![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.JPG)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Northwest Hall (Chicago Hilton)
3:30 PM
Background: Economists explain other-regarding behavior using the idea of 'social preferences' and distinguish between 'outcome-based strategies' (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999), in which agents focus mainly on the material consequences of their actions, and 'intention-based strategies' (Rabin, 1993), in which agents react to each other's perceived intentions. One way to distinguish the relative success of the two strategies in predicting actual choices is to compare the behavior of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and Normally Developing (ND) individuals, in situations in where both outcomes concern and intention-detection could be important.
Objectives: While ND children acquire full mentalizing and empathising abilities quite early, subjects affected by ASD usually show difficulties in ascribing and understanding others mental states (Baron-Cohen, 1995; Cohen and Volkmar 1997; Gillberg, 1999). For this reason the analysis of their behaviour in strategic situations can be useful in understanding the nature of social preferences.
Methods: 18 participants with ASD (all males; aver.chron.age=15 yrs;DS=3;4; aver.IQ=84; DS=10) and 41 ND children (all males; aver.chron.age=10;5yrs; DS=9 mths) were asked to play four mini-ultimatum game (mini-UG) di Falk, Fehr e Fischbacher (2003). The participants were also tested for mentalizing abilities with a second order false belief task (Wimmer & Perner, 1985) and with the Cambridge Empathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004).
Results: Children with ASD were lower than NDs in empathy scores (ASD aver. EQ scores=32.33; DS=5.61 - ND aver. EQ scores =40.41; DS=7.52 – z=3.73; p<0.01) and only the 44% of them passed the false belief task, while the 100% of NDs succeeded in that test (chi square = 148.24; df=1; p < 0,01). ND subjects follow the same pattern already observed in adults in previous research, characterized by positive and negative reciprocity and inequality-aversion, while ASD subjects show negative reciprocity and greater levels of inequality-aversion (z =-2.67, p< 0,05). ASD subjects with a lack of ToM are not susceptible to positive reciprocity (z =-2.56, p< 0,05).
Conclusions: The other-regarding behavior of children with ASD can be explained mainly by inequality-aversion that in this population was not related with empathy, possibly because ASDs referred inequality to their materials gains and not the benefit of the others. Furthermore, a lack of intention-detection was involved in perseverant negative reciprocal choices. These findings suggest that the effect of perceived intentions in motivating reciprocal behavior is not as linear as standard economist rational choice theory suggests but needs to be further investigated.
Objectives: While ND children acquire full mentalizing and empathising abilities quite early, subjects affected by ASD usually show difficulties in ascribing and understanding others mental states (Baron-Cohen, 1995; Cohen and Volkmar 1997; Gillberg, 1999). For this reason the analysis of their behaviour in strategic situations can be useful in understanding the nature of social preferences.
Methods: 18 participants with ASD (all males; aver.chron.age=15 yrs;DS=3;4; aver.IQ=84; DS=10) and 41 ND children (all males; aver.chron.age=10;5yrs; DS=9 mths) were asked to play four mini-ultimatum game (mini-UG) di Falk, Fehr e Fischbacher (2003). The participants were also tested for mentalizing abilities with a second order false belief task (Wimmer & Perner, 1985) and with the Cambridge Empathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright, 2004).
Results: Children with ASD were lower than NDs in empathy scores (ASD aver. EQ scores=32.33; DS=5.61 - ND aver. EQ scores =40.41; DS=7.52 – z=3.73; p<0.01) and only the 44% of them passed the false belief task, while the 100% of NDs succeeded in that test (chi square = 148.24; df=1; p < 0,01). ND subjects follow the same pattern already observed in adults in previous research, characterized by positive and negative reciprocity and inequality-aversion, while ASD subjects show negative reciprocity and greater levels of inequality-aversion (z =-2.67, p< 0,05). ASD subjects with a lack of ToM are not susceptible to positive reciprocity (z =-2.56, p< 0,05).
Conclusions: The other-regarding behavior of children with ASD can be explained mainly by inequality-aversion that in this population was not related with empathy, possibly because ASDs referred inequality to their materials gains and not the benefit of the others. Furthermore, a lack of intention-detection was involved in perseverant negative reciprocal choices. These findings suggest that the effect of perceived intentions in motivating reciprocal behavior is not as linear as standard economist rational choice theory suggests but needs to be further investigated.