Highly logical and non-emotional decisions in both risky and social contexts: understanding decision making in autism spectrum disorder through computational modeling.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Processing Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1007/s10339-024-01182-4
Francisco Molins, Nour Ben-Hassen Jemni, Dolores Garrote-Petisco, Miguel Ángel Serrano
{"title":"Highly logical and non-emotional decisions in both risky and social contexts: understanding decision making in autism spectrum disorder through computational modeling.","authors":"Francisco Molins, Nour Ben-Hassen Jemni, Dolores Garrote-Petisco, Miguel Ángel Serrano","doi":"10.1007/s10339-024-01182-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In risky contexts, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) individuals exhibit more logical consistency and non-emotional decisions than do typical adults (TAs). This way of deciding could be also prevailing in social contexts, leading to maladaptive decisions. This evidence is scarce and inconsistent, and further research is needed. Recent developments in computational modeling allow analysis of decisional subcomponents that could provide valuable information to understand the decision-making and help address inconsistencies. Twenty-seven individuals with ASD and 25 TAs were submitted to a framing-task and the ultimatum game (UG). The Rescorla-Wagner computational model was used to analyze UG decisions. Results showed that in the UG, the ASD group exhibited a higher utilitarianism, characterized by lower aversion to unfairness and higher acceptance of offers. Moreover, this way of deciding was predicted by the higher economic rationality found in the framing task, where people with ASD did not manifest emotional biases such as framing effect. These results could suggest an atypical decision making, highly logical and non-emotional, as a robust feature of ASD.</p>","PeriodicalId":47638,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Processing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11269346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Processing","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-024-01182-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In risky contexts, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) individuals exhibit more logical consistency and non-emotional decisions than do typical adults (TAs). This way of deciding could be also prevailing in social contexts, leading to maladaptive decisions. This evidence is scarce and inconsistent, and further research is needed. Recent developments in computational modeling allow analysis of decisional subcomponents that could provide valuable information to understand the decision-making and help address inconsistencies. Twenty-seven individuals with ASD and 25 TAs were submitted to a framing-task and the ultimatum game (UG). The Rescorla-Wagner computational model was used to analyze UG decisions. Results showed that in the UG, the ASD group exhibited a higher utilitarianism, characterized by lower aversion to unfairness and higher acceptance of offers. Moreover, this way of deciding was predicted by the higher economic rationality found in the framing task, where people with ASD did not manifest emotional biases such as framing effect. These results could suggest an atypical decision making, highly logical and non-emotional, as a robust feature of ASD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在风险和社交环境中做出高度逻辑性和非情感性决策:通过计算建模了解自闭症谱系障碍的决策制定。
在有风险的情况下,自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)患者比典型成人(TAs)表现出更多的逻辑一致性和非情绪化决策。这种决策方式在社会环境中也可能普遍存在,从而导致不适应性决策。这方面的证据很少且不一致,需要进一步研究。计算模型的最新发展允许对决策子组件进行分析,这可以为理解决策提供有价值的信息,并帮助解决不一致的问题。研究人员让 27 名 ASD 患者和 25 名 TA 进行了框架任务和最后通牒游戏(UG)。Rescorla-Wagner 计算模型用于分析 UG 决策。结果显示,在UG中,ASD组表现出较高的功利主义,其特点是对不公平的厌恶程度较低,对提议的接受程度较高。此外,在框架任务中发现的较高经济理性也预示了这种决策方式,在框架任务中,ASD 患者没有表现出框架效应等情感偏差。这些结果表明,高度逻辑性和非情感性的非典型决策是自闭症的一个显著特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Processing
Cognitive Processing PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Cognitive Processing - International Quarterly of Cognitive Science is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes innovative contributions in the multidisciplinary field of cognitive science.  Its main purpose is to stimulate research and scientific interaction through communication between specialists in different fields on topics of common interest and to promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary cognitive science. Cognitive Processing is articulated in the following sections:Cognitive DevelopmentCognitive Models of Risk and Decision MakingCognitive NeuroscienceCognitive PsychologyComputational Cognitive SciencesPhilosophy of MindNeuroimaging and Electrophysiological MethodsPsycholinguistics and Computational linguisticsQuantitative Psychology and Formal Theories in Cognitive ScienceSocial Cognition and Cognitive Science of Culture
期刊最新文献
Autistic and non-autistic adults use discourse context to determine a speaker's intention to request. Testing the dual-memory framework: individual differences in the magnitude of the retrieval practice effect and fluid intelligence The effect of cognitive intervention program on intelligence scores in preschool Choosing between bad and worse: investigating choice in moral dilemmas through the lens of control. The impact of cognitive flexibility on prospective EFL teachers' critical thinking disposition: the mediating role of self-efficacy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1