Moral foundations in autistic people and people with systemizing minds.

IF 6.3 1区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY Molecular Autism Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1186/s13229-024-00591-8
Yeshaya David M Greenberg, Rosemary Holt, Carrie Allison, Paula Smith, Robbie Newman, Theo Boardman-Pretty, Jonathan Haidt, Simon Baron-Cohen
{"title":"Moral foundations in autistic people and people with systemizing minds.","authors":"Yeshaya David M Greenberg, Rosemary Holt, Carrie Allison, Paula Smith, Robbie Newman, Theo Boardman-Pretty, Jonathan Haidt, Simon Baron-Cohen","doi":"10.1186/s13229-024-00591-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Do autistic people share the same moral foundations as typical people? Here we built on two prominent theories in psychology, moral foundations theory and the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory, to observe the nature of morality in autistic people and systemizers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In dataset 1, we measured five foundations of moral judgements (Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity) measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) in autistic (n = 307) and typical people (n = 415) along with their scores on the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ). In dataset 2, we measured these same five foundations along with E-S cognitive types (previously referred to as \"brain types\") in a large sample of typical people (N = 7595).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Autistic people scored the same on Care (i.e., concern for others) as typical people (h1). Their affective empathy (but not their cognitive empathy) scores were positively correlated with Care. Autistic people were more likely to endorse Fairness (i.e., giving people what they are owed, and treating them with justice) over Care (h2). Their systemizing scores were positively correlated with Fairness. Autistic people or those with a systemizing cognitive profile had lower scores on binding foundations: Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity (h3). Systemizing in typical people was positively correlated with Liberty (i.e., hypervigilance against oppression), which is a sixth moral foundation (h4). Although the majority of people in all five E-S cognitive types self-identified as liberal, with a skew towards empathizing (h5), the percentage of libertarians was highest in systemizing cognitive types (h6). E-S cognitive types accounted for 2 to 3 times more variance for Care than did sex.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Our study is limited by its reliance on self-report measures and a focus on moral judgements rather than behavior or decision-making. Further, only dataset 2 measured political identification, therefore we were unable to assess politics in autistic people.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We conclude that some moral foundations in autistic people are similar to those in typical people (despite the difficulties in social interaction that are part of autism), and some are subtly different. These subtle differences vary depending on empathizing and systemizing cognitive types.</p>","PeriodicalId":18733,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Autism","volume":"15 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11092219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Autism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-024-00591-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Do autistic people share the same moral foundations as typical people? Here we built on two prominent theories in psychology, moral foundations theory and the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory, to observe the nature of morality in autistic people and systemizers.

Methods: In dataset 1, we measured five foundations of moral judgements (Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity) measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) in autistic (n = 307) and typical people (n = 415) along with their scores on the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ). In dataset 2, we measured these same five foundations along with E-S cognitive types (previously referred to as "brain types") in a large sample of typical people (N = 7595).

Results: Autistic people scored the same on Care (i.e., concern for others) as typical people (h1). Their affective empathy (but not their cognitive empathy) scores were positively correlated with Care. Autistic people were more likely to endorse Fairness (i.e., giving people what they are owed, and treating them with justice) over Care (h2). Their systemizing scores were positively correlated with Fairness. Autistic people or those with a systemizing cognitive profile had lower scores on binding foundations: Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity (h3). Systemizing in typical people was positively correlated with Liberty (i.e., hypervigilance against oppression), which is a sixth moral foundation (h4). Although the majority of people in all five E-S cognitive types self-identified as liberal, with a skew towards empathizing (h5), the percentage of libertarians was highest in systemizing cognitive types (h6). E-S cognitive types accounted for 2 to 3 times more variance for Care than did sex.

Limitations: Our study is limited by its reliance on self-report measures and a focus on moral judgements rather than behavior or decision-making. Further, only dataset 2 measured political identification, therefore we were unable to assess politics in autistic people.

Conclusions: We conclude that some moral foundations in autistic people are similar to those in typical people (despite the difficulties in social interaction that are part of autism), and some are subtly different. These subtle differences vary depending on empathizing and systemizing cognitive types.

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
自闭症患者和具有系统化思维的人的道德基础。
背景:自闭症患者的道德基础与典型患者相同吗?在此,我们以心理学中两个著名的理论--道德基础理论和移情-系统化(E-S)理论为基础,观察自闭症患者和系统化者的道德本质:在数据集 1 中,我们通过道德基础问卷(MFQ)测量了自闭症患者(n = 307)和典型患者(n = 415)的五个道德判断基础(关爱、公平、忠诚、权威和神圣),以及他们在移情商数(EQ)和系统化商数(SQ)上的得分。在数据集 2 中,我们对典型人群(样本数 = 7595)的 E-S 认知类型(以前称为 "大脑类型")以及这五项基础进行了测量:结果:自闭症患者在 "关怀"(即关心他人)方面的得分与典型人群相同(h1)。他们的情感移情(而非认知移情)得分与 "关怀 "呈正相关。相比 "关心",自闭症患者更倾向于赞同 "公平"(即给予他人应得的,并以公正的方式对待他人)(h2)。他们的系统化得分与公平性呈正相关。自闭症患者或具有系统化认知特征的人在约束基础方面的得分较低:忠诚、权威和神圣(h3)。典型人群的系统化与自由(即对压迫的高度警惕)呈正相关,而自由是第六个道德基础(h4)。虽然五种 E-S 认知类型中的大多数人都自我认同为自由主义者,并偏向于同情(h5),但系统化认知类型中自由主义者的比例最高(h6)。E-S认知类型对 "关怀 "的影响是性别的2至3倍:局限性:我们的研究依赖于自我报告测量,并且侧重于道德判断而非行为或决策,因此存在局限性。此外,只有数据集 2 对政治认同进行了测量,因此我们无法对自闭症患者的政治情况进行评估:我们得出的结论是,自闭症患者的某些道德基础与典型患者相似(尽管自闭症患者在社会交往方面存在困难),而某些道德基础则有细微差别。这些细微差别因共情和系统化认知类型的不同而异。
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
Molecular Autism
Molecular Autism GENETICS & HEREDITY-NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
44
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Molecular Autism is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes high-quality basic, translational and clinical research that has relevance to the etiology, pathobiology, or treatment of autism and related neurodevelopmental conditions. Research that includes integration across levels is encouraged. Molecular Autism publishes empirical studies, reviews, and brief communications.
期刊最新文献
Understanding cognitive flexibility in emotional evaluation in autistic males and females: the social context matters. Investigating frank autism: clinician initial impressions and autism characteristics. Auditory N1 event-related potential amplitude is predictive of serum concentration of BPN14770 in fragile X syndrome. Characterizing genetic pathways unique to autism spectrum disorder at multiple levels of biological analysis. Developmental trajectories in infants and pre-school children with Neurofibromatosis 1.
×
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