internal states is limited (and they are generally aware of this, and may try to avoid this
type of question), they may be unable to cope with the demands of the AAI and so be
classified as insecure or disorganised. Alternatively, using their limited or qualitatively
different mentalising skills, they may be able to find a way of “hacking out” the AAI
(Наррё, 1995); that is, arriving at an appropriate response via an unexpected or lengthy
route. This suggests that their ability to respond in a “secure” way may be related to other
abilities, for example IQ, which is known not to be the case for adults without autism.
• Will adults with autism respond to the AAI in a way that primarily reflects their
states of mind with respect to attachment, or will their responses be more strongly
influenced by their general discourse style?
People with autism by definition have difficulties in communication, and even very high-
functioning adults struggle with conversational pragmatics and narrative coherence
(Diehl, Bennetto & Young, 2006; Hale & Tager-Flusberg, 2005; Mundy & Markus,
1997). Much of the AAI is based on the recall of childhood memories, and there is some
evidence that people with autism form and retrieve memories in an idiosyncratic way
(Williams, Goldstein & Minshew, 2006). Therefore, even if adults with autism are able to
form a secure state of mind with regard to attachment, it is not clear whether they will be
able to discuss this in a way that would allow their AAI transcripts to be coded as secure.
In this study, a parallel interview will be used as a comparison measure of discourse style:
if an interviewee talks in an incoherent or vague way about neutral memories as well as
about attachment, then this would appear to reflect a more general style of speech,
whereas speaking in this way only during the AAI appears to indicate a specific state of
mind with respect to attachment.
• How are the AAI responses of adults with autism similar to and different from
those of adults without autism?