Brief Report: Young Children with Autism Can Generate Intent-Based Moral Judgments

Margoni, Francesco; Guglielmetti, Giulia; Surian, Luca

doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04212-9

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, they could have difficulties processing all this information, making a correct decision regarding the agent's morality. This explanation would be in line with a large body of evidence showing impairments in the domain of executive functions in autistic individuals (Hill & Bird, 2006;Margoni, Guglielmetti & Surian, 2019;Ozonoff, 1997;Zelazo et al, 2002). In the study by Moran et al (2011), autistic individuals who successfully passed a false belief task showed impairments in integrating conflicting information about mental states (neutral intention) and bad outcomes in moral judgement.…”

Section: Intention-or Outcome-based Judgements and Agent's Moralitysupporting

confidence: 77%

Investigating moral judgements in autistic children: integrating the observer’s and the speaker’s mind

García-Molina

Clemente-Estevan

Andrés‐Roqueta

2020

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Intention-or Outcome-based Judgements and Agent's Moralitysupporting

confidence: 77%

Investigating moral judgements in autistic children: integrating the observer’s and the speaker’s mind

García-Molina

Clemente-Estevan

Andrés‐Roqueta

2020

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, moral judgement, that is, determining whether transgressors were morally right or wrong in their actions, was shown to be generally similar between autistic and neurotypical individuals (e.g. Akechi et al, 2018; Blair, 1996; Margoni et al, 2019), whereas the nature of justifications for those decisions, that is, moral reasoning, differed (e.g. Grant et al, 2005; Shulman et al, 2012), as did the degree of blame or culpability assigned to moral transgressors (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral foundations theory in autism spectrum disorder: A qualitative investigation

Dempsey

Moore

Richard

et al. 2020

Autism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morality is important for how humans treat each other and non-human animals. Differences in moral reasoning have been found between autistic and neurotypical individuals. Research in this area has relied on accounts of moral psychology that suggest increasingly mature moral principles that develop from taking the perspectives of others. Yet, even autistic individuals, who sometimes differ in their ability to take others’ perspectives, make moral judgements that are similar to neurotypical individuals. Moral foundations theory suggests that moral psychology is not hierarchical but differs depending on culture. Moral foundations theory has not yet been investigated among autistic individuals. This qualitative study used interviews and qualitative analysis as a first attempt at understanding how moral foundations theory fits with autistic moral thinking. We found that all five moral foundations of moral foundations theory were represented in the interviews, yet certain foundations appeared more prominent than others. The autistic adults interviewed in our study discussed issues of care and fairness more than of loyalty, authority or purity when prompted to discuss moral transgressions. Future research should use quantitative methods to compare groups of autistic and neurotypical individuals to clarify similarities and differences in moral thinking between the groups. Lay abstract Morality is important for how humans treat each other and non-human animals. Differences in moral thinking have been found between autistic and neurotypical individuals. This research has relied on ways of thinking about moral psychology that suggest that mature morals develop as individuals learn to take the perspectives of others. Yet, even autistic individuals, who sometimes differ in their ability to take others’ perspectives, make moral judgements that are similar to neurotypical individuals. Moral foundations theory suggests that moral psychology is not hierarchical but differs depending on culture. This theory could therefore help make sense of similarities and differences in autistic and neurotypical moral thinking. Moral foundations theory has not yet been investigated among autistic individuals. In this study, we interviewed autistic adults as a first attempt at understanding how moral foundations theory fits with autistic moral thinking. We found that all five moral foundations of moral foundations theory were represented in the interviews, yet certain foundations appeared more prominent than others. The autistic adults interviewed in our study discussed issues of care and fairness more than of loyalty, authority or purity when prompted to discuss moral transgressions. Future research should use quantitative methods to compare groups of autistic and neurotypical individuals to clarify similarities and differences in moral thinking between the groups.

show abstract

“…According to a second broad family of theories, the outcome‐to‐intent shift in moral judgment is best explained by development of the cognitive control necessary to override a prepotent response to condemn actions that cause harm based on a representation of intent (Buon et al., 2016; Margoni, Guglielmetti, & Surian, 2019; Margoni & Surian, 2016). Thus, the key developmental attainment is not in theory of mind, but instead in executive function.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along the same lines, this hypothesis can accommodate distinctive patterns of moral judgment by those with autism. These individuals often show increased condemnation of accidental harms (Buon et al., 2013; Moran et al., 2011), and recent work has suggested that this may not be due to deficits in the representational ability to attribute intentions but rather limitations in cognitive resources (Margoni et al., 2019). Our results on state‐level reductions in cognitive resources accord well with this prediction, as does other work on trait‐level reductions associated with those with autism (Buon et al., 2013; Moran et al., 2011) or through the course of normal aging (Margoni et al., 2018; Margoni et al., 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies find that individuals with autism show an abnormal (and selective) increased condemnation of accidental harm when judging permissibility (Moran et al., 2011) and punishment (Buon et al., 2013) relative to controls. Recent work has added to these findings by showing that young children with autism judge cases of accidental harm no different from controls when the processing demands of the task are reduced (Margoni et al., 2019), suggesting that differences in judgment in those with autism may stem from capacity limitations. Further research should determine if this pattern is more pronounced for judgment of wrongness compared to judgments of punishment as the theory attainment hypothesis would predict.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Cognitive Load on Intent‐Based Moral Judgment

Martin

Buon²,

Cushman

2021

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When making a moral judgment, people largely care about two factors: Who did it (causal responsibility), and did they intend to (intention)? Since Piaget's seminal studies, we have known that as children mature, they gradually place greater emphasis on intention, and less on mere bad outcomes, when making moral judgments. Today, we know that this developmental shift has several signature properties. Recently, it has been shown that when adults make moral judgments under cognitive load, they exhibit a pattern similar to young children; that is, their judgments become notably more outcome based. Here, we show that all of the same signature properties that accompany the outcome‐to‐intent shift in childhood characterize the “intent‐to‐outcome” shift obtained under cognitive load in adults. These findings hold important implications for current theories of moral judgment.

show abstract

Brief Report: Young Children with Autism Can Generate Intent-Based Moral Judgments

Cited by 16 publications

References 53 publications

Investigating moral judgements in autistic children: integrating the observer’s and the speaker’s mind

Investigating moral judgements in autistic children: integrating the observer’s and the speaker’s mind

Moral foundations theory in autism spectrum disorder: A qualitative investigation

The Effect of Cognitive Load on Intent‐Based Moral Judgment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About