Moral reasoning about everyday situations in adults with autism spectrum disorder

Bellesi, Giulia; Vyas, Karishma; Jameel, Leila; Channon, Shelley

doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2018.04.009

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine studies tested moral judgements by autistic and neurotypical adults using vignettes showing either intentional or unintentional harms, with neutral or harmful outcomes (see Table 4). Across groups, actions with neutral intentions and outcomes were judged as more permissible than those with negative intentions and outcomes (Baez et al, 2012; Bellesi et al, 2018; Moran et al, 2011), and intentional harms were viewed as less permissible than unintentional harms overall (Baez et al, 2012; Buon et al, 2013; Channon et al, 2011; Moran et al, 2011). Autistic and neurotypical adults considered acts with physical and psychological harms as more wrong than neutral acts (Tsoi et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, neurotypical participants judged transgressions with neutral intentions and negative outcomes as more permissible than did autistic participants (Moran et al, 2011). Autistic adults were more punitive in their responses to transgressions and were less accepting of transgressions than neurotypical adults regardless of intentionality (Bellesi et al, 2018). When asked to explain their judgements, autistic participants offered significantly fewer sophisticated rationales than neurotypical participants when controlling for IQ (Bellesi et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Autistic adults were more punitive in their responses to transgressions and were less accepting of transgressions than neurotypical adults regardless of intentionality (Bellesi et al, 2018). When asked to explain their judgements, autistic participants offered significantly fewer sophisticated rationales than neurotypical participants when controlling for IQ (Bellesi et al, 2018). Autistic individuals assigned greater relative blame to intentional than unintentional harms (Channon et al, 2011; Koster-Hale et al, 2013), yet significantly less blame for intentional harms than neurotypical participants (Koster-Hale et al, 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, autistic individuals do use intentionality in a typical manner when making moral judgements of intended harms with neutral outcomes (Moran et al, 2011). Finally, in one study, autistic participants judged both unintentional and intentional transgressions more harshly, suggesting that some differences in moral judgements between groups may not depend on considerations of intentionality (Bellesi, 2018). Margoni and Surian (2016) reviewed intent-based moral judgement in ASD and concluded that autistic people have "less mature" moral reasoning due to deficits in mental state understanding.…”

Section: Intent-based Moral Judgementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, if autistic children do not adhere, adhere too rigidly, or adhere in ways that differ from neurotypical children to moral prescriptions regarding care, harm, and fairness, this may interfere with social interactions and relationships (Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, & Mahajan, 2011; Rakoczy, Kaufmann, & Lohse, 2016). Given the potential ramifications of differences in moral thinking in autistic individuals, researchers have investigated whether the development and execution of moral judgement and reasoning differ in this population compared with neurotypical individuals (e.g., Bellesi, Vyas, Jameel, & Channon, 2018; Blair, 1996; Koster-Hale, Saxe, Dungan, & Young, 2013; Shulman, Guberman, Shiling, & Bauminger, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Morality in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral reasoning and decision making help guide behavior and facilitate interpersonal relationships. Accounts of morality that position commonsense psychology as the foundation of moral development, (i.e., rationalist theories) have dominated research in morality in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Given the well-documented differences in commonsense psychology among autistic individuals, researchers have investigated whether the development and execution of moral judgement and reasoning differs in this population compared with neurotypical individuals. In light of the diverse findings of investigations of moral development and reasoning in ASD, a summation and critical evaluation of the literature could help make sense of what is known about this important social-cognitive skill in ASD. To that end, we conducted a systematic review of the literature investigating moral decision making among autistic children and adults. Our search identified 29 studies. In this review, we synthesize the research in the area and provide suggestions for future research. Such research could include the application of an alternative theoretical framework to studying morality in autism spectrum disorder that does not assume a deficits-based perspective.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intent-based Moral Judgementmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Morality in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Organizational benefits of neurodiversity: Preliminary findings on autism and the bystander effect

Hartman,

Farahani,

Moore

et al. 2023

Autism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the bystander effect is one of the most important findings in the psychological literature, researchers have not explored whether autistic individuals are prone to the bystander effect. The present research examines whether autistic employees are more likely to report issues or concerns in an organization's systems and practices that are inefficient or dysfunctional. By bringing attention to these issues, autistic employees may foster opportunities to improve organizational performance, leading to the development of a more adaptive, high performing, and ethical culture. Thirty‐three autistic employees and 34 nonautistic employees completed an online survey to determine whether employees on the autism spectrum (1) are more likely to report they would voice concerns about organizational dysfunctions, (2) are less likely to report they were influenced by the number of other witnesses to the dysfunction, (3) if they do not voice concerns, are more likely to acknowledge the influence of other people on the decision, (4) are less likely to formulate “elaborate rationales” for their decisions to intervene or not, and (5) whether any differences between autistic and nonautistic employees with regards to the first two hypotheses, intervention likelihood and degree of influence, are moderated by individual differences in camouflaging. Results indicate that autistic employees may be less susceptible to the bystander effect than nonautistic employees. As a result, autistic employees may contribute to improvements in organizational performance because they are more likely to identify and report inefficient processes and dysfunctional practices when they witness them. These preliminary findings suggesting potential benefits of neurodiversity in the workplace are promising. However, further research is required.

show abstract