Dual process theory proposes two distinct reasoning processes in humans, an intuitive style that is rapid and automatic and a deliberative style that is more effortful. However, no study to date has specifically examined these reasoning styles in relation to the autism spectrum. The present studies investigated deliberative and intuitive reasoning profiles in: (1) a non-clinical sample from the general population with varying degrees of autism traits (n = 95), and (2) males diagnosed with ASD (n = 17) versus comparisons (n = 18). Taken together, the results suggest reasoning on the autism spectrum is compatible with the processes proposed by Dual Process Theory and that higher autism traits and ASD are characterised by a consistent bias towards deliberative reasoning (and potentially away from intuition).

Dual Process Theory has recently been applied to Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to suggest that reasoning by people with ASD and people with higher levels of ASD-like traits can be characterised by reduced intuitive and greater reflective processing. 26 adolescents and adults with ASD and 22 adolescent and adult controls completed an assessment of ASD-like traits, the cognitive reflections test (CRT) to measure intuitive and reflective reasoning and an index of general cognitive ability. The ASD group produced less intuitive responses, and the degree of ASD-like traits showed a negative correlation with intuitive responses and positive correlation with reflective responses on the CRT. Together, these results are consistent with ASD being associated with reduced intuitive reasoning and greater deductive reasoning.

Holyoak and Morrison (2012) argue that 'Every fully functioning human adult shares a sense that the ability to think, to reason, is a part of their fundamental identity' (p. 1). When thinking and reasoning, humans have a propensity to base many of their judgements on prior beliefs and experiences, rather than utilising a more logical and complete approach to reasoning (see Evans and Stanovich, 2013). Although it is assumed that judgements based on beliefs and experiences are suboptimal compared to a more reflective and analytic approach, both modes of reasoning have been found to be more effective under different circumstances (see for review Dijkstra et al., 2013). When considering human reasoning, dual process theory proposes both intuitive 'Type 1' and deliberative 'Type 2' processing, which has been a dominant model within cognitive psychology for over 50 years (Evans and Frankish, 2009). Type 1, also known as intuitive, processing is autonomous and typically involves rapid, effortless, parallel, non-conscious processing that is independent of working memory and general cognitive ability. On the other hand, Type 2, also known as deliberative, processing involves slower, effortful, sequential and conscious processing and is heavily dependent on working memory and is related to individual differences in general cognitive ability (

This is the first study to explore the relationship between Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) theory that provides an account of sex differences in human cognition and dual process theories of cognition. 68 undergraduates undertook both performance and self-report assessments of Empathizing, intuition, Systemizing and deliberation. A fast (500ms) and slow (5000ms) version of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Task (RMET) was included to explore the effects of rapid presentation on emotional stimuli. Consistent with E-S theory, sex differences were found in Empathizing (favouring females) and Systemizing (favouring males). Females were also found to be more intuitive and males more deliberative for performance, but not self-report, assessments of intuition and deliberation. Empathizing significantly positively correlated with intuition and negatively with deliberation. Conversely, Systemizing significantly positively correlated with deliberation and negatively with intuition (trend). This pattern was replicated in a study of 65 participants from the general population. The exception was the RMET which had no significant sex differences or correlates (fast or slow). The implications for considering both dual process theories of cognition and E-S theory are discussed, with a focus upon the implications for Autism Spectrum Disorder and psychosis. Highlights:  Sex differences were identified in Empathizing and intuition favouring females.  Sex differences were identified in Systemizing and deliberation favouring males.  Empathizing was related to intuition and Systemizing was related to deliberation.  Differences between self-report and performance measures were identified.

Objectives Negative content in hearing voices (i.e., auditory verbal hallucinations) has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes including voice‐related distress. Voice appraisals and responding mindfully to voices are theorized to reduce voice‐related distress. This study aimed in examine mediators of the negative content voice‐related distress relationship in clinical (those who recently received input from mental health services) and non‐clinical voice‐hearers. Methods One hundred and twenty‐one adults (71.9% female; 35.5% mixed or non‐white ethnic background) who hear voices were recruited online and completed self‐report measures of negative content of voices, voice‐related distress, mindfulness of voices, interpretation of loss of control, thought suppression and intrusion. Results Clinical voice‐hearers had significantly higher levels of negative content, voice‐related distress and interpretation of loss of control than non‐clinical voice‐hearers. A mindful approach to voices and interpretation of loss of control mediated the relationship between negative content and voice‐related distress across the whole sample. Thought suppression and intrusion did not mediate the relationship. Conclusions The results support the use of mindfulness‐based psychological intervention to reduce voice‐related distress. Further development of valid and reliable measures specifically relating to constructs of voice content, voice‐related distress and voice suppression will support further research in this area.