The Relationship Between Subthreshold Autistic Traits, Ambiguous Figure Perception and Divergent Thinking.

Stamoulis et al. (2015) asked 312 college students to fill out two quick forms. One form rated their own autistic traits. The other tested how many creative uses they could list for a brick or a paperclip in two minutes.

The team also showed each student an ambiguous picture that flips between two views. They counted how fast the student saw the switch. This let them link traits, creativity, and perception in one sitting.

People who scored high on autistic traits gave fewer total ideas. Yet the ideas they did give were rated as more unusual and unique.

Seeing the picture switch faster did not boost idea count. It only boosted novelty for the high-trait group. Fewer ideas, but better odd ones, is the trade-off.

Matson et al. (2011) saw a clear gap: teens with ASD rarely notice the picture switch at all. Catherine’s neurotypical adults with high traits do see the switch, so the perceptual block is not absolute. The gap looks like a contradiction, but it fades once you compare diagnosed ASD to mild traits.

Poljac et al. (2012) found the same adults choose the harder task over and over, showing rigid choice. Catherine links that rigidity to fewer ideas, proving the repetition shows up in creativity tasks too.

Iversen et al. (2021) pooled data from 2,964 people and tied poor set-shifting to more repetitive behaviors. Catherine gives a day-to-day example: shifting from "brick as doorstop" to "brick as phone" is harder when traits are high, so idea flow drops.

If a client offers only one answer during intraverbal drills, check if the answer is odd or clever before calling it wrong. Reinforce the novel leap, then use rapid exemplar training to widen the pool. You are shaping two separate skills: flexible shifting and unique output.