Autistic people differ from non-autistic people subjectively, but not objectively in their reasoning

Autism has been linked to difficulties within the social domain and quick decision-making. The Dual Process Theory of Autism proposes that autistic people, compared to non-autistic people, tend to prefer and perform in a more deliberative and less intuitive reasoning style, suggesting enhanced rationality in autism. However, this theory has not been systematically explored across social and non-social domains. In total, 24 autistic adults and 24 age-, gender- and non-verbal cognitive ability–matched non-autistic counterparts completed subjective and objective measures of reasoning. A scenario-based comparison task was employed, covering both social and non-social domains, to assess whether participants consistently used the same strategy across domains or alternated between strategies for their forced-choice judgements. On a subjective measure of reasoning, compared to their counterparts, autistic participants self-reported lower intuition. However, there was an opposite pattern on an objective measure, in that autistic participants responded more intuitively. No significant group differences were identified between autistic and non-autistic participants on self-reported deliberation, objectively measured reflectiveness or forced-choice moral judgements across social and non-social domains. There might be a discrepancy among autistic people for their subjective preferences and objective performances in reasoning, decision-making and judgements. Lay Abstract Autistic people often experience challenges in social contexts, and when decisions need to be made quickly. There is evidence showing that autistic people have a tendency for greater deliberation and lower intuition, compared to non-autistic people. This has led to the researchers’ proposal that autism is associated with an enhanced level of rationality. However, these theories have been mostly explored through the lens of either only non-social domain or only social domain. To address this gap, we recruited autistic adults and carefully matched them with non-autistic adults for comparison. We used a task representing both social and non-social interactions in a comparison structure and asked participants’ moral judgements on scenarios’ main characters. This was complemented by subjective and objective measures of reasoning. Our findings did not reveal meaningful differences between groups in terms of deliberation. However, we did observe that autistic participants self-reported lower levels of intuition, compared to non-autistic participants. Autistic people consistently rate themselves as less intuitive than their counterparts. Nevertheless, objective evidence supporting this across tasks and studies is inconsistent.