Moral judgment in adults with autism spectrum disorders

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThe ability of a group of adults with high functioning autism (HFA) or Asperger Syndrome (AS) to distinguish moral, conventional and disgust transgressions was investigated using a set of six transgression scenarios, each of which was followed by questions about permissibility, seriousness, authority contingency and justification. The results showed that although individuals with HFA or AS (HFA/AS) were able to distinguish affect-backed norms from conventional affect-neutral norms along the dimensions of permissibility, seriousness and authority-dependence, they failed to distinguish moral and disgust transgressions along the seriousness dimension and were unable to provide appropriate welfare-based moral justifications. Moreover, they judged conventional and disgust transgressions to be more serious than did the comparison group, and the correlation analysis revealed that the seriousness rating was related to their ToM impairment. We concluded that difficulties providing appropriate moral justifications and evaluating the seriousness of transgressions in individuals with HFA/AS may be explained by an impaired cognitive appraisal system that, while responsive to rule violations, fails to use relevant information about the agent's intentions and the affective impact of the action outcome in conscious moral reasoning.

Moral cognition in schizophrenia

“…For example, irrespective of ToM impairments, when presented with simple transgressions, children with ASD make similar distinctions between moral and conventional transgressions (Blair, 1996) and moral judgements to typically developing children (Leslie, Mallon, & Dicorcia, 2006). However, individuals with ASD are more likely to explain the wrongness of moral transgressions via reference to rules rather than the welfare of victims and are also less likely to incorporate information about intention into their moral judgements of more complex moral transgressions, for example, by indicating that harmful accidents are worse than less harmful intentional acts (Grant, Boucher, Riggs, & Grayson, 2005;Moran et al, 2011;Shulman, Guberman, Shiling, & Bauminger, 2012;Zalla, Barlassina, Buon, & Leboyer, 2011).…”

Divergent roles of autistic and alexithymic traits in utilitarian moral judgments in adults with autism

“…Despite their social impairments, both children and adults with autism still manage to acquire knowledge about normative canon consisting of appropriateness of various moral behaviours 10,11 . For example, they can properly distinguish between moral norms that relate to suffering in victims from social conventions that are context-bound societal rules [7][8][9][10] .…”

“…Despite their social impairments, both children and adults with autism still manage to acquire knowledge about normative canon consisting of appropriateness of various moral behaviours 10,11 . For example, they can properly distinguish between moral norms that relate to suffering in victims from social conventions that are context-bound societal rules [7][8][9][10] . Although neurotypical individuals justify such distinction by referring to considerations about emotional consequences for the victim, the justifications provided by autistics tend to lack such empathic discourse and involve more rule-based rationale 9,10,72,73 .…”

“…For example, they can properly distinguish between moral norms that relate to suffering in victims from social conventions that are context-bound societal rules [7][8][9][10] . Although neurotypical individuals justify such distinction by referring to considerations about emotional consequences for the victim, the justifications provided by autistics tend to lack such empathic discourse and involve more rule-based rationale 9,10,72,73 . It is possible that in the absence of recourse to strong moral intuitions, autistics developmentally acquire compensatory strategies 70 that rely on spared intellectual abilities; indeed research in moral development showing that children with intellectual disabilities lag behind their typically developing peers in terms of moral reasoning 118 provides circumstantial evidence for this claim.…”

“…hitting others) and conventional transgressions (characterized by infraction of normative prohibitions but with no consequence for others' welfare; e.g. talking out of turn) is substantially intact in children and adults with ASD [7][8][9][10] . These studies underscore that ASD population (both children and adults) can distinguish between intentional good and bad actions and have preserved moral knowledge 11,12 .…”