By Rachel Winder
First published June 2022.
Revised and updated February 2026.
Abstract
Executive function (EF) in Autism is commonly framed as a stable cognitive impairment, frequently labelled Executive Dysfunction (ED). Yet much of the EF literature has been produced within deficit-oriented paradigms and interpreted primarily through Predominant Neurotype (PNT) norms, with limited Autistic involvement in research design or meaning-making. This Autistic-led qualitative study investigates how Autistic adults describe EF in everyday life and evaluates whether a contextual account better explains reported variability than trait-based deficit models.
Autistic adults (n = 42) completed an open-ended questionnaire, with in-person participation offered as an accessibility accommodation. Thematic analysis indicated that EF was experienced as dynamic and context-sensitive rather than fixed. Participants described robust EF access under conditions of environmental fit, autonomy, predictability, sensory safety, and task relevance, alongside pronounced reductions in EF access during sustained stress, sensory overload, social vigilance, and environmental mismatch.
We conceptualise these patterns as Executive Function Inhibition (EFI): a situational reduction in EF accessibility shaped by environmental and emotional demands interacting with attentional style (including monotropism). The findings converge with stress-response evidence that EF access fluctuates across humans under threat-related load, and they extend this work by foregrounding Autistic meaning-making, highlighting that “impairment” may frequently be an artefact of mismatch rather than a stable cognitive deficit.
By centring Autistic voices, this study reframes Autistic EF as environmentally mediated and proposes EFI as a constructive, theory-aligned lens for research and practice, supporting a shift from deficit attribution to modifiable contextual determinants.
Keywords: Autism; executive function; Executive Function Inhibition; monotropism; qualitative; Autistic-led research; environmental fit
Introduction
Executive function (EF) refers to interrelated cognitive processes that support goal-directed behaviour, including planning, task initiation, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control (Diamond, 2013; Suchy, 2009). Within Autism research, EF differences are frequently conceptualised under the framework of Executive Dysfunction (ED), positioning such differences as stable and intrinsic cognitive impairments (Demetriou et al., 2019).
However, EF research in Autism has often relied on structured laboratory assessments and observational paradigms, with performance implicitly compared against polytropic cognitive norms (rapid task switching, broad attentional distribution) that reflect PNT expectations rather than neutral cognitive baselines. Autistic individuals have historically had limited involvement in the design, interpretation, and framing of EF research (Milton, 2014; Milton & Bracher, 2013). This raises concerns about epistemic validity and the risk that cognitive differences are interpreted as deficits rather than context-linked variations.
Parallel research in cognitive neuroscience demonstrates that EF accessibility fluctuates across humans in response to stress, sensory load, and emotional dysregulation; sustained stress can reduce prefrontal cortex functioning and impair working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control (Arnsten, 2009; Shields et al., 2016). Despite this, contextual influences are rarely central in Autism-specific EF models.
Dr Luke Beardon’s “Golden Equation” (“Autism + Environment = Outcome”; Beardon, 2017) provides a concise framing for why EF performance should be interpreted within context. Outcomes are shaped not solely by neurology, but by the degree to which environments meet individual needs, including predictability, safety, sensory fit, and belonging. This contextual premise underpins the present investigation.
An alternative framing – Executive Function Inhibition (EFI) – conceptualises reduced EF accessibility as situational and environmentally mediated rather than a stable trait. This approach aligns with monotropism theory, which proposes that Autistic cognition is characterised by deep attentional focus within narrower interest bands (Murray & Lawson, 2005; Murray, 2018). Such attentional styles may enhance EF performance in aligned contexts while increasing cognitive load during task switching or low-relevance demands.
Aims
This study addresses a gap in the literature by centring Autistic adults’ lived experiences of EF through an Autistic-led qualitative design. It aims to:
- Explore how Autistic adults describe EF in daily life.
- Identify contextual factors associated with increased or reduced EF accessibility.
- Evaluate whether EFI offers a more explanatory framework than deficit-based ED accounts.
Literature Review
Dominant Models of Executive Function in Autism
ED has historically framed EF differences in Autism as intrinsic impairments, often emphasising set shifting, inhibition, and working memory (Demetriou et al., 2019). These models frequently rely on laboratory-based measures and neuropsychological testing, which may not reflect the variability and compensatory strategies present in real-world settings.
While these studies offer behavioural and neurological insights, they often treat EF differences as stable traits. However, similar EF reductions occur in non-Autistic populations under stress (Arnsten, 2009; Shields et al., 2016), suggesting EF performance is not inherently fixed.
Environmental and Stress Influences
Stress physiology research demonstrates that sustained stress reduces prefrontal cortex accessibility and can temporarily impair executive processes (Arnsten, 2009). Repeated social stress has been associated with structural and functional neurological changes (Patel et al., 2018). These findings challenge deficit-based interpretations by positioning EF variability as environmentally influenced rather than uniquely Autistic.
Monotropism and Attentional Style
Monotropism theory proposes that Autistic cognition involves deep attentional focus within narrower interest bands (Murray & Lawson, 2005). This attentional style may enhance EF within aligned contexts but increase cognitive load during rapid task switching or competing demands. Integration of monotropism with EF research remains limited, despite its explanatory potential for context-linked variability.
Autistic-Led Research Gaps
Participatory research improves epistemic validity (Heselton et al., 2021), yet Autistic-led qualitative investigations of EF in Autistic adults remain limited. Much EF research continues to be designed and interpreted primarily through PNT frameworks, risking interpretive mismatch described by the Double Empathy Problem (Milton, 2012) and cross-neurological perspective differences (Beardon, 2008).
Identified Gaps
- Limited Autistic-led qualitative EF research in adults
- Overrepresentation of child-focused studies
- Predominant deficit framing
- Limited integration of environmental stress and attentional style models
These gaps justify the present Autistic-led qualitative investigation.
Methodology
Research Design
This study employed a qualitative, interpretivist design grounded in an Autistic-led research ethos, prioritising participant meaning-making and lived experience.
Participants and Recruitment
Forty-two Autistic adults (18+) participated. Participants were either formally diagnosed or self-identifying as Autistic. Recruitment occurred via Autistic-led online networks and social media. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.
Accessibility and Study Design
The questionnaire was designed to minimise environmental barriers. Participants could complete it asynchronously in their preferred environment. An in-person completion option was offered as an accommodation, consistent with the study’s contextual premise that environmental conditions influence cognitive accessibility.
Data Collection
Data were gathered through a custom-designed open-ended questionnaire hosted online. Questions explored:
- Participants’ understanding of EF
- Daily-life experiences of EF
- Perceived strengths and challenges
- Environmental or societal changes that would support EF access
A brief description of EF domains (e.g., inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility) was provided for shared reference while preserving space for autonomous interpretation.
Data Analysis
Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis framework. Coding was primarily inductive, identifying patterns within participant narratives. For Questions 1–3, responses were also descriptively mapped onto EF domains and coded for evaluative valence (positive, negative, or conditional/mixed) to support pattern visibility (not to quantify outcomes). Responses regarding societal and environmental supports were synthesised narratively to preserve nuance.
Ethics
Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant institutional review body. Participants provided informed consent. All quotations were anonymised and identifying details removed.
Results
Four primary themes were identified.
Theme 1: Contextual Variability
Participants described EF as fluctuating across contexts rather than fixed. Many reported strong productivity under aligned conditions, contrasted with periods of inhibition linked to overload or prolonged stress.
Theme 2: Environmental Mismatch
Sensory overload, unexpected change, social pressure, competing demands, and high monitoring environments were commonly described as reducing EF accessibility.
Theme 3: Monotropism and EF Access
Participants described hyperfocus, deep concentration, and creative problem-solving within strong-interest contexts. Task switching and low-relevance demands were associated with increased cognitive strain and reduced EF access.
Theme 4: Conditional Emergence of Strengths
EF strengths emerged under conditions of autonomy, sensory comfort, belonging, and task relevance. Flexible scheduling, reduced sensory load, and understanding of attentional style were frequently described as enabling conditions.
Figure 1. A contextual model of Executive Function Inhibition:
Discussion
This study provides Autistic-led qualitative evidence that Autistic adults often experience EF as context-sensitive; a capacity that can be highly available under conditions of fit and rapidly constrained under conditions of sustained load. Participants did not primarily describe a constant cognitive deficit. Instead, they articulated a pattern of variable EF access, with marked reductions during environmental mismatch (sensory overload, unpredictability, social vigilance) and improved access when contexts supported autonomy, predictability, and task relevance.
EFI as a contextual reframing of EF differences
We propose Executive Function Inhibition (EFI) as a parsimonious account of these patterns: a situational reduction in EF accessibility shaped by the interaction of environmental demands, emotional state, and attentional style. EFI reframes “dysfunction” as an access issue rather than an inherent cognitive defect – an interpretation consistent with stress-response evidence that EF is disrupted under threat-related load across humans (Arnsten, 2009; Shields et al., 2016). Within this study, participants described EF access improving when load was reduced and when environments were adapted, suggesting that many “executive difficulties” may be modifiable rather than fixed.
Monotropism as a mechanism shaping variability
Participant accounts also map closely onto monotropism theory: when attention is permitted to settle into meaningful focus, EF strengths (planning, persistence, creative problem-solving, sustained effort) can become pronounced; when task demands require frequent switching or engagement with low-relevance activities, cognitive load rises and EF becomes less accessible. This supports the interpretation that EF variability may be mechanistically linked to attentional allocation rather than globally diminished ability.
Belonging, safety, and social vigilance as cognitive load
Beyond sensory mismatch and task structure, participants’ narratives indicated that belonging and interpersonal safety shape EF access. A context that requires persistent self-monitoring, impression management, or masking may preserve outward performance while consuming cognitive resources internally, increasing vulnerability to inhibition under cumulative stress. This aligns with contextual frameworks such as Beardon’s Golden Equation (Beardon, 2017) and extends it by emphasising the cognitive costs of social threat and non-fit. In this view, EF challenges can reflect the cognitive “tax” of navigating environments that are not designed with Autistic cognition in mind.
Epistemic implications: why Autistic-led meaning-making matters
The findings also have epistemic implications for EF research. When EF is measured and interpreted primarily through PNT norms, variability may be misattributed to intrinsic impairment rather than context. The Double Empathy Problem (Milton, 2012) highlights that interpretive mismatch can occur when experiential reference points differ. Autistic-led qualitative methods can therefore increase validity by grounding interpretation in first-person meaning-making, clarifying which conditions inhibit EF access and which conditions enable EF strength.
Summary of contribution
Overall, this study supports a shift from trait-based deficit interpretation (ED) toward a contextual access model (EFI) that is consistent with stress-response science, compatible with monotropism theory, and anchored in Autistic accounts. EFI does not deny real difficulty; it relocates the explanatory centre from “broken cognition” to interactional conditions that can be altered.
Implications
- Terminology: Reconsidering “Executive Dysfunction” in favour of “Executive Function Inhibition” where patterns are context-dependent.
- Practice: Designing monotropism-informed, sensory-aware adjustments in workplaces, education, and services (e.g., predictable structures, reduced sensory load, flexible pacing, asynchronous options).
- Research: Expanding Autistic-led and participatory methodologies; incorporating ecological and longitudinal approaches to track EF variability in real contexts.
- Systems: Treating environmental fit and belonging as determinants of cognitive access – not optional “extras.”
Limitations
This study relied on self-reported data and a modest sample recruited via Autistic-led networks, which may limit generalisability and may over-represent individuals engaged with Autistic community discourse. Questionnaire methods restricted opportunities for follow-up clarification. Future work could incorporate interviews, participatory co-analysis, and longitudinal tracking of EF fluctuations across daily environments.
Conclusion
This Autistic-led qualitative study indicates that Autistic adults frequently experience executive function as a dynamic cognitive capacity that varies with context. Rather than supporting a predominantly trait-based deficit account, participants described strong EF access under conditions of environmental fit, autonomy, predictability, sensory safety, and task relevance, and reduced access under sustained stress, overload, and mismatch.
We propose Executive Function Inhibition (EFI) as a theoretically grounded reframing that explains these lived patterns as situational reductions in EF accessibility rather than intrinsic cognitive dysfunction. EFI integrates stress-response evidence that EF access fluctuates under threat-related load and aligns with monotropism theory by accounting for attentional style and task relevance as mechanisms shaping variability.
By centring Autistic voices and prioritising ecological meaning-making, this study strengthens the case for shifting research and practice away from deficit attribution and toward modifiable determinants: environmental fit, cognitive load, and belonging. The EFI model offers a constructive lens for designing supports that do not “fix” Autistic cognition, but instead enable cognitive access through humane, practical changes to context.
Reflexivity Statement
This study was designed and interpreted from an Autistic-led standpoint. Insider positionality supported interpretive sensitivity and accessible study design while requiring structured reflexive practice to avoid over-privileging personal resonance. Reflexive journaling, repeated data checking, and systematic coding were used to ensure interpretations remained grounded in participant narratives.
References (APA 7)
Alexander, S. (2019, January 4). Your brain’s GPS is glitchy: Why working memory fails and how to bolster it. ADDitude. https://www.additudemag.com/working-memory-powers-executive-function/
Anderson-Chavarria, M. (2021). The autism predicament: Models of autism and their impact on autistic identity. Disability & Society, 37(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1877117
Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2648
autismAdmin, & Lawson. (2021, July 19). Autism research: Nothing about me without me. Autism Research Institute. https://autism.org/autism-research-nothing-about-me-without-me/
autisticvillage. (2021, August 5). Building super-highways – Why monotropism works for Autistics. Autistic Village. https://autistic-village.com/2021/08/05/building-super-highways-why-monotropism-works-for-autistics/
Betz, M. (2022, September 14). What is self-awareness, and why is it important? BetterUp. https://www.betterup.com/blog/what-is-self-awareness
Botha, M., & Cage, E. (2022). “Autism research is in crisis”: A mixed method study of researchers’ constructions of autistic people and autism research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1050897. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1050897
Botha, M., & Frost, D. M. (2018). Extending the minority stress model to understand mental health problems experienced by the autistic population. Society and Mental Health, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869318804297
Brownlow, C., & O’Dell, L. (2013). Autism as a form of biological citizenship. In J. Davidson & M. Orsini (Eds.), Worlds of autism (pp. 97–112). University of Minnesota Press. https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q1yy4/autism-as-a-form-of-biological-citizenship
Cassidy, S., Bradley, L., Shaw, R., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2018). Risk markers for suicidality in autistic adults. Molecular Autism, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0226-4
Chapman, R., & Botha, M. (2022). Neurodivergence-informed therapy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 65(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.15384
Cheak-Zamora, N., & Odunleye, O. (2022). Stress and coping in autistic young adults. Autism in Adulthood, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0043
Crane, L., Batty, R., Adeyinka, H., Goddard, L., Henry, L. A., & Hill, E. L. (2018). Autism diagnosis in the United Kingdom: Perspectives of autistic adults, parents and professionals. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(11), 3761–3772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3639-1
Davy, C. (2020). Practising self-reflection to develop self-awareness. Allegra Consulting. https://www.allegraconsulting.com.au/blog/practising-self-reflection-develop-self-awareness
Demetriou, E. A., DeMayo, M. M., & Guastella, A. J. (2019). Executive function in autism spectrum disorder: History, theoretical models, empirical findings, and potential as an endophenotype. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 753. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00753
DeWolfe, C. (2021). Connor DeWolfe on TikTok [TikTok video]. TikTok. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFs2QJK3/
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Doherty, M. (2023, April 17). Weaponized heterogeneity only harms the most vulnerable autistic people. Spectrum | Autism Research News. https://www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/viewpoint/weaponized-heterogeneity-only-harms-the-most-vulnerable-autistic-people/
Doherty, M., McCowan, S., & Shaw, S. C. (2023). Autistic SPACE: A novel framework for meeting the needs of autistic people in healthcare settings. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2023.0006
Domenech, P., & Koechlin, E. (2015). Executive control and decision-making in the prefrontal cortex. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 101–103. https://www.academia.edu/12649887/Executive_control_and_decision_making_in_the_prefrontal_cortex
Dwyer, P. (2019, May 18). Deficit isn’t a one-way street. Autistic Scholar. http://www.autisticscholar.com/deficit-not-one-way-street/
Farmer, A. S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2015). Stress sensitivity and stress generation in social anxiety disorder: A temporal process approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(1), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000036
Fenwick, M., & McCrimmon, A. W. (2015). Test review: Comprehensive Executive Function Inventory. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 30(1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514546318
Ferguson, H. J., Brunsdon, V. E. A., & Bradford, E. E. F. (2021). The developmental trajectories of executive function from adolescence to old age. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80866-1
Friedman, N. P., & Robbins, T. W. (2021). The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function. Neuropsychopharmacology, 47, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01132-0
Gary, A., & Holmes, D. (2020). Researcher positionality: A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research—A new researcher guide. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1268044.pdf
Gill, L. (2017, November 25). Understanding and working with the window of tolerance. Attachment and Trauma Treatment Centre for Healing. https://www.attachment-and-trauma-treatment-centre-for-healing.com/blogs/understanding-and-working-with-the-window-of-tolerance
Gravitz, L. (2018, September 26). The intersection of autism and trauma. Spectrum | Autism Research News. https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/intersection-autism-trauma/
Hampton, S., Man, J., Allison, C., Aydin, E., Baron-Cohen, S., & Holt, R. (2022). A qualitative exploration of autistic mothers’ experiences II: Childbirth and postnatal experiences. Autism, 26(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211043701
Haruvi-Lamdan, N., Horesh, D., & Golan, O. (2018). PTSD and autism spectrum disorder: Co-morbidity, gaps in research, and potential shared mechanisms. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 10(3), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000298
Harvard University, Center on the Developing Child. (2015). Executive function & self-regulation. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/executive-function/
Haselberger, A. (2021). The 4 phases you must go through to get where you want to be. Alexis Haselberger Coaching and Consulting. https://www.alexishaselberger.com/news-notes/competence
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P. A., Fox, L., & Algina, J. (2016). Evaluating the implementation of the Pyramid Model for promoting social-emotional competence in early childhood classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36(3), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416653386
Heselton, G. A., Rempel, G. R., & Nicholas, D. B. (2021). Integrating community participation with interpretative phenomenological analysis: Reflections on engaging the autism community. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211055575
Hollocks, M. J., Lerh, J. W., Magiati, I., Meiser-Stedman, R., & Brugha, T. S. (2019). Anxiety and depression in adults with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 49(4), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718002283
Jansen, D. (2023, March 14). Narrative analysis explained simply (with examples). Grad Coach. https://gradcoach.com/narrative-analysis/
Kupferstein, H. (2018). Evidence of increased PTSD symptoms in autistics exposed to applied behavior analysis. Advances in Autism, 4(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-08-2017-0016
L, J. (2021, February 24). Autism and the spiky profile. Medium. https://medium.com/autistic-discovery/autism-and-the-spiky-profile-bc03164e07f
Library, A. C. B. (2020, August 13). Source evaluation and credibility: Journals and magazines. A. C. Buehler Library. https://library.elmhurst.edu/credibility
Maloney, E. A., Sattizahn, J. R., & Beilock, S. L. (2014). Anxiety and cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1299
McCreary, C. P., Clark, G. T., Merril, R. L., Flack, V., & Oakley, M. E. (1991). Psychological distress and diagnostic subgroups of temporomandibular disorder patients. Pain, 44(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(91)90143-L
Medvec, S. (2015, July 8). Anxiety and executive function. The Summit Counseling Center. https://summitcounseling.org/anxiety-and-executive-function/
Milton, D. (2016). Re-thinking autism: Diagnosis, identity and equality. Disability & Society, 31(10), 1413–1415. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1221666
Milton, D. E. (2014). Autistic expertise: A critical reflection on the production of knowledge in autism studies. Autism, 18(7), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314525281
Milton, D., & Bracher, M. (2013). Autistics speak but are they heard? Medical Sociology Online, 7(2), 61–69. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/62635/
Milton, D., Mills, R., & Pellicano, E. (2014). Ethics and autism: Where is the autistic voice? Commentary on Post et al. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(10), 2650–2651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1739-x
Murray, D., Milton, D., Green, J., & Bervoets, J. (2022). The Human Spectrum: A phenomenological enquiry within neurodiversity. Psychopathology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1159/000526213
Murray, F. (2018, November 30). Me and monotropism: A unified theory of autism. The British Psychological Society. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/me-and-monotropism-unified-theory-autism
Murray, D., & Lawson, W. (2005). Monotropism [theory reference as commonly cited]. (Use your dissertation’s preferred primary citation format for the original monotropism publication, if different.)
National Institute for the Clinical Application of Behavioral Medicine. (2017, November 2). How to help your clients understand their window of tolerance. NICABM. https://www.nicabm.com/trauma-how-to-help-your-clients-understand-their-window-of-tolerance/
Nimmo-Smith, V., Heuvelman, H., Dalman, C., Lundberg, M., Idring, S., Carpenter, P., Magnusson, C., & Rai, D. (2019). Anxiety disorders in adults with autism spectrum disorder: A population-based study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(1), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04234-3
Oswald, K. (2022). Autistic is not a dirty word, we are not broken. Autism Alliance of Michigan. https://autismallianceofmichigan.org/autistic-is-not-a-dirty-word-we-are-not-broken/
Patel, D., Anilkumar, S., Chattarji, S., & Buwalda, B. (2018). Repeated social stress leads to contrasting patterns of structural plasticity in the amygdala and hippocampus. Behavioural Brain Research, 347, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.03.034
Princiotta, D., DeVries, M., & Goldstein, S. (2013). Executive functioning as a mediator of age-related cognitive decline in adults. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of executive functioning (pp. 143–155). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_9
Richard, B. (2016). My metric for success? Happiness. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-metric-success-happiness-richard-branson
Sandford, K. (2020, June 3). Why is life so complicated for you? 5 reasons why. Lifehack. https://www.lifehack.org/877501/why-is-life-so-complicated
Saskia Riedelbauch, Gaigg, S. B., Thiel, T., Roessner, V., & Ring, M. (2023). Examining a model of anxiety in autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231177777
Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2016). The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: A meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.038
Spikins, P. (2017, March 27). How our autistic ancestors played an important role in human evolution. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-our-autistic-ancestors-played-an-important-role-in-human-evolution-73477
St. John, T., Woods, S., Bode, T., Ritter, C., & Estes, A. (2021). A review of executive functioning challenges and strengths in autistic adults. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 36(5), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1971767
Stachel, J. (n.d.). What factors influence executive function development? Beyond BookSmart. https://www.beyondbooksmart.com/executive-functioning-strategies-blog/what-factors-influence-executive-function-development
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Understanding the impact of trauma. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207191/
Suchy, Y. (2009). Executive functioning: Overview, assessment, and research issues for non-neuropsychologists. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9097-4
The Conscious Competence Learning Model. (n.d.). Revolution Learning and Development Ltd. https://www.revolutionlearning.co.uk/article/conscious-competence-learning-model/
Tompa, R. (2022, April 21). Why is the human brain so difficult to understand? We asked 4 neuroscientists. Allen Institute. https://alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/news-press/articles/why-human-brain-so-difficult-understand-we-asked-4-neuroscientists
University of Zurich. (2018, July 10). Every person has a unique brain anatomy. Neuroscience News. https://neurosciencenews.com/unique-brain-anatomy-9541/
Wallis, C. (2022). Autism treatment shifts away from “fixing” the condition. Scientific American. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1222-25