Autism does not Dictate Children's Lack of Sharing in a Prosocial Choice Test

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

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.

The role of social motivation in sharing and fairness: insights from Williams syndrome

BACKGROUND

Sharing and fairness are important prosocial behaviors that help us navigate the social world. However, little is known about how and whether individuals with Williams Syndrome (WS) engage in these behaviors. The unique phenotype of individuals with WS, consisting of high social motivation and limited social cognition, can also offer insight into the role of social motivation in sharing and fairness when compared to typically developing (TD) individuals. The current study used established experimental paradigms to examine sharing and fairness in individuals with WS and TD individuals.

METHODS

We compared a sample of patients with WS to TD children (6-year-olds) matched by mental age (MA) on two experimental tasks: the Dictator Game (DG, Experiment 1, N = 17 WS, 20 TD) with adults modeling giving behaviors used to test sharing and the Inequity Game (IG, Experiment 2, N = 14 WS, 17 TD) used to test fairness.

RESULTS

Results showed that the WS group behaved similarly to the TD group for baseline giving in the DG and in the IG, rejecting disadvantageous offers but accepting advantageous ones. However, after viewing an adult model giving behavior, the WS group gave more than their baseline, with many individuals giving more than half, while the TD group gave less. Combined these results suggest that social motivation is sufficient for sharing and, in particular, generous sharing, as well as the self-focused form of fairness. Further, individuals with WS appear capable of both learning to be more generous and preventing disadvantageous outcomes, a more complex profile than previously known.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the present study provides a snapshot into sharing and fairness-related behaviors in WS, contributing to our understanding of the intriguing social-behavioral phenotype associated with this developmental disorder.