Enhanced rationality in autism spectrum disorder

Most research into autism spectrum disorder (ASD) focuses on difficulties and challenges, potentially overlooking intact even enhanced abilities.Empirical evidence strongly suggests that individuals with ASD display rationality: judgments are more objective decision-making is less biased than of neurotypical individuals.Enhanced rationality may confer distinct strengths to provide insights the mechanism or ‘irrationality’ in individuals. Challenges social cognition communication core characteristics (ASD), but some domains, typical abilities outperform their counterparts. These notable domains reasoning, judgment decision-making, which often show ‘enhanced rationality’ by exhibiting rational bias-free do We review for ASD, how it relates theoretical frameworks information processing its implications basic about human irrationality, what mean community. The seminal idea irrationality (see Glossary) refers tendency humans process a manner, leading suboptimal reasoning variety cognitive biases. For example, people tend favor confirms existing beliefs make decisions based way choices presented rather content. This thought has been considered so fundamental have characterized as ‘predictably irrational.’ In past several years, however, growing literature reduced susceptibility biases exhibit information, outperforming counterparts (Table 1). discoveries reveal not inevitable offers opportunity specify psychological brain mechanisms underlie both irrational decision-making. Here we consider sources potential variation mediate rationality. Enhanced also valuable understanding neurodiversity, consideration areas strength lead comprehensive ASD. {Although use person-first language this paper (‘people autism’) following guidelines issued American Psychological Association conventions Diagnostic Statistical Manual Mental Disorders (DSM-5) [1.American Publication Association.6th ed. Psychiatric Association, 2009Google Scholar], acknowledge many prefer identity-first (i.e., ‘autistic people’).}Table 1Summary disorderPhenomena/cognitive bias testedFindingsPopulationRefsReliance intuitionASD group displayed intuitive reasoning; autistic traits associated deliberative reasoningClinical nonclinical samples[13.Brosnan M. et al.Reasoning spectrum: dual theory account.J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2016; 46: 2115-2125Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar,23.Brosnan al.Brief report: reflective disorder.J. 2017; 47: 2595-2601Crossref (17) Scholar,24.Levin I.P. al.Extending competence special populations: pilot study persons spectrum.Front. Psychol. 2015; 6: 539Crossref (14) Scholar]Conjunction fallacyIndividuals susceptible influence representative regarding either itemsASD versus control group[19.Morsanyi K. al.Decontextualised minds: adolescents conjunction fallacy typically developing adolescents.J. 2010; 40: 1378-1388Crossref (24) Scholar]Attraction effectIndividuals non-ASD high degrees consistency choicesClinical samples[14.Farmer G.D. al.People conditions consistent decisions.Psychol. Sci. 28: 1067-1076Crossref (33) Scholar]Sunk-cost biasDecisions influenced costs incurred cannot be recoveredASD group[15.Fujino J. al.Sunk cost effect 2019; 49: 1-10Crossref (10) Scholar,27.Fujino al.Impact experiences disorder.Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2020; 270: 1063-1071Crossref (3) Scholar]Framing framing options choice selectionASD group[18.Martino B.D. al.Explaining logical during autism.J. 2008; 10746-10750Crossref (135) Scholar,20.Shah P. al.Emotional disorder: roles interoception alexithymia.Mol. Autism. 7: 43Crossref Scholar]Optimistic biasIndividuals learn equally from desirable undesirable informationASD group[17.Kuzmanovic B. optimism self-referential belief updating high-functioning 2990-2998Crossref (7) Scholar]Ultimatum gameIndividuals likely accept ‘unfair’ economically beneficialASD group[34.Jin al.The fair children perspective dual-process theories.BMC Psychiatry. 20: 152Crossref (1) Scholar, 35.Tei S. al.Inflexible daily behaviour ability an automatic reaction disorder.Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 8082Crossref (15) 36.Wang Y. al.Exploring relationship between fairness ‘brain types’ disorder.Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. 88: 151-158Crossref (5) Scholar]Abbreviation: disorder. Open table new tab Abbreviation: A well-known tension exists traditional economic models contemporary investigations behaviors. According models, agent should all relevant when reaching decision making judgment. However, actual behavior context occurs complex, constrained memory capacity, speed, other factors [2.Simon H.A. Theories economics behavioral science.Am. Econ. Rev. 1959; 253-283Google 3.Becker G.S. Irrational theory.J. Polit. 1962; 70: 1-13Crossref 4.Thaler R.H. Anomalies: saving, fungibility, mental accounts.J. Perspect. 1990; 4: 193-205Crossref Scholar]. Therefore, observed does reflect predictions put forward models. order account these discrepancies, Tversky Kahneman posited shortcuts, heuristics, ease load [5.Tversky A. D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics biases.Science. 1974; 185: 1124-1131Crossref (17401) Heuristics allow reach rapidly rule thumb, educated guess, judgment, without fully every bit available algorithmically. can adaptive, allowing quick effortless [6.Gigerenzer G. Goldstein Reasoning fast frugal way: bounded rationality.Psychol. 1996; 103: 650-669Crossref (1932) Scholar] ‘thinking fast’ [7.Kahneman Thinking, Fast Slow. Macmillan, 2011Google they seemingly behaviors [8.Kahneman On psychology prediction.Psychol. 1973; 80: 237-251Crossref (3128) 9.Tversky choice.Science. 1981; 211: 453-458Crossref (9381) 10.Tversky Extensional reasoning: probability judgment.Psychol. 1983; 90: 293-315Crossref (2162) 11.Tversky Loss aversion riskless choice: reference-dependent model.Q. 1991; 106: 1039-1061Crossref As sensitive context, motivations, emotions, aversions, bias-prone [4.Thaler Scholar,5.Tversky host act ‘irrationally’ psychology, economics, fields. Human boundaries information-processing capacity Scholar,12.Bazerman M.H. Neale M.A. Negotiation: Limitations Effective Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press, 1986Google therefore provides mind. multiple studies independently reported frequently [13.Brosnan 14.Farmer 15.Fujino 16.Gosling C.J. Moutier Brief risk-aversion disorders.J. 48: 3623-3628Crossref 17.Kuzmanovic 18.Martino 19.Morsanyi 20.Shah 21.South al.Enhanced risk avoidance disorder.Neuropsychology. 2014; 222-228Crossref (49) sense, might better classic noted across designs. particular, seems arise confound behavior, such overreliance intuition, overweighting irrelevant attraction reward, negative information. necessary prequel Importantly, confounded intuition. instance, imagine you information: coffee pastry $1.10. $1 pastry. How much cost? An intuitive, (surprisingly) wrong, response would ‘$0.10’; (and correct) answer $0.05. most people, heuristic, immediately ‘jumps mind’ [22.Frederick Cognitive reflection decision-making.J. 2005; 19: 25-42Crossref (2157) asked questions one above, (Box 1) correctly aligns well subjective who self-report intuition ([23.Brosnan see findings deliberation decreased intuition). association reliance factor underlying measure challenges 1), striking patterns.Box 1Autistic traits‘Autistic traits’ refer continuously distributed population. Individuals diagnosis mostly cluster at extreme end distribution, there continuous variance general population [81.Ruzich E. al.Measuring population: systematic Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) sample 6,900 adult males females.Mol. 2Crossref (192) Several questionnaires used quantify traits. diagnostic purposes, because designed delineate clinical category.The (AQ)AQ 50-item questionnaire quantifies adults [82.Baron-Cohen (AQ): Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, females, scientists mathematicians.J. 2001; 31: 5-17Crossref (3463) Statements span different include preferences (‘I things others my own’), imagination (‘If I try something, find very easy create picture mind’), (‘Other tell me I’ve said impolite, though think polite’), local-over-global notice patterns time’), sensory sensitivities small sounds not’), strong interests interests, get upset if can’t pursue’), break routine same over again’). Participants indicate agree disagree statements 4-point Likert scale. One overall score traits.The Social Responsiveness Scale-2 (SRS-2)Similar AQ, SRS 65-item participants rate scale each statement describes [83.Constantino J.N. Gruber C.P. Scale: SRS-2. Western Services, 2012Google SRS-2, focused capacities abilities. addition total score, SRS-2 separate scores subscales: Awareness am usually aware feeling’), Cognition recognize trying take advantage me’), Communication able communicate feelings others’), Motivation alone Restricted Interests Repetitive Behavior (‘When stress, engage rigid inflexible seem odd people’). ‘Autistic category. AQ (SRS-2) Similar salient irrelevant. judgments, incorrectly improbable explanations probable due presence highly evident tasks examining [10.Tversky wherein asked, read description ‘Jerry,’ hardworking man sits desk, makes telephone calls, owns stocks. then rank describe Jerry’s profession, two statements: ‘Jerry broker,’ plumber,’ broker zookeeper.’ Strikingly, (‘Jerry plumber’) single plumber’), Jerry jobs mathematically smaller having any job. consistently, correctly, independent elements [19.Morsanyi Critically, situations no person-specific descriptions items people), suggesting well-documented drive tested conjunctions (e.g., zookeeper zookeeper’), actually are, similar Since according rules probability, always least descriptors compared descriptors, domain driven per se, face Irrelevant choices. preference competitive ice cream french fries) adding third, clearly inferior, option (a decoy; e.g., cracker), change one’s original preference. individuals’ heavily expansion set affect Changing decoy shift toward item ([25.Huber al.Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations regularity similarity hypothesis.J. Consum. Res. 1982; 9: 90-98Crossref Scholar]; effect). effect, fries crackers food group, person otherwise chosen fries. item, regardless added [14.Farmer propensity integrate establishing expressed sunk bias, irrationally incurred, recovered [26.Arkes H.R. Blumer C. cost.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1985; 35: 124-140Crossref (1327) trip cancel neither ticket reimbursed). Unlike counterparts, cost) [15.Fujino sum, differ distinguishing reward outcomes, facilitators learning. attracted rewards averse creates especially clear where described gains losses, gain loss identical ‘lose $20 $50’ ‘keep $30 [9.Tversky Scholar]). Studies magnitude [18.Martino veridical Similarly, probabilistic learning manipulate frequency magnitude, high-frequency large low rewards, former coupled resulting net loss. tasks, superior performance drawn immediate salience long-term contingencies accurately outcomes [21.South Scholar,28.Mussey J.L. al.Decision-making skills ASD: Iowa Gambling Task.Autism 105-114Crossref (34) Scholar,29.Vella L. al.Understanding self-reported