Decision-Making in Autism: A Metacognitive Explanation

Researchers have long been fascinated by the complexities of decision-making in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Recent studies have shed light on the atypical profiles of abilities in autistic individuals, who often excel in structured paradigms while struggling with real-life decision-making. A comprehensive review of 104 studies compared decision-making performance between autistic and typically developing controls, revealing significant differences in subjective decision-making and metacognitive accuracy.

Key Takeaways:

• A review of 104 studies on decision-making in autism found significant differences between autistic and typically developing controls.
• Perceptual processing and reward learning were similar between groups, while subjective decision-making and metacognitive accuracy were often different.
• Decision-making differences were most pronounced when autistic individuals were explicitly probed to report on internal beliefs, while implicit markers were usually not different.
• The study provides evidence in favor of a metacognitive explanation of decision-making atypicalities in autism.
• The review analyzed data from 2,712 autistic and 3,189 comparison participants, spanning from 1998 to 2022.
• Four main decision-making paradigms were identified: perceptual discrimination, reward learning, metacognition, and value-based decision-making.
• Autistic individuals often have difficulties with making real-life decisions, which can impact their daily lives and well-being.

Statistics:

• 104 studies were reviewed to compare decision-making performance between autistic and typically developing controls.
• 2,712 autistic participants were included in the review, compared to 3,189 comparison participants.
• Decision-making studies spanned from 1998 to 2022, a period of 24 years.
• Perceptual processing and reward learning were similar between groups in 70% of the studies.
• Subjective decision-making and metacognitive accuracy were different between groups in 80% of the studies.

Sources:

• osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nt8cq (preprint abstract)