Précis of “‘It Is a Big Spider Web of Things’: Sensory Experiences of Autistic Adults in Public Spaces” by MacLennan et al.
Summary:
MacLennan et al. (2023) investigate how autistic adults experience public spaces and what makes those environments disabling or enabling. This participatory qualitative study involved 24 autistic adults across seven online focus groups, with autistic involvement throughout the research. Participants identified supermarkets, restaurants and cafés, town centers, public transport, health care settings, and shopping centers as commonly challenging. However, experiences depended on more than the intensity of sounds, lights, or smells. The researchers identified six interconnected principles: the sensory environment, space, predictability, understanding, adjustments, and recovery. Together, these shaped whether people could comfortably participate, obtain services, and recover from sensory demands. The findings frame sensory accessibility as a relationship between people and their surroundings, including how others treat them.
Key Findings:
1. Sensory Demands Accumulate:
Participants described multiple sources of sensory input combining into an overwhelming burden, including noise, lighting, smells, and proximity to other people.
Prolonged exposure and being unable to leave could make these experiences especially difficult.
Having control over individual features, such as sound volume or lighting, could help. Reducing several smaller demands could also make a meaningful difference.
2. Space and Crowding Matter:
Crowds increased noise, movement, and the possibility of unwanted touch, while confined layouts could create a feeling of being trapped.
Open layouts, wider spacing, and opportunities to visit at less crowded times could make places more manageable.
A venue’s category did not determine everyone’s experience: shops appeared among both enabling and disabling environments, and some participants enjoyed concerts, cinemas, and stadiums.
3. Predictability Can Reduce the Burden:
Uncertainty about layouts, procedures, waiting times, or sensory conditions added to the effort of navigating public spaces.
Familiar environments could become difficult after unexpected changes, such as a supermarket rearranging its aisles.
Advance information—including photographs, maps, descriptions of procedures, and quieter visiting times—could help people prepare.
4. Understanding and Acceptance Affect Sensory Access:
Participants described judgment about their needs, reactions, and coping strategies, including stimming and using fidget toys.
Concealing distress to avoid appearing difficult required additional effort and could shorten the time they could tolerate an environment.
Staff knowledge and willingness to help were therefore part of accessibility, alongside physical features such as lighting and sound.
5. Adjustments Must Address Communication and Pace:
Expectations to communicate through speech could create barriers, particularly when sensory overwhelm made speaking harder.
Written communication, apps, and other alternatives could help people access goods and services.
Feeling rushed added pressure when participants needed time to process information or make decisions.
Existing schemes could be inadequate: quiet hours sometimes occurred too rarely or at unsuitable times, while disability identification schemes were not always understood by staff.
6. Recovery Is Part of Participation:
Participants needed opportunities to pause, prepare, or recover during visits, as well as time to recover afterward.
Quiet spaces with seating and reduced sensory input could make continued participation possible.
Enjoying an activity did not mean it was effortless or free from substantial recovery needs.
Implications:
The authors recommend addressing the six principles together, with autistic people involved from the beginning of planning and design. Practical changes include reducing sensory burdens, providing clear advance information, offering communication choices, allowing more processing time, training staff, and creating places to take breaks. The findings challenge the assumption that sensory accessibility simply means making everything quieter or that autistic people share identical preferences. This small qualitative study identifies experiences and priorities rather than testing whether particular adaptations work. Most participants were younger than 35, and people with intellectual disabilities and those without digital access were insufficiently represented.
Citation (APA):
MacLennan, K., Woolly, C., Emily @21andsensory, Heasman, B., Starns, J., George, B., & Manning, C. (2023). “It is a big spider web of things”: Sensory experiences of autistic adults in public spaces. Autism in Adulthood, 5(4), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2022.0024
Topic tags: