Better to be equal? Challenges to equality for cognitively able children with autism spectrum disorders in a social decision game

Abstract

Much controversy surrounds questions about whether humans have an aversion to inequity and how a commitment to equality might play a role in cooperation and other aspects of social interactions. Examining the social decisions of children with autism spectrum disorders provides a fascinating opportunity to explore these issues. Specifically, we evaluated the possibility that children with autism spectrum disorders may be less likely than typically developing children to show a prioritisation of equality. A total of 69 typically developing (mean age 11;6 years) and 57 cognitively able children with autism spectrum disorders (mean age 11;7 years) played a social decision game in which the equality option was pitted against alternatives that varied in instrumental outcomes. Results showed that both groups were more likely to choose the equality option when there was no cost to the self. However, even though children with autism spectrum disorders appeared to view equality as preferable to causing explicit harm to others, they departed from an equality stance when there was an opportunity to increase instrumental gain without any obvious harm to the self or the other. Typically developing children, in contrast, showed similar prioritisation of equality across these contexts. Future research needs to address the question of how differences in the commitment to equality affect children's social behaviour and relationships in daily life.

Inflexible daily behaviour is associated with the ability to control an automatic reaction in autism spectrum disorder

“…In particular, although both ASD and TD might sustain an innate desire for their material possessions, their decision-making during the UG may not entirely align with the economic model of rational pursuit of self-interest 64 , which perhaps could be associated with ASDs’ atypical egocentrism (e.g. restricted or stereotyped behaviour) and self-other reciprocity 52 , 53 , as well as altered reasoning and emotional processing 8 , 65 . Thus, it is possible that the response in the UG among ASD might have also measured some other factors (including the above) rather than a sole flexibility.…”

“…It is imperative to further assess the flexibility regarding the fairness-preference and perspective-taking (emotional understanding of others) as these emotional processing could be altered in ASD 1 . Likewise, it is also essential to investigate the potential presence of a gap between the level of perceived inequality aversion and rule-based fairness preference towards others in the ASD population 52 , 67 . In this relation, a more robust validation of DFlex in people with ASD is warranted, although DFlex has been applied in several studies investigating autism.…”

“…In addition, we also assessed participants’ response time of the button press during the UG. Notably, the justification might still be required to apply the UG among individuals with ASD, which is attributed to their fairness recognition 52 and altered self-other reciprocity 53 .…”

Spontaneous helping behavior of autistic and non‐autistic (Pre‐)adolescents: A matter of motivation?

“…Each subtype of pro-social behavior has unique characteristics and developmental trajectories, and thus it is important to consider each individually when it comes to the behavior of autistic children and adolescents [Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2013]. In terms of sharing behavior, despite an abundance of anecdotal data indicating a deficit and many interventions focused on increasing sharing in autistic children [Lane & Ledford, 2016], when presented with resource allocation tasks they show similar sharing tendencies to their non-autistic peers [Sally & Hill, 2006;Schmitz, Banerjee, Pouw, Stockmann, & Rieffe, 2015;Hartley & Fisher, 2018] and have even been shown to share more resources than their peers [Paulus & Rosal-Grifoll, 2017]. With regard to comforting, although autistic children express less facial concern [Butean, Costescu, & Dobrean, 2014], they engage in equal amounts of verbal and nonverbal comforting as their non-autistic peers when someone expresses physical pain [Butean et al, 2014;Travis, Sigman, & Ruskin, 2001;Bacon, Fein, Morris, Waterhouse, & Allen, 1998] or appears visibly upset when excluded from a ball-tossing game [Deschamps, Been, & Matthys, 2014].…”

Does kindness always pay? The influence of recipient affection and generosity on young children’s allocation decisions in a resource distribution task

“…of tasks adapted from those used in economic decisionmaking games, including simplified versions of the dictator and ultimatum games (e.g., Benenson et al 2007;Blake and Rand 2010;Gummerum et al 2008Gummerum et al , 2010Harbaugh and Krause 2000), and the prosocial choice test (e.g., Brownell et al 2009;Claidiere et al 2015;Dahlman et al 2007;Fehr et al 2008;House et al 2012House et al , 2013Schmitz et al 2015). The most common, although not exclusive (e.g., House et al 2012), developmental pattern witnessed across tasks is one in which children become increasingly generous with age (e.g., Benenson et al 2007;Blake and Rand 2010;Brownell et al 2009;Gummerum et al 2010), a pattern that is most evident in situations where the donor pays no direct or relative cost for their generosity (e.g., Dahlman et al 2007;Fehr et al 2008;Thompson et al 1997).…”