Autistic Self-Awareness
Abstract
A currently popular view traces autistic cognitive abnormalities to a defective capacity for theorizing about other minds. Two prominent researchers, Uta Frith and Francesca Happ�, extend this account by tracing further autistic abnormalities to impaired self-consciousness. This paper argues that Frith and Happ�'s account requires a treatment of autistic self-report that is problematic on both methodological and philosophical grounds. However, the philosophical problems point to an alternative account of self-awareness and self-report in normal individuals; and this account gives us a methodologically more attractive approach to explaining autistic abnormalities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Consequently, researchers have often avoided attending to first-person testimony, preferring to privilege reports from parents, teachers or other informants, or laboratory-based observation over considering the perspectives of the person themselves.
“Consequently, researchers have often avoided attending to first‐person testimony, preferring to privilege reports from parents, teachers or other informants, or laboratory‐based observation over considering the perspectives of the person themselves (Jaswal & Akhtar, 2018; Mazefsky, Kao, & Oswald, 2011; McGeer, 2004; Milton, 2012).”
From Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science (2022) · cites this paper as McGeer, 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science
Pellicano, E., & den Houting, J. (2022) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13534 · Cited by 744 · see citing works
“…avoided attending to first-person testimony, preferring to privilege reports from parents, teachers or other informants, or laboratory-based observation over considering the perspectives of the person themselves (Jaswal & Akhtar, 2018; Mazefsky, Kao, & Oswald, 2011; McGeer, 2004; Milton, 2012).”
BackgroundWhose Expertise Is It? Evidence for Autistic Adults as Critical Autism Experts
Gillespie-Lynch, K., Kapp, S. K., Brooks, P. J., Pickens, J., & Schwartzman, B. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00438 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Heasman, B., & Gillespie, A. (2018) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361317708287 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
- Authors
- McGeer, V.
- Corresponding author
- McGeer, Victoria
- ORCID
- McGeer, Victoria
- Venue
- Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 235-251
- ISSN
- 1071-6076 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3303
- OpenAlex
- W2010132419
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 1.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophy, psychiatry & psychology (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
- Australian National University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Keywords
- autism spectrum disorder, self-awareness, theory of mind, self-consciousness, first-person reports, philosophy of mind
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
