DOI work
Fetched
Post
crossref
Peter Rush, Connor T. Keating, Selma Lugtmeijer, Evie Allmark, Anna Davis, Aradhna Beejadhur, Amy Tarling, Samuel Hannon, et al.
(2025).
Autistic and non-autistic prosocial decision-making: The impact of recipient neurotype.
Research in Autism, 128, 202710.
Elsevier BV.
- Publication date
-
October 2025
- Identifier
-
10.1016/j.reia.2025.202710
- Authors
-
Peter Rush,
Connor T. Keating,
Selma Lugtmeijer,
Evie Allmark,
Anna Davis,
Aradhna Beejadhur,
Amy Tarling,
Samuel Hannon,
Kelan Todd,
Alexander Iddles,
Chaitrali Vichare,
Michael J.M. Gachomba,
Patricia L. Lockwood,
Matthew Apps,
Sophie Sowden-Carvalho
- Source
- Research in Autism
- Details
- 128, 202710
- Reference type
- article
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Metadata source
- crossref
Abstract
A body of research suggests cross-neurotype interpersonal interactions may be more challenging, and non-autistic individuals show less interest in interacting with their autistic peers. However, it is not clear whether such cross-neurotype differences extend to prosocial decision-making behaviour – something that is vital for forming and maintaining social bonds. Using a physical-effort-based decision-making paradigm, in combination with computational modelling, we examined 30 autistic and 30 non-autistic individuals’ prosocial willingness to exert physical effort for oneself and others, as a function of whether the beneficiary shares their neurotype or not. We compared decisions to exert effort and action energisation when participants made decisions for the S elf, Other Same neurotype and Other Different neurotype. Results showed a robust self-bias in effort discounting, with both groups choosing to exert more effort for themselves than others, and no differences between same and different neurotype others. However, while non-autistic participants showed no difference in action energisation between the same and different neurotype others, autistic participants exerted significantly more force for others of the same neurotype. Implicit, but not explicit, biases held about autism played a role: in autistic participants, higher implicit autism stigma predicted differences in effort discounting between same and different neurotype others, while in non-autistic participants, implicit bias predicted differences in actual effort exerted rather than decision-making. This work has important implications for understanding how interactor neurotypes and autism-specific biases may feed into prosocial decision-making contexts such as employment, health and education settings, where autistic individuals face the everyday consideration of whether to disclose their diagnostic status. • Robust self-bias in effort decisions in autistic and non-autistic adults regardless of recipient. • Computational modelling reveals identical effort discounting patterns across groups. • Autistic adults exert more effort for same-neurotype others in action execution. • Implicit, not explicit, bias predicts prosocial behaviour in both groups. • Cross-neurotype prosocial motivation differs between decision-making and actions.
Study authors in this cited reference