ArticleMolecular autism2026
Nuances of double empathy in autistic and non-autistic people: examination using the empathic accuracy paradigm.
Article in Molecular autism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial communication difficulties in autism were traditionally attributed to deficits in empathy, that is, understanding others' mental states and responding to these with a similar or appropriate emotion, within autistic individuals. The double empathy problem theory proposes that difficulties with cross-neurotype empathy are bidirectional. This study examines predictions from the double empathy problem theory, mainly whether autistic and non-autistic individuals differ in their empathy towards autistic versus non-autistic social targets, using an empathic accuracy paradigm alongside self-report measures of empathy and empathic interest.
methodsA novel empathic accuracy stimulus featuring video-recorded autobiographical stories from five autistic and five non-autistic adult storytellers was used. Participants [141 autistic, 94 non-autistic; mean age: 49.09 years (SD = 16.41)] were recruited through the Cambridge Autism Research Database. Each participant viewed two stories (one autistic, one non-autistic storyteller) in a randomized design, continuously rated storytellers' emotional valence, and globally rated the degree to which they believed the storytellers felt each of 12 discrete emotions. Accuracy was computed as concordance with storytellers' own ratings. Participants also self-reported empathy and empathic interest toward the storyteller in the target videos. Mixed linear models examined the effects of rater neurotype, target neurotype, and their interaction. Participants' text responses were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive, data-driven approach to identify patterns within the data, which converged into subthemes and themes.
resultsNo significant main effects emerged for rater or target neurotype on continuous valence or specific emotions' empathic accuracy. A trend-level interaction (p=.059, d = 0.13) suggested that autistic raters showed relatively higher continuous valence empathic accuracy toward autistic targets than non-autistic raters. Non-autistic raters reported significantly higher self-reported empathy (p<.001, d=-0.67) and empathic interest (p<.001, d=-0.43) regardless of target neurotype. Qualitative analysis revealed that autistic participants described difficulties in identifying emotions and in performing the EA task, and engaged in metacognitive introspection, while non-autistic participants focused more on task design feedback. LIMITATIONS: The use of video-based experimental design may not fully capture the complexity of spontaneous social encounters. The self-selected sample of autistic participants may not represent the full autism spectrum or include individuals requiring greater support, potentially affecting generalizability.
conclusionsFindings suggest partial support for the double empathy problem theory and potential underestimation of autistic participants of their own empathic abilities. Individual variability patterns caution against treating neurotypes as homogeneous categories that alone determine double empathy processes. Future research should examine real-world interactions and include measures of autistic traits across participants.
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.