The Double Empathy Problem: Understanding Communication Differences

By Bandai Choi, Clinical Psychologist (MSSc, MAPS, MCCLP) | 6 min read

Bandai Choi
MSSc, MAPS, MCCLP, AFHKPS | Clinical Psychologist
Breathe-n-Smile Psychology, Essendon North, Footscray and telehealth

TL;DR

The double empathy framework, developed by autistic sociologist Dr. Damian Milton, proposes that communication difficulties between autistic and non-autistic people can be understood as a bidirectional mismatch in experiences and communication styles, rather than an individual deficit.
Misunderstandings often arise from differing expectations around directness, implicit social cues, response timing, and sensory processing capacity.
While empirical research exploring communication patterns continues to grow, experiences vary individually and a shared neurotype does not automatically guarantee seamless understanding.
Therapy can provide a space to explore personal communication preferences, navigate social strain, and practice constructive repair after misunderstandings.

Why do conversations between autistic and non-autistic adults sometimes feel misaligned, even when both people have good intentions? Historically, clinical literature often framed social communication differences primarily as a deficit belonging to the autistic individual. However, contemporary neuro-affirming approaches increasingly consider how mutual differences in processing and expression shape social interactions.

First proposed in 2012 by autistic sociologist Dr. Damian Milton, the **double empathy framework** offers a way to explore how bidirectional mismatches in communication expectations, pacing, and sensory context can contribute to mutual misunderstanding.

Understanding the double empathy framework

Plain answer: The double empathy framework proposes that when two people with different perceptual styles, communication norms, and lived experiences interact, both may find it challenging to intuitively interpret the other’s internal state.

Dr. Damian Milton described this concept as a two-way (bidirectional) experience. Rather than viewing non-autistic communication as the universal standard, the framework suggests that misunderstanding can occur when people operate with different underlying assumptions about conversation rules, eye contact, body language, and tone.

Recent empirical studies, such as research by Crompton and colleagues (2020) published in Autism, have explored information transfer between peers. Their findings suggest that communication can feel more comfortable when conversational partners share similar communicative styles. However, researchers emphasize that shared neurotype alone does not ensure automatic mutual understanding, as individual personality, background, and personal boundaries vary widely.

Common communication mismatches in daily life

In workplace, academic, or social settings, differences in communication norms can lead to friction when expectations are not explicitly discussed:

Examples of differing communication expectations

Directness vs. Implicit Hinting: An autistic adult may value clear, direct language and assume that information is stated literally. A non-autistic partner or colleague might rely on indirect politeness cues or subtle hints, leading both to feel frustrated.
Eye Contact & Physical Posture: Non-autistic social norms often associate eye contact with attentiveness. For some autistic adults, maintaining forced eye contact increases sensory load and makes listening or thinking more effortful.
Information Focus & Monotropic Depth: Conversations may differ between broad social checking-in and deep, focused exploration of a specific topic or interest.
Tone & Facial Expressiveness: Expressive facial movements or vocal inflection may be interpreted differently, sometimes leading observers to assume flat affect or irritation when someone is simply concentrating.

Sensory load, processing time, and conversational timing

Communication is not just about words; it is deeply influenced by nervous system state, environmental noise, and cognitive energy:

When an environment is loud, brightly lit, or unpredictable, a person’s cognitive bandwidth for social filtering drops. Furthermore, processing time varies. Some individuals benefit from brief pauses before responding to formulate thoughts accurately. If a conversational partner interprets a pause as disinterest or hesitation, they may interrupt or change the subject, increasing communicative fatigue.

Understanding these contextual factors helps reframe social exhaustion not as a personal failure, but as a predictable outcome of high environmental or communicative demand.

Research on communication styles

A 2021 study published in Autism in Adulthood highlighted that non-autistic observers often form rapid first impressions based on non-verbal communication norms. Educational efforts aimed at increasing mutual understanding can help reduce social strain across diverse workplaces and communities.

Navigating repair and mutual clarity

When communication mismatches happen, focusing on constructive repair can help reduce ongoing stress:

Making Expectations Explicit: Agreeing on clear communication preferences (e.g. “I process information best in written emails” or “If I need a minute to think, I will let you know”).
Checking Assumptions: Asking clarifying questions rather than inferring intent behind tone or facial expression (e.g. “Are you feeling overwhelmed by the room noise, or are you upset with what I said?”).
Respecting Downtime: Recognizing when sensory or social fatigue requires a break before continuing a complex conversation.

In multicultural or multilingual contexts, such as seeking support through bilingual therapy in Melbourne, communication expectations can be further influenced by cultural norms around respect, indirectness, and family hierarchy.

How therapy can support communication goals

Seeking therapy is an individual choice. Therapy is not a guarantee of relationship outcomes or a way to “fix” communication, but rather a reflective space where people can:

Explore their personal communication preferences, energy boundaries, and sensory needs.
Understand how social masking impacts energy levels and daily functioning.
Discuss self-advocacy strategies for study, work, or personal relationships.

Working with a clinician through neurodiversity-affirming therapy involves exploring your goals collaboratively, without imposing rigid neurotypical social standards.

Common questions about the double empathy problem

Is the double empathy problem a proven scientific law?

It is a theoretical framework proposed to explain qualitative communication patterns. While supported by growing empirical research, it continues to be studied and refined within academic and clinical literature.

Do autistic people always communicate easily with other autistic people?

Not necessarily. While some studies suggest peer communication can feel more comfortable on average, individual communication styles, sensory needs, and backgrounds vary significantly among autistic adults.

How can I learn more about neuro-affirming therapy?

You can read about what to expect in therapy or contact our clinic to discuss whether individual therapy fits your current goals.

Exploring communication patterns or neuro-affirming support?

Breathe-n-Smile Psychology provides individual consultations in Essendon North, Footscray, and online across Victoria.

Explore Therapy Approach Send an Enquiry

References

Milton DE. On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem’. Autism. 2012;16(6):883-887. doi:10.1177/1362361312441263
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. doi:10.1177/1362361320919286
Mitchell P, Sheppard E, Cassidy S. Do non-autistic people have a ‘theory of mind’ for autistic people? Autism in Adulthood. 2021;3(2):158-167. doi:10.1089/aut.2020.0033

The Double Empathy Problem: Why Autistic and Non-Autistic People Can Misunderstand Each Other