Page 210 - Demo

Chapter 7208trait levels in the extent to which an outcome is affected. The proposition of a %u201ccontinuum of impairment%u201d, with clinical conditions lying at the extreme of trait levels in the general population, has been made with regard to both social anxiety (Rapee & Spence, 2004) and autism (Robinson et al., 2011). Also in a diagnostic context, a dimensional approach to assessing mental health conditions, instead of sole classification, has been put forward in the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Interestingly, in all my non-clinical studies, a substantial number of participants reported on social anxiety trait level scores of clinical relevance, according to empirically-derived cut-off scores (Mennin et al., 2002; Rytwinski et al., 2009). Clinically-relevant autistic trait levels, in contrast, were only reported in singular cases and very close to the predefined cut-off score (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). This observation matches the higher prevalence of social anxiety in the general population. Furthermore, it highlights that autism, as a neurodevelopmental condition, is associated with qualitative differences in cognitive processing, which might not necessarily occur to a lesser degree in neurotypical individuals (Sasson & Bottema-Beutel, 2022). In my studies, both non-autistic individuals with higher autistic trait levels and individuals on the autism spectrum showed reduced emotion recognition, as well as, in some cases, reduced facial mimicry and a reduced link between mimicry and facial emotion perception. Yet, confidence in emotion recognition and perceived emotional intensity of expressions were mainly reduced in the clinical sample, as was selfreported interoceptive accuracy. In how far this might be a reflection of qualitative different processing styles, or paths to emotion recognition, or quantitative differences in similar processing styles is still an open question. When conducting studies with non-clinical samples, researchers often constrain themselves to testing members of the student population. These individuals are typically young, highly-educated, and, in the case of Psychology students, female. Gender-, age- or socioeconomic status-effects thus likely bias the results. Moreover, experimental studies are usually conducted in laboratory settings. Those allow for a high control of environmental influences but extract the individual from a familiar setting and its stimulations/distractions. In two of my studies, I addressed this issue by testing a more diverse sample in public spaces (Chapter 2) and online (Chapter 5), in addition to laboratory sessions with students. In Chapter 2, I did not observe any meaningful influence of testing in public spaces, compared to a laboratory setting, on experimental outcomes (i.e.,