Identifying the Cognitive Correlates of Reciprocity in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The team looked at kids with autism and asked: what thinking skill best predicts how well they share and take turns?

They gave tests for cool executive function (like card sorting), hot executive function (like waiting for candy), and theory of mind (false-belief stories).

Then they watched the same kids play games that need back-and-forth give-and-take and scored their reciprocity.

Only the executive function scores told us which kids struggled with reciprocity.

Theory of mind scores showed no link, even though every child had classic ToM delays.

Chiu et al. (2023) seems to disagree. They followed 106 autistic kids for two years and saw early ToM scores predict later social back-and-forth.

The gap is timing: the 2023 study looked long-term, while Szu-Shen et al. (2020) captured a single moment. Short-term reciprocity may ride on EF, but over years ToM still shapes social growth.

Song et al. (2024) also flips the script. In an irony task, only second-order ToM mattered; executive function added nothing. Different social tasks pull different skills, so match your assessment to your treatment target.

When you need to know why a child can’t share toys or take turns today, give quick EF tests first. ToM data are useful for long-range planning, yet they won’t tell you if the client is ready for peer reciprocity right now. Start with EF drills like stop-go practice or delayed gratification games, then layer in ToM lessons once basic give-and-take runs smoothly.