Masking vs self-censoring: cousins, not twins (and why that matters) / Blog | Gladstone Region Autistic & Neurodivergent Network Inc.

In neurodivergent life, there are two “social survival apps” many of us end up running in the background:

Masking: changing how we appear to be treated safely.
Self-censoring: changing what we share to avoid consequences.

They often travel together, but they are not the same creature. Mixing them up can flatten lived experience, blur support needs, and quietly reinforce the idea that the “problem” lives inside autistic people, rather than inside systems built to reward neurotypical performance.

Research tends to use masking/camouflaging for the strategies autistic people use to hide, suppress, or compensate for autistic traits to “fit in” (sometimes consciously, sometimes automatically).
Self-censorship, in psychology, is typically defined as intentionally withholding information or opinions even without formal external censorship.

Now let’s put them side by side.

Dimension	Masking (autistic masking / camouflaging)	Self-censoring (self-silencing / withholding)	Where they overlap
Core “move”	Performing neurotypicality: altering behaviour, expression, sensory needs, communication style to look “acceptable.”	Withholding content: not saying, not posting, not disclosing, not naming needs/opinions.	Both are often risk management in unsafe or misunderstanding environments.
What changes	How you move through the world: eye contact, stimming, tone, facial expressions, scripts, imitation, forced small talk.	What you allow out of your mouth/keyboard: opinions, boundaries, access needs, identity details, feelings, conflict.	Self-censoring can be one tool inside masking, but it can also exist without masking.
Primary driver	Autism-related stigma + pressure to “pass” as non-autistic to access school/work/safety.	Fear of negative evaluation, exclusion, retaliation, or “being a problem.”	Both are shaped by power: who gets believed, who gets punished, who gets labelled “difficult.”
Felt experience	Often described as exhausting, identity-blurring, and body-costly (burnout, stress).	Often described as shrinking: swallowing words, delaying requests, going quiet, “editing yourself into acceptability.”	Both can create a chronic sense of unsafety and “I don’t belong as I am.”
Typical examples	Forcing eye contact, rehearsing “normal” facial reactions, hiding stims, suppressing sensory overwhelm, copying social scripts.	Not disclosing autism/ADHD, not asking for accommodations, not naming harm, not challenging misinformation, not sharing a support need.	“I can do the meeting” (masking) + “I won’t mention it wrecked me” (self-censoring).
Short-term benefit	Can reduce bullying, smooth access to work/school, avoid being targeted.	Can avoid conflict, protect employment/housing, reduce social punishment.	Both can be adaptive in the moment, especially when safety is on the line.
Long-term cost	Associated with poorer mental health outcomes; linked in research with suicidality and reduced belonging.	Can increase isolation, reduce access to supports, and reinforce unequal power (because silence gets mistaken for “fine”).	Both can delay support, deepen burnout, and fuel the “invisible struggle” cycle.
What helps most	Environment change: acceptance, flexible communication norms, sensory-safe spaces, “no penalty” accommodations.	Safety + predictable response: being listened to without punishment, clear rights/processes, conflict-safe channels.	The antidote to both is not “be braver.” It’s make it safer.

A GRANN lens: one is a costume; one is a gag (and sometimes we’re forced to wear both)

Masking is often about presentation: making your neurotype less visible so the room stops reacting like you’re a fire alarm. The research base is clear that camouflaging is frequently driven by stigma and social pressure.

Self-censoring is often about permission: deciding it’s not worth saying the thing that needs to be said, because history has taught you what it costs to be honest. In the self-censorship literature, it’s framed as withholding information without formal obstacles, often shaped by perceived disagreement or social risk.

And here’s the important neuro-affirming point:

Neither of these are “autistic flaws.”
They are skills people develop in environments that reward conformity and punish difference. Autistic people aren’t uniquely prone to these strategies because we’re “confused about ourselves.” We’re often responding to the reality that acceptance is conditional.

How to tell which one you’re doing (a tiny self-check)

It’s more like masking if…

you’re managing body language, tone, facial expressions, stimming, eye contact, scripts.
you get home and feel like you’ve been acting in a play you didn’t audition for.

It’s more like self-censoring if…

you’re deleting sentences before you send them.
you’re not asking for the accommodation you know you need.
you’re staying quiet about harm because “it’ll be a whole thing.”

It’s both if…

you’re performing “fine” and refusing to name the cost.

What we want instead: fewer performance taxes, more access

If you’re autistic (or otherwise neurodivergent), the goal doesn’t have to be “unmask everywhere.” Sometimes masking is a shield, and you get to decide when you need it. (Autonomy matters.)

But systems can stop demanding it.

Practical shifts that reduce both masking and self-censoring:

Normalize multiple communication modes (spoken, typed, AAC, cameras-off, processing time).
Make accommodations routine, not a courtroom drama (clear policy, low-friction requests).
Stop grading “professionalism” as “neurotypical performance.”
Treat disclosure as optional, not a moral test.
Include autistic-led guidance in training and service design (nothing about us without us).

Because when environments become safer, people don’t need to disappear inside themselves to survive.

What this may look like at school or work

A practical, neuro-affirming guide for parents, carers, educators, leaders, and colleagues

Masking and self-censoring don’t announce themselves with labels. They show up as patterns. Often praised. Often misunderstood. Below is a grounded, practical lens to help you notice what’s really happening and respond in ways that reduce harm rather than rewarding endurance.

What to look out for

Signs that masking may be happening

“Perfect” behaviour at school/work, collapse at home. A child or employee who holds it together all day and melts down, shuts down, or becomes ill afterwards.
Scripted participation. Rehearsed answers, copied phrases, forced eye contact, exaggerated facial expressions.
Sensory stoicism. No complaints about noise, lights, uniforms, crowds, then sudden burnout, headaches, nausea, or absenteeism.
Over-compliance. Rarely says no, never challenges instructions, appears “easy” but seems tense or flat.

Signs that self-censoring may be happening

Needs not named. Accommodations are never requested even when clearly needed.
Harm minimised. “It’s fine” after distressing incidents; reluctance to report bullying, discrimination, or overload.
Edited communication. Emails rewritten repeatedly; reluctance to speak in meetings/class discussions.
Selective silence. Bright, engaged in safe contexts, withdrawn in hierarchical or evaluative spaces.

When both are at play

High achievement with rising cost. Grades or output look strong while wellbeing steadily erodes.
Invisible distress. The person looks “okay” to everyone except those who see the after-effects.

Common misinterpretations (and why they matter)

“They’re coping.” Coping can mean surviving at a cost.
“They don’t need support, they haven’t asked.” Silence is often learned.
“They just need confidence.” This frames systemic risk as a personal deficit.
“It’s not that loud/bright/busy.” Sensory harm isn’t democratic.

These misreads reward masking and punish honesty.

How to provide support (without forcing disclosure)

1) Make support the default, not a favour

Offer standard adjustments upfront: flexible seating, movement options, quiet spaces, sensory spaces, written instructions, alternative formats.
Publish individual accommodation pathways that are clear, low-friction, and judgement-free.

2) Reduce the performance tax

Stop grading eye contact, tone, posture, enthusiasm, or “professional presence.”
Value outcomes over presentation and assumed understanding.
Allow cameras off, typed responses, processing time, and asynchronous participation.

3) Create multiple safe ways to communicate

Provide private channels for feedback and concerns.
Accept non-verbal and low-verbal communication as valid.
Let people submit questions or requests before or after meetings/classes.

4) Ask better questions

Instead of “Why didn’t you say anything?” try:

“What would make it safer to speak up here?”
“Would you prefer to tell me in writing or another way?”
“Is there a cost to you in doing this the way we have been, or at all?”

5) Separate behaviour from capacity

A calm appearance does not equal comfort or regulation.
A quiet student is not necessarily a disengaged one, or an engaged one.
A high-performing worker may be at higher risk of burnout due to masking.

School-specific guidance

For educators and leadership: Try to make the following available to ALL students

IEPs and learning plans:
- Document supports that reduce masking: sensory adjustments, movement breaks, alternative participation modes, flexible assessment.
- Include language like “student may not always verbally request support; staff to proactively offer options.”
Behaviour responses:
- Avoid removing recess or downtime. Loss of regulation time increases masking and self-censorship, in part due to less opportunity to regulate.
- Treat “compliance” as a neutral data point, a safety-seeking action, not a goal.
Transitions and assessment:
- Give advance notice, clear rubrics, exemplars, and choice in how learning is demonstrated. If students can explain their answers, the goal isn't to punish them for having the correct answers but using a different methodology to get there.

For parents and carers

Watch for after-school restraint collapse, illness patterns, or sudden refusal.
Advocate for supports based on impact, not on how visible distress is at school. Impact matters more than a teacher or school's intent. ALWAYS.
Ask schools what they do to reduce sensory and social load, not just how they manage behaviour. However, how a school or individual teachers manage behaviour is important, as this can be adding to sensory and social load, resulting in school distress.

Work-specific guidance

For managers and HR

Onboarding: Co-develop Accommodations. Explain and establish accommodations early and often. Make it normal.
Meetings: Offer agendas in advance, allow written input, summarise decisions afterwards.
Performance reviews: Focus on outputs and collaboration, not "personality" traits, or assumed understanding.
Disclosure: Make it optional. No one owes their diagnosis to deserve access.

For colleagues

Don’t reward suffering with praise.
Back people up when they name limits.
Share the labour of inclusion rather than outsourcing it to the person most affected and HR.
Don't offer patronising statements when disclosure does occur.

What not to do

Don’t frame unmasking as a personal growth task.
Don’t demand disclosure as proof.
Don’t treat accommodations as temporary kindness.
Don’t assume silence equals consent.

A note on autonomy

Some people will choose to mask or self-censor in certain contexts. For others, this is not a choice and happens automatically out of a need for safety. That choice belongs to them. It can also present as situational mutism, where the ability to be verbal "disappears" (GRANN will over this in another blog). Neuro-affirming practice isn’t about forcing authenticity; it’s about removing barriers and penalties for it.

When environments become safer, people don’t "need" to disappear inside themselves to participate.

That’s not a special adjustment.
That’s access.

Sources (academic + lived experience)

Academic / research

Pearson, A. & Rose, K. (2021). A conceptual analysis of autistic masking: Understanding the narrative of stigma and the illusion of choice.
Perry, E., et al. (2021). Understanding camouflaging as a response to autism-related stigma: a social identity theory approach.
Bradley, L., et al. (2021). Autistic adults’ experiences of camouflaging and its perceived impact on mental health.
Cassidy, S. A., et al. (2020). Is camouflaging autistic traits and association with suicidal thoughts and behaviours? Expanding the Interpersonal Psychological Theory of Suicide in an Undergraduate Student Sample
Rivera, R. A. & Bennetto, L. (2023). Applications of identity-based theories to understand the impact of stigma and camouflaging on mental health outcomes for autistic people.
Sharvit, K., et al. (2018). Self-Censorship Orientation: Scale Development, Correlates and Outcomes.

Lived-experience / community-informed

National Autistic Society (UK).
Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN).
Different Brains (autistic self-advocate dialogue). First-person descriptions of masking/camouflaging. differentbrains.org
Uniquely Human interview/discussion with Devon Price on masking/unmasking (public-facing lived-experience framing). uniquelyhuman.com