Innovation through neurodiversity: Diversity is beneficial

Abstract

Those experiencing high rapport or strong social connection are more likely to copy each other, or emulate each other’s ideas, either consciously or sub-consciously. In this study, we use this phenomenon to examine whether neurotype match or mismatch impacts degree of imitation in a creative task. We asked 71 participants in neurodiverse pairs (including both autistic and non-autistic participants) and single-neurotype pairs (both autistic or both non-autistic), where one participant builds and one observes, to build the tallest possible tower from dried spaghetti and plasticine. We measured the height of each tower and photographed them to create a stimulus set. We then asked independent raters ( n = 351, 62 autistic) to rate towers for degree of similarity. We hypothesised that lower similarity scores would be generated for towers created by people in neurodiverse pairs, showing positive innovation. Results showed towers built in the neurodiverse condition had least similarity, whereas towers built in the autistic and non-autistic conditions were significantly more similar. There was no difference in performance (height of tower) based on condition. Our results are the first to examine creativity within single-neurotype and neurodiverse pairs; they indicate that neurological diversity may be beneficial within a group setting. Subsequent research is required to examine how this interacts with divergent communication styles. Lay abstract Neurodivergences such as autism have been previously viewed from a negative, ‘deficit’, perspective. However, research is beginning to show the benefits of being autistic, and the positive outcomes of neurodiverse interactions. Diversity in the way we think can lead to diversity in the outcomes we produce. In this study, we asked independent raters to compare the similarity of towers built by autistic and non-autistic individuals in single-neurotype (both people were autistic or both people were non-autistic) and neurodiverse (one autistic person and one non-autistic person) pairs, to see whether people would be more or less likely to copy someone who shared their diagnostic status. Our results showed there was the least similarity in design in the neurodiverse pairs; people were less likely to copy the design of the previous builder if that person had a different autistic status to themselves. This could imply people felt more confident in copying someone with a similar neurotype, mirroring results from rapport studies where autistic individuals reported greater rapport with other autistic participants than with non-autistic participants. This also shows there was more evidence of creativity in designs, and innovation from stimulus design (the tower they had watched being built) when the pairs had different autistic diagnoses. This could inform practice and support involving autistic people, encouraging education and care providers to create more diverse methods and designs for support mechanisms, content delivery, and research data collection.