Changes in Autism Nosology: The Social Impact of the Removal of Asperger's Disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5).

Katz et al. (2020) asked college students and workers how they felt about two labels: ‘Asperger’s’ and ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder’.

They used short stories. In some stories the person was a classmate or co-worker (high contact). In others the person was a distant stranger (low contact).

After each story, the students rated how warm, capable, and willing to interact they felt toward the person.

The old ‘Asperger’s’ label won more warmth and respect than the new ‘ASD’ label— but only when people expected close daily contact.

In low-contact scenes, the ‘ASD’ label still beat having no label at all.

So the same person got different scores depending on the label and the setting.

Spanoudis et al. (2011) once showed that odd social behaviors, not the label, drove stigma toward adults with Asperger’s. Lindsay’s team flips that: here the label itself moves the needle. The gap is real— in 2011 people watched videos of real behaviors; in 2020 they read short vignettes with no behavior shown. When no behavior is visible, the name on the page matters more.

Lancioni et al. (2009) tracked school records and saw ‘Asperger’ and ‘ASD’ labels climb while ‘PDD-NOS’ vanished. Lindsay’s findings warn that simply folding Asperger’s into ASD may trade clinical neatness for extra stigma in classrooms and offices.

Vassos et al. (2023) asked autistic adults what words they want. Most picked ‘autistic person.’ Lindsay shows outsiders still react differently to ‘ASD’ versus ‘Asperger,’ so practitioner choices can clash with client identity.

Your report language shapes doors that open or close for clients. In college or job support plans, spell out strengths first, then add ‘ASD’ only if it helps secure services. If stigma risk is high, use plain descriptions like ‘needs quiet space’ before any label. Always ask the client which words feel right to them.