Understanding decision-making in autistic children and adolescents: Insights from deliberative processes and behavioral economic paradigms.

IF 5.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Autism Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1177/13623613251323493
Farah Ghosn, Manuel Perea, Marta Lizarán, Melanie Labusch, Alba Moreno-Giménez, Rosa Sahuquillo-Leal, Belén Almansa, Julia Buesa, Laura Campos, Juan A Pérez, Ana García-Blanco
{"title":"Understanding decision-making in autistic children and adolescents: Insights from deliberative processes and behavioral economic paradigms.","authors":"Farah Ghosn, Manuel Perea, Marta Lizarán, Melanie Labusch, Alba Moreno-Giménez, Rosa Sahuquillo-Leal, Belén Almansa, Julia Buesa, Laura Campos, Juan A Pérez, Ana García-Blanco","doi":"10.1177/13623613251323493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior research has shown conflicting findings on decision-making differences between autistic and non-autistic individuals. To address this issue, we applied the Ultimatum and Dictator Games to examine explicit measures (probability of endorsing monetary offers) and implicit measures (response times) associated with decision-making behaviors. By analyzing response times, we aimed to determine whether decisions were intuitive (rapid) or deliberative (slower) reasoning processes. In addition, we administered an executive functions questionnaire to explore how cognitive skills correlate with implicit and explicit decision-making behaviors. The study included 24 autistic and 24 non-autistic children and adolescents aged 8-18 years. Results showed that autistic participants were less likely to propose selfish offers in the Dictator Game than their non-autistic peers. Among autistic participants, this lower tendency to propose selfish offers correlated with better executive function skills. Regarding response times, autistic participants exhibited slower responses than non-autistic participants when accepting and proposing selfish offers in both games. These findings reveal differences in selfish offer tendencies and deliberative reasoning among participants, suggesting that slower decision-making in autistic participants reflects a focus on fairness and sociomoral reasoning. Future research can explore how this reasoning style influences social interactions in various scenarios.Lay AbstractAutistic kids and teens often have unique ways of communicating and socializing with others. Making decisions is important in how we behave daily and how we socialize. To study if autistic participants tend to make more cooperative or selfish choices, we used two games where participants had to share money between themselves and another player. Previous results were not consistent and that is why general assumptions could not be established. Also, previous results focused on the final decisions and did not consider the process that leads to making decisions. To fill the gap in what we know, this study dug deeper by evaluating how quickly or slowly participants made decisions and explored executive functions needed for daily decisions. The study found that autistic participants, with better executive functions, made less selfish offers (where they could keep more money than their peers) than non-autistic participants. Also, autistic participants took more time to decide than non-autistic participants, only when they could earn more money than the other player. Interestingly, these results are consistent with studies indicating that autistic children distribute resources without a primary focus on personal gains. These findings reshape how we view social exchanges and recognize that slow, deliberate thinking can lead to less selfish decisions in autistic children and adolescents. Future research could explore how this reasoning style influences social interactions in varied contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":8724,"journal":{"name":"Autism","volume":" ","pages":"13623613251323493"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Autism","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251323493","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prior research has shown conflicting findings on decision-making differences between autistic and non-autistic individuals. To address this issue, we applied the Ultimatum and Dictator Games to examine explicit measures (probability of endorsing monetary offers) and implicit measures (response times) associated with decision-making behaviors. By analyzing response times, we aimed to determine whether decisions were intuitive (rapid) or deliberative (slower) reasoning processes. In addition, we administered an executive functions questionnaire to explore how cognitive skills correlate with implicit and explicit decision-making behaviors. The study included 24 autistic and 24 non-autistic children and adolescents aged 8-18 years. Results showed that autistic participants were less likely to propose selfish offers in the Dictator Game than their non-autistic peers. Among autistic participants, this lower tendency to propose selfish offers correlated with better executive function skills. Regarding response times, autistic participants exhibited slower responses than non-autistic participants when accepting and proposing selfish offers in both games. These findings reveal differences in selfish offer tendencies and deliberative reasoning among participants, suggesting that slower decision-making in autistic participants reflects a focus on fairness and sociomoral reasoning. Future research can explore how this reasoning style influences social interactions in various scenarios.Lay AbstractAutistic kids and teens often have unique ways of communicating and socializing with others. Making decisions is important in how we behave daily and how we socialize. To study if autistic participants tend to make more cooperative or selfish choices, we used two games where participants had to share money between themselves and another player. Previous results were not consistent and that is why general assumptions could not be established. Also, previous results focused on the final decisions and did not consider the process that leads to making decisions. To fill the gap in what we know, this study dug deeper by evaluating how quickly or slowly participants made decisions and explored executive functions needed for daily decisions. The study found that autistic participants, with better executive functions, made less selfish offers (where they could keep more money than their peers) than non-autistic participants. Also, autistic participants took more time to decide than non-autistic participants, only when they could earn more money than the other player. Interestingly, these results are consistent with studies indicating that autistic children distribute resources without a primary focus on personal gains. These findings reshape how we view social exchanges and recognize that slow, deliberate thinking can lead to less selfish decisions in autistic children and adolescents. Future research could explore how this reasoning style influences social interactions in varied contexts.

了解自闭症儿童和青少年的决策:审议过程和行为经济学范式的启示。
先前的研究表明,自闭症患者和非自闭症患者在决策方面的差异存在矛盾。为了解决这个问题,我们使用了最后通牒和独裁者游戏来检查与决策行为相关的明确度量(支持金钱提议的概率)和隐含度量(反应时间)。通过分析响应时间,我们旨在确定决策是直觉的(快速的)还是深思熟虑的(较慢的)推理过程。此外,我们还通过执行功能问卷来探讨认知技能与内隐和外显决策行为之间的关系。这项研究包括了24名8-18岁的自闭症儿童和24名非自闭症儿童和青少年。结果显示,在独裁者游戏中,自闭症参与者比非自闭症参与者更不可能提出自私的提议。在自闭症参与者中,这种较低的提出自私提议的倾向与更好的执行功能技能相关。就反应时间而言,在接受和提出自私的提议时,自闭症参与者比非自闭症参与者表现出更慢的反应。这些发现揭示了参与者在自私的提议倾向和审慎推理方面的差异,表明自闭症参与者较慢的决策反映了他们对公平和社会道德推理的关注。未来的研究可以探索这种推理方式如何影响各种场景下的社会互动。自闭症儿童和青少年通常有独特的沟通和社交方式。做决定对我们的日常行为和社交方式都很重要。为了研究自闭症参与者是倾向于合作还是自私的选择,我们使用了两个游戏,参与者必须在自己和另一个玩家之间分享钱。以前的结果并不一致,这就是为什么不能建立一般假设的原因。此外,以前的结果侧重于最终决策,而没有考虑导致决策的过程。为了填补我们所知道的空白,这项研究通过评估参与者做出决策的速度和速度,以及探索日常决策所需的执行功能,进行了更深入的挖掘。研究发现,与非自闭症参与者相比,具有更好执行功能的自闭症参与者做出的自私提议(他们可以比同龄人保留更多的钱)更少。此外,自闭症参与者比非自闭症参与者花了更多的时间来做决定,只有当他们能比其他玩家赚更多的钱时才会如此。有趣的是,这些结果与表明自闭症儿童分配资源并不主要关注个人利益的研究是一致的。这些发现重塑了我们对社会交往的看法,并认识到缓慢、深思熟虑的思考可以让自闭症儿童和青少年做出更少自私的决定。未来的研究可以探索这种推理方式如何影响不同背景下的社会互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Autism
Autism PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
11.50%
发文量
160
期刊介绍: Autism is a major, peer-reviewed, international journal, published 8 times a year, publishing research of direct and practical relevance to help improve the quality of life for individuals with autism or autism-related disorders. It is interdisciplinary in nature, focusing on research in many areas, including: intervention; diagnosis; training; education; translational issues related to neuroscience, medical and genetic issues of practical import; psychological processes; evaluation of particular therapies; quality of life; family needs; and epidemiological research. Autism provides a major international forum for peer-reviewed research of direct and practical relevance to improving the quality of life for individuals with autism or autism-related disorders. The journal''s success and popularity reflect the recent worldwide growth in the research and understanding of autistic spectrum disorders, and the consequent impact on the provision of treatment and care. Autism is interdisciplinary in nature, focusing on evaluative research in all areas, including: intervention, diagnosis, training, education, neuroscience, psychological processes, evaluation of particular therapies, quality of life issues, family issues and family services, medical and genetic issues, epidemiological research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信