Is autism associated with anomalous dominance?

Marcell et al. (1988) asked if Geschwind & Galaburda's anomalous-dominance theory could explain autism. The paper is a narrative review. It pulls together early brain-lateralization studies and autism traits. No new data were collected.

The review links left-handedness, immune issues, and language delay into one biological story. The authors suggest these patterns fit the anomalous-dominance model. They do not claim proof; they offer a roadmap for future tests.

Kuschefski et al. (2019) extends the idea by actually testing it. They showed autistic adults videos of people arguing and timed how fast they spotted who was 'in charge.' Autistic viewers were slower but just as accurate, and they cared more about where people stood in the room. The 1988 theory predicted trouble reading dominance; the 2019 lab data show the trouble is speed, not total blindness.

Caldwell-Harris et al. (2024) extends the story in a different direction. They read hundreds of writings by autistic adults. These voices say social hierarchies feel pointless; they prefer flat, equal relationships. The 1988 paper assumed autistic people have broken 'dominance circuits.' The 2024 lived-experience data say many autistic people simply value equality over status.

Boutrus et al. (2017) mirrors the 1988 call for theory-driven work. Both reviews warn against fishing for random biological signs. Instead, start with a clear theory—prenatal testosterone for faces, cerebral dominance for handedness—and test it step by step.

If you still quote the 1988 review to claim autistic clients 'can't read pecking order,' update your language. Kuschefski et al. (2019) shows they can read it; they just need extra time. Caldwell-Harris et al. (2024) adds that some clients may not care about rank at all. Use both facts to plan social-skills goals: teach recognition when it helps, and respect when a client chooses teamwork over competition.