Reasoning on the Autism Spectrum: A Dual Process Theory Account

Abstract

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).

Does testosterone impair men’s cognitive empathy? Evidence from two large-scale randomized controlled trials

“…A sample of at least 870 participants (in a between-subject design), or 435 subjects (in a within-subject design), which is over 26 to 54 (within-subject 13 to 26) times greater than previous investigations, would 6 These include RMET baseline scores, portion A or B, 2D:4D and treatment interactions, Cognitive Reflection Task (CRT) scores, math abilities, mood and affective measures, treatment expectancy, age, marital status, sexual preference, and all other measured hormones that were not influenced by T treatment. The CRT control was added because performance is impaired by exogenous T (Gideon Nave, Nadler, Zava, & Camerer, 2017) and people with ASD outperform non-ASD age-matched controls (Brosnan, Lewton, & Ashwin, 2016). 7 These include Cognitive Reflection Task (CRT) scores, factor 1 and 2 psychopathy measures, treatment expectancy, age, marital status, sexual preference, and all other measured hormones that were not influenced by T treatment.…”

“…Furthermore, in an analysis analogous to the previous positive report (van Honk et al, 2011), we found no correlation between the treatment effect on the RMET and the right-hand 6 These include RMET baseline scores, portion A or B, 2D:4D and treatment interactions, Cognitive Reflection Task (CRT) scores, math abilities, mood and affective measures, treatment expectancy, age, marital status, sexual preference, and all other measured hormones that were not influenced by T treatment. The CRT control was added because performance is impaired by exogenous T (Gideon Nave, Nadler, Zava, & Camerer, 2017) and people with ASD outperform non-ASD age-matched controls (Brosnan, Lewton, & Ashwin, 2016).…”

Linguistic and individual factors in meaning comprehension

“…Interestingly, Perkins et al (2006) report that autistic individuals show more errors in temporal expressions as well as the use of tense, and encounter difficulty in aspectual meaning. These could be associated with difficulty in information integration (Minshew and Goldstein, 1998) or a tendency towards deliberative reasoning before making decisions (Brosnan et al, 2014(Brosnan et al, , 2016De Martino et al, 2008). Accordingly, we expect that individuals with high vs. low autistic traits would show different processing profiles in the course of calculating underspecified meaning (cf.…”

Can Artificial Intelligences Suffer from Mental Illness? A Philosophical Matter to Consider

“…This comprises System 1 and System 2 parts of brain functioning; the former offering autonomous (automatic, fast, evolutionarily old, ‘unconscious’) versus the latter considered (reasoned, thought out, slow, evolutionarily recent, ‘conscious’) aspects of brain activities. This approach has been increasingly applied to mental illness, so that for example higher autism traits (Brosnan et al 2016) and cognitive vulnerability to depression (Haeffel et al 2007) are characterised by a consistent bias towards deliberative reasoning of System 2. Although Dual Process Theory does have limitations, particularly those assuming that all mental functions can be mapped on to (i) two principal cognitive systems, and (ii) that these 2 systems interact with each other to represent mental function; it does nevertheless offer a practical approach to assess the complex system of cognition in each conscious individual.…”