetic partner, something different tends to happen. The high body empathetic's neurological architecture, structurally oriented toward others' experience and structurally pulled toward accommodation, does not automatically hold its ground against the crossing. It registers the crossing, often with great clarity and often in the body before it reaches conscious awareness, and then organizes itself around managing the relational field rather than asserting the limit that has been crossed (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Lamm et al., 2016; Tone & Tully, 2014). The high body empathetic partner may absorb the crossing, may adjust their own position to accommodate it, may find themselves arranging their own needs and responses around the autistic partner's perspective without quite deciding to do so. This is not weakness. It is the high body empathetic nervous system doing exactly what it was built to do: attending to another's experience with exceptional sensitivity and responding with care (Davis, 1983; Hoffman, 2000; Tone & Tully, 2014).

But the consequence, for the autistic partner's development, is the same consequence that over-accommodation produces in any developmental context: the feedback that would allow the boundary sense to calibrate does not arrive. The crossing goes unnamed. The autistic partner, receiving no clear signal that a limit has been approached, does not build the sequential understanding that explicit feedback would have supported. And the pattern consolidates rather than developing (Baumrind, 1966, 1991; Kegan, 1982; Shogren et al., 2021).

For the high body empathetic partner, the consequence runs in the other direction. Each absorbed crossing, each accommodation made in place of an asserted limit, adds to the accumulated evidence that the self's own limits are less real, less worth defending, less likely to be received than the autistic partner's perspective and needs. The self that was already structurally pulled toward others continues to organize itself around the relational field the autistic partner generates, and the sense of the self's own ground, which was always the more vulnerable dimension of the high body empathetic boundary architecture, becomes harder and harder to locate (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Over time, what began as complementarity has become a system in which each person's neurological architecture is consistently activating the other's most significant boundary vulnerability. The autistic partner's crossings are met with accommodation rather than named limits, which means the feedback loop that could support boundary development is consistently interrupted. The high body empathetic partner's accommodation is met with a perspective that fills the relational space more completely as the accommodation deepens, which means the reflection back to the self that the non-autistic developmental pathway depends on for identity and stability is increasingly unavailable (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Minuchin, 1974). Both people are losing something. Neither person is the cause of the other's loss in any simple sense. The dynamic is producing the loss, and the dynamic is the product of two neurological architectures doing what they were built to do in the absence of the understanding and support that could interrupt the cycle (MacMillan [Janai], 2018; Milton, 2012; Yew et al., 2023).

The Cycles That Follow

What the structural activation of each other's vulnerabilities produces, across months and years, are relational cycles that neither person can escape from within the dynamic alone.

The autistic partner crosses a limit. The high body empathetic partner absorbs it, accommodates, reorganizes the self around the relational field. The autistic partner, receiving no clear feedback, continues. The high body empathetic partner's accumulated distress, unspoken and unaddressed, begins to surface in ways that are not direct: in withdrawal, in a shift of emotional tone, in the particular exhaustion of someone who has been giving more than they can sustainably provide. The autistic partner, without body empathy to register these signals automatically, does not receive the communication. They may experience the withdrawal as confusing, as a change in the relational field they cannot explain, and may respond with increased assertion of their own perspective, seeking the stable ground that the early relationship provided. The high body empathetic partner, whose own ground has been eroding, experiences this as more of what has been causing the erosion. The accommodation deepens or the distress surfaces more acutely, and the cycle tightens (Gates et al., 2023; Milton, 2012; Reis et al., 2004).

Neither person is wrong about what they are experiencing. Both are responding to something real. And both are responding through the only neurological architecture available to them, which, without understanding and without support, produces more of the dynamic rather than less (Milton, 2012; Morrison et al., 2020; Yew et al., 2023).

In some neurodiverse relationships, these cycles remain at the level of recurring relational difficulty: painful, exhausting, and confusing, but not escalating beyond what both people can continue to navigate. In others, the cycles escalate into something more serious. The autistic partner's boundary crossings can reach a degree of persistence and force that the high body empathetic partner experiences as emotionally, psychologically, or relationally abusive, whether or not that was ever the intention behind them. And the high body empathetic partner's accumulated distress, surfacing after years of absorbed crossings and eroded self, can reach a point where it expresses itself in ways the autistic partner experiences as destabilizing, frightening, or abusive in its own right. Neither direction of escalation is more legitimate than the other, and neither is more inevitable.

Both are real, both cause genuine harm, and both are the product of the same dynamic: two atypical nervous systems cycling through patterns neither person fully understands, in the absence of the framework that could interrupt the cycle before it reaches that point. The absence of mutual understanding means that neither person can accurately read what the other is doing or why, and the conflict that follows is not navigated toward repair but absorbed into the cycle and repeated (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Stafford et al., 2023; Yew et al., 2023).

The high rates of conflict, dissatisfaction, and relationship breakdown in neurodiverse partnerships are not evidence of incompatibility in any simple sense. They are the predictable consequence of two atypical neurological architectures, each carrying their own developmental vulnerabilities, meeting each other in a relational field for which neither has been adequately prepared and for which the surrounding support systems have not yet built adequate frameworks (MacMillan, 2018; Stafford et al., 2023; Yew et al., 2023).

What Gets Misread, and What It Costs Both People

When these cycles go unrecognized and unnamed, the patterns they produce tend to be attributed to causes that feel plausible from inside the dynamic but that miss what is actually driving it.
The autistic partner's boundary crossings get read as narcissism, as emotional immaturity, as a refusal to change or to care about the impact of their behavior. The high body empathetic partner's accommodation and self-loss get read as narcissism, codependency, as a character weakness, as a pattern that belongs to their own unresolved history rather than to the neurological mismatch they have been navigating without a map. Both attributions locate the problem in the individual rather than in the dynamic between two atypical nervous systems, and both tend to deepen the harm rather than address its source (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Marks et al., 2012; Milton, 2012).

For the autistic partner, misattribution deepens shame and accelerates the masking that shame produces. For the high body empathetic partner, misattribution reinforces a false sense of responsibility for the relationship's dysfunction, making it harder to reclaim the self that has been organizing itself around the relational field, and harder to assess clearly what the relationship has actually been and what, if anything, can be built differently within it (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Neither attribution serves either person. And neither is accurate to what is actually happening between two atypical nervous systems doing what they were built to do, in conditions neither of them chose and for which neither of them has been given adequate support (MacMillan [Janai], 2018; Milton, 2012; Yew et al., 2023).

The Solution Is Individual First

The R.E.A.L. Neurodiverse™ framework is clear on something that runs counter to much of traditional relational support: in neurodiverse relational systems, healing does not begin in the room where both people are present. It begins with the individual.

Joint work, even skillfully facilitated joint work, tends to replay the dynamic when individual understanding is not yet in place. The autistic partner masks. The high body empathetic partner accommodates. Both leave more discouraged than when they arrived, having confirmed for each other, once again, that the dynamic is inescapable. The relational system needs individual clarity first, and that clarity looks different for each person (Parker & Mosley, 2021; Stafford et al., 2023).

For the autistic partner, individual work means building the explicit, sequential understanding of the boundary sense in both directions: learning to recognize their own limits and learning to receive and use direct feedback about the impact of their actions on others. Not the ambient, embodied feedback that the non-autistic developmental pathway receives automatically, but the clear, direct, explicitly offered feedback that the autistic developmental pathway can actually receive and use. This work builds what the developmental environment did not consistently provide, and it requires the conditions the developmental environment also did not consistently provide: accurate recognition, calibrated challenge, and genuine safety (Gates et al., 2023; Kegan, 1982; Shogren et al., 2021).

For the high body empathetic partner, individual work means something different and equally necessary. It means developing the capacity to locate and hold the self's own ground in the presence of another person's powerful experience, which is the specific developmental work that the high body empathetic boundary architecture requires. It means learning to distinguish between genuinely feeling another person's distress, which the high body empathetic nervous system does structurally and unavoidably, and being responsible for resolving that distress, which is a choice and a pattern rather than a neurological inevitability. It means recovering access to the self's own limits, needs, and perception of what has been happening, which is the foundation of any genuine assessment of what comes next (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Kegan, 1982; Lamm et al., 2016).

Both pathways of individual work are equally valid and equally complex. Both are necessary conditions for anything genuinely different to become possible, whether that is a relationship rebuilt on clearer and more honest ground, a renegotiation of what the relationship is and what it can provide, or a parting that does less damage than it would have done without the understanding that preceded it (Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Stafford et al., 2023).

What Understanding Makes Possible

It would be dishonest to promise that understanding produces particular outcomes. It does not, always, and the people reading this who have already lived through the worst of what these cycles can produce will know that without being told.

What understanding makes possible is not a guaranteed outcome. It is a clearer and more honest engagement with what is actually happening, which allows both people to make choices that are rooted in genuine self-knowledge rather than in the accumulated habit of accommodation or the defensive insistence of a self that has never been adequately held (Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

For some neurodiverse partnerships, that clarity produces genuine repair: two people who can finally see what has been happening between them, who can name the dynamic without locating the failure in each other's character, and who can build something different because they understand, for the first time, what different actually needs to look like for each of their nervous systems (Parker & Mosley, 2021; Reis et al., 2004; Yew et al., 2023).

For others, it produces a renegotiation: a relationship that continues in a changed form, with clearer parameters, with both people's needs more honestly accounted for, and with the support structures each nervous system requires built deliberately rather than stumbled over (Reis & Gable, 2015; Stafford et al., 2023; Yew et al., 2023).

For others still, it produces the clarity to end: not because the people involved failed, but because the gap between what each person needs and what the relationship can provide is wider than either person can bridge, and because the most honest thing available is to stop asking the relationship to carry what it cannot carry. That ending, arrived at through genuine understanding rather than through the exhaustion of repeated cycles, is not a failure. It is, in its own way, a developmental achievement: the boundary sense working as it should, the self knowing where it stands and making a choice that reflects genuine self-knowledge rather than the absence of it (Erikson, 1963, 1980; Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

In all three outcomes, what matters most is not the relationship's survival. It is whether both people grow. Whether each person arrives at greater understanding of their own neurological architecture, their own developmental history, and their own genuine needs. Whether the self that emerges from the process is more clearly located, more honestly held, and more capable of the genuine boundary functioning that makes real relationship, in whatever form it takes, possible (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Erikson, 1963, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

The Larger Picture: When the Cycle Becomes the Environment

There is one more thing that needs to be named before this series closes, not as its central argument but as the place where this series hands off to what must come next.
When two atypical nervous systems are cycling through the relational patterns this post has described, the environment those cycles create is not neutral for the people living inside it. And in many neurodiverse families, there are children living inside it (Bowen, 1978; Cummings & Davies, 2010; Minuchin, 1974).

The child who grows up in a home where these cycles are the relational weather, where boundary crossing and accommodation and accumulated distress and conflict are the ambient conditions of daily life, is developing their own boundary sense, their own working model, their own understanding of what relationships do and what selves are worth, inside that environment. The developmental environment that MacMillan's framework has argued is so consequential for the boundary sense is, for these children, a neurodiverse relational system that has not yet been understood or supported well enough to provide the optimal conditions either pathway requires (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowen, 1978; Cummings & Davies, 2010).

And because the neurological architectures driving the dynamic have a genetic component, those children are likely carrying some version of those same architectures forward. The autistic child of an autistic parent and a high body empathetic parent is developing inside a system shaped by the interaction of the very neurological patterns they may themselves be navigating. The high body empathetic child is learning, from the inside, what accommodation looks like and what it costs, before they have the developmental resources to understand what they are learning or to choose differently (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; MacMillan, 2018).

This is how developmental patterns become multigenerational. Not through intention, not through failure of love, but through the structural logic of neurological architectures meeting each other without adequate understanding, generation after generation, in the absence of the frameworks that could interrupt the cycle (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Yehuda & Lehrner, 2018).

Many neurodivergents carry not only the developmental history that this series has traced but also a history of personal trauma and multigenerational trauma rooted in exactly this dynamic. That is not a counsel of despair. It is an honest accounting of what is at stake, and of why the work this series has been doing, building a developmental framework that sees both neurological architectures clearly and supports both toward genuine growth, matters beyond the individual relationships it describes (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Yehuda & Lehrner, 2018).

The cycle can be interrupted. The staircase can rise. The developmental environment can be built differently, one generation at a time, when the people building it finally have the understanding they need to build it well (Kegan, 1982; Ryan & Deci, 2017).


This post concludes Series III on Boundaries. The series continues with Series IV: Identity, exploring how autistic and non-autistic developmental pathways shape the formation, expression, and navigation of a coherent sense of self across the lifespan.

This was Article 8: Boundaries in Neurodiverse Relationships

This is Series III — Boundaries Across Neurologies: Autistic Development, High Body Empathy, and Neurodiverse Relationships

Articles in the Series:

1. The Boundary Gap
   What Developmental Psychology Has Never Quite Named

2. When the Self Is Not Allowed to Choose
   Over-Control and the Autistic Developmental Pathway

3. When the Self Is Never Challenged
   Over-Support and the Limits of Unconditional Accommodation

4. Narcissistic Behaviors, Autistic Development, and the Optimal Environment
   A Theoretical Framework for Future Research

5. Masking as Boundary Collapse
   What Happens When the Self Learns to Override Itself

6. The Other Side of the Boundary
   How the Same Developmental Gap Produces Two Problems at Once

7. The Other Architecture
   High Body Empathy, Boundary Vulnerability, and the Non-Autistic Developmental Pathway

8. Boundaries in Neurodiverse Relationships
   When Two Architectures Meet
   
   

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004

Bird, G., & Viding, E. (2014). The self to other model of empathy: Providing a new framework for understanding empathy impairments in psychopathy, autism, and alexithymia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.021

Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0014

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. Original work published 1969.

Craig, A. D. B. (2009). How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2555

Crompton, C. J., Hallett, S., Ropar, D., Flynn, E., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020). “I never realised everybody felt as happy as I do when I am around autistic people”: A thematic analysis of autistic adults’ relationships with autistic and neurotypical friends and family. Autism, 24(6), 1438–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320908976

Crompton, C. J., Ropar, D., Evans-Williams, C. V. M., Flynn, E. G., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020). Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective. Autism, 24(7), 1704–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320919286

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. Guilford Press.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146–1163. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.221

Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2009). Empathy versus personal distress: Recent evidence from social neuroscience. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 199–213). MIT Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. W. W. Norton.

Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue as secondary traumatic stress disorder: An overview. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized (pp. 1–20). Brunner/Mazel.

Fletcher-Watson, S., & Bird, G. (2020). Autism and empathy: What are the real links? Autism, 24(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319883506

Gallese, V. (2007). Before and below “theory of mind”: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2002

Gates, J. A., Kang, E., & Lerner, M. D. (2023). Social knowledge and performance in autism: A critical review. Current Psychiatry Reports, 25(12), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01461-7

Jaswal, V. K., & Akhtar, N. (2019). Being versus appearing socially uninterested: Challenging assumptions about social motivation in autism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, Article e82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18001826

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. W. W. Norton.

Lamm, C., Bukowski, H., & Silani, G. (2016). From shared to distinct self–other representations in empathy: Evidence from neurotypical function and socio-cognitive disorders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), Article 20150083. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0083

MacMillan (Janai), A. (2018). An investigation of quality of mixed-neurodevelopmental intimate adult relationships with an emphasis on the typically developing partner perspective [Master’s thesis, Harvard University]. Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37799748

Marks, A. D. G., Blore, R. L., Hine, D. W., & Dear, G. E. (2012). Development and validation of a revised measure of codependency. Australian Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00034.x

Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press.

Morrison, K. E., DeBrabander, K. M., Jones, D. R., Faso, D. J., Ackerman, R. A., & Sasson, N. J. (2020). Outcomes of real-world social interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared to typically developing partners. Autism, 24(5), 1067–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319892701

Parker, M. L., & Mosley, M. A. (2021). Therapy outcomes for neurodiverse couples: Exploring a solution-focused approach. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(2), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12506

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Sasson, N. J., Faso, D. J., Nugent, J., Lovell, S., Kennedy, D. P., & Grossman, R. B. (2017). Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 40700. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700

Shogren, K. A., Mosconi, M. W., Raley, S. K., Dean, E. E., Little, T. D., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2021). Advancing the personalization of assessment and intervention in autistic adolescents and young adults by targeting self-determination and executive processes. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0010

Stafford, A., Dutton, H., & Bertone, S. (2023). Relationship-counselling recommendations for partnerships involving autistic adults: A scoping review. Psychotherapy and Counselling Journal of Australia, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.59158/001c.77496

Tone, E. B., & Tully, E. C. (2014). Empathy as a “risky strength”: A multilevel examination of empathy and risk for internalizing disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 26(4 Pt. 2), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001199

Yehuda, R., & Lehrner, A. (2018). Intergenerational transmission of trauma effects: Putative role of epigenetic mechanisms. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20568

Yew, R. Y., Hooley, M., & Stokes, M. A. (2023). Factors of relationship satisfaction for autistic and non-autistic partners in long-term relationships. Autism, 27(7), 2088–2103. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231160244