Camouflage and Autism (1): Beyond the Autism-Specific Narrative

Over the past two decades, research on autism has expanded at an extraordinary pace. Studies on prevalence, lived experience, and intervention strategies now appear almost daily. Yet this increase in quantity has not always been matched by quality. Many papers recycle familiar themes: autistic people struggling in a “non-autistic world,” the “stigma of autism,” or the idea that camouflaging one’s autistic traits is uniquely damaging. While none of these claims are inherently wrong, they are often presented in outdated, oversimplified, or misleading ways.

Outdated Framings: The “Non-Autistic World”

A recurring motif in the autism literature is that autistic people are forced to live in a “non-autistic world.” Framing autism as a condition permanently at odds with a supposedly non-autistic society oversimplifies the reality. Society is not made up solely of neurotypical individuals. We live in a neurodiverse (to use the buzzword) world in which all people (autistic, schizophrenic, epileptic, etc. or not) possess varying cognitive styles, temperaments, personalities and needs.

The notion of a “non-autistic world” positions autistic people as permanent outsiders. Yet in daily life, everyone adapts their behaviour to meet social expectations. Consider the example of an employee called into their boss’s office. Few would enter with:

Instead, they adjust their language and behaviour to conform to professional norms.

Shakespeare captured this centuries ago:

Social life is performance, and adaptation is universal.

When researchers write as if only autistic people must camouflage or mask, they reinforce an artificial divide between “authentic” autistic behaviour and “inauthentic” adaptation. In reality, adaptation is the basis of all social interaction.

Stigma: Then and Now

Autism research often portrays autistic people primarily as victims of the unchanging “stigma of autism.” This was undoubtedly true in the late 20th century, when autism was poorly understood, confused with childhood schizophrenia, and associated with profound deficit. Families faced blame, autistic children were institutionalised, and few adults received diagnoses.

But to speak of “the stigma of autism” as if we were still living in the 1970s, and as though nothing has changed since that time is misleading. Research shows that while stigma persists (often implicitly), explicit negative attitudes have declined significantly in many contexts (Crane et al. 2022), at least in Western countries. Public awareness campaigns, parental and professional organisations, and autistic self-advocacy have also helped transform perceptions. Subtle biases and institutional barriers remain (Botha & Frost 2020), but the world around us is always changing, and it's important for research to show that change instead of sticking to old ideas that aren't true anymore.

Perhaps the clearest sign that stigma has shifted is the rising number of people actively seeking an autism diagnosis in adulthood. Many seek diagnosis to explain lifelong differences, access supports, connect with community, or adopt an affirmative autistic identity (Lai et al. 2021; Loo et al. 2024). They describe diagnosis not as a mark of shame but as a source of clarity, community, and even pride (Cooper et al. 2021). If autism were still dominated by stigma, why would so many – including those with overlapping disorders/conditions such as social anxiety[1] or personality disorders – seek the autism label? Why would so many adopt an “autistic identity” as who they are?  

The Camouflaging Controversy

“Camouflage” has become a headline term. Hull et al. (2017) defined it as a mix of masking (hiding behaviours that mark one as different) and compensating (using scripts and deliberate strategies to manage social communication), employed consciously or unconsciously to improve adaptability to a specific environment.

This definition helped focus enquiry, but also created confusion: conference panels, public commentaries and empirical papers quickly adopted the term without consensus about whether it denoted a subjective experience, observable behaviour, cognitive processing, or an “endpoint” of successful passing (Fombonne 2020).

Methodological Weaknesses

Much of the literature relies on self-report questionnaires such as the CAT-Q (Hull et al. 2019). While useful, these tools blur distinctions between social skills, impression management and masking. Some items (e.g., concerns about being judged in public) may measure anxiousness rather than autism (Hull et al. 2019; Fombonne 2020). Early validations even showed stronger correlations with social anxiety disorder (SAD) than with autism. Without comparison groups, it is unclear whether scores represent something uniquely autistic or simply general social adaptation. Besides, most evidence is cross-sectional. Longitudinal work is sparse but mixed.

Fombonne (2020) explains that camouflaging is often treated as if it were an intrinsic, unique marker of autism when, in his view, it behaves more like a downstream coping strategy – transactional between person and environment – and therefore not useful as a subtyping marker for autism itself. He points to three common weaknesses in the literature: lack of clinical comparison groups, reliance on cross-sectional self-report (often from convenience samples [2]), and insufficient control for co-occurring disorders such as, e.g., social anxiety. These weaknesses question whether camouflaging is intrinsic to autism or simply a coping strategy anyone might adopt under social pressure.

Camouflaging: Transdiagnostic[3], not autism-specific

The literature has increasingly treated camouflaging as an almost uniquely autistic phenomenon and a cause of their mental health problems. Yet comparative evidence from the research (and a wider view of human social behaviour) suggest a different conclusion:

·         Clinical parallels: Lei et al. (2024) found associations between masking and social anxiety severity rather than autism traits. Pyszkowska (2024) reported no difference in camouflaging between autistic adults and those with SAD. Similar patterns are found in ADHD, developmental language disorder (DLD), depression, and even obesity (Hobson & Lee 2023; Somerville et al. 2024).

·         General population: Many non-autistic adults camouflage. Several studies report small or non-existent differences in camouflaging scores between autistic and non-autistic participants, or that some camouflaging subscales do not differentiate groups (Hull et al. 2020; Jorgenson et al. 2020).

[Subclinical] autistic traits and lower self-rated social competence predict greater use of camouflaging strategies, and women report more camouflaging than men (O’Loghlen & Lang 2024).  

In Livingston et al.’s study, many intellectually able adults — diagnosed and undiagnosed — reported using compensatory strategies; masking in particular, was not uniquely associated with autism and is consistent with reputation management seen in the general population (Livingston et al. 2020).

Concrete examples help make this point. A presenter on stage or at an important meeting will typically adopt a different manner of speech and posture than when chatting at the coffee machine; they “mask” colloquial speech and casual gestures for a professional role. These are everyday, mundane acts of camouflaging — not evidence of a clinical condition.

Another Shakespearean nod:

Simply put, you don’t have to be autistic to mask/camouflage.

Mixed consequences: Costs, benefits and heterogeneity

While some research links higher camouflaging to anxiety, depression, and stress (Hull et al. 2021; Field et al. 2024), these effects are not universal. Van der Putten et al. (2024) found that the relationship between camouflaging and mental health difficulties was strong only for a small subgroup and identified subgroups for whom camouflaging had little or no negative effect. These findings undermine simple cause-and-effect claims that camouflaging is uniformly harmful.

Positive effects of camouflaging are increasingly recognised. Van der Putten et al. (2025) reported that higher initial camouflaging sometimes predicted decreases in mental health difficulties over time, suggesting potential adaptive value. It helps secure friendships, avoid bullying, maintain employment, and navigate services (Cook et al. 2021; Loo et al. 2024).

Funawatari et al. (2024) found that self-perceived efficacy in social strategies improved well-being, even when effort was draining; and that autistic adults who used a broader repertoire of social strategies – including camouflaging – experienced better well-being. Community connectedness can further support well-being (Cage, Cranney, Botha 2022).

Contrary to assumptions that camouflaging is primarily aimed at fitting into neurotypical society, autistic adults sometimes camouflage more toward other autistic peers than toward non-autistic people.[4] This suggests masking can be a flexible social tool to strengthen relationships and navigate different contexts, not merely a harmful effort to “pass” (Funawatari et al. 2024).

Thus, camouflaging has mixed consequences. For some, it may contribute to stress, but for many, it is a strategic, adaptive behaviour that supports social navigation, relationships, and well-being. Understanding this nuance allows clinicians and communities to respect camouflaging as a personal tool rather than assuming it is inherently harmful.

*****

Camouflaging matters because it highlights how people negotiate difference in social life. But the narrative should not be reduced to a binary: autistic = camouflaging and harmed; non-autistic = authentic and safe. Camouflaging is a human strategy of impression management, risk mitigation, and social navigation. For some autistic people masking is a costly necessity; for others, a pragmatic tactic; for many, a mixed bag.

The evidence does not support treating camouflaging as an autism-specific pathology or subtype marker (Fombonne 2020; Livingston et al. 2020). Instead of rhetorical exaggeration, research should ask precise questions: Which strategies help which people, when and in which contexts?

In short, autism research should stop portraying autistic people as passive sufferers in a hostile non-autistic world. It’s important to recognise not only differences but also common ground.

All people are neurodiverse, all people adapt, all people perform.

_________________________

Footnotes

[1] Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is classified among the Anxiety Disorders in the DSM-5 (APA 2013) and includes features that overlap conceptually and empirically with many items used to operationalise camouflaging.

[2] Many studies recruit via social media, autism registries, or clinician referrals, creating biased samples enriched for late-diagnosed females, high literacy, and certain demographics (Hull et al. 2020). Without careful diagnostic validation, claims about “undetected camouflaged autistic females” are speculative at best (Fombonne 2020; Lai et al. 2021). And crucially, few studies employ clinical control groups (e.g., social anxiety, ADHD, DLD, personality disorders), so what appears unique in autism may simply be shared across conditions.

[3] Transdiagnostic – refers to psychological phenomena or behaviours that cut across diagnostic categories rather than belonging exclusively to one disorder. In the DSM-5, many behaviours associated with camouflaging overlap with recognised features of anxiety disorders, particularly social anxiety disorder.

[4] Scheeren et al. (2025) found that autistic participants masked more in the presence of non-autistic others and reported greater stress when masking – emphasising heterogeneity of autism (and Van der Putten et al. (2024, 2025)’s findings).