ArticleAutism : the international journal of research and practice2025
Autistic people differ from non-autistic people subjectively, but not objectively in their reasoning.
Article in Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding autistic identity contingencies: The chain mediation effect of autism acceptance and loneliness in ableist microaggressions and social camouflage.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026Article
- Autism and detecting verbal truth and lies: veracity decisions, cue selection, judgment confidence, and self-report reasoning.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Reduced Susceptibility to the Dunning-Kruger Effect in Autistic Employees.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026Article
- Sensory-movement underpinnings of lifelong neurodivergence: getting a grip on autism.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
lay abstractAutistic people often experience challenges in social contexts, and when decisions need to be made quickly. There is evidence showing that autistic people have a tendency for greater deliberation and lower intuition, compared to non-autistic people. This has led to the researchers' proposal that autism is associated with an enhanced level of rationality. However, these theories have been mostly explored through the lens of either only non-social domain or only social domain. To address this gap, we recruited autistic adults and carefully matched them with non-autistic adults for comparison. We used a task representing both social and non-social interactions in a comparison structure and asked participants' moral judgements on scenarios' main characters. This was complemented by subjective and objective measures of reasoning. Our findings did not reveal meaningful differences between groups in terms of deliberation. However, we did observe that autistic participants self-reported lower levels of intuition, compared to non-autistic participants. Autistic people consistently rate themselves as less intuitive than their counterparts. Nevertheless, objective evidence supporting this across tasks and studies is inconsistent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.