Better to be equal? Challenges to equality for cognitively able children with autism spectrum disorders in a social decision game.
In money games, autistic tweens drop equality for extra coins when no one gets hurt, showing a practical rather than spiteful style of cooperation.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers asked 8- to young learners kids to play a simple money game. Each child chose to split coins either equally or to keep more for themselves. Half of the kids had autism and average IQ; half were neurotypical peers.
The game had two rules. In one round, choosing more coins for yourself also took coins away from the partner. In the other round, taking extra did not hurt the partner. Kids made choices in private and met the partner afterward.
What they found
Both groups preferred equal splits when equality cost them nothing. When taking extra coins did not hurt the partner, autistic children switched to self-gain more often than peers. They still called the split fair, even when it was unequal.
Neurotypical children mostly stayed with equal splits, even when they could gain more without penalty.
How this fits with other research
Granieri et al. (2020) extends this finding into adulthood. Autistic adults were rated more negatively by both neurotypical and autistic partners, yet they reported feeling closer to other autistic partners. Together the studies show autistic individuals may use different social rules, not lack social interest.
Vink et al. (2019) used a similar lab game with kids who had developmental delays. They found that when pairs lacked clear leaders, tasks failed. Pairing this with Boudreau et al. (2015) suggests that explicit roles or rules help neurodiverse groups cooperate.
Rasga et al. (2017) showed autistic kids catch up to peers on false-belief tasks by age ten. Boudreau et al. (2015) adds that even after catching up, their economic choices still differ, pointing to separate social-motivation tracks.
Why it matters
You may see cognitively able autistic clients accept unequal deals without protest. This is not always passive compliance; it can be a reasoned choice when they see no harm to others. Teach them to scan for hidden social costs and to self-advocate for fair shares. Use clear visual scoreboards in group work so gains and losses are visible to everyone.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a visible partner score to any point system and prompt students to check both totals before choosing.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Much controversy surrounds questions about whether humans have an aversion to inequity and how a commitment to equality might play a role in cooperation and other aspects of social interactions. Examining the social decisions of children with autism spectrum disorders provides a fascinating opportunity to explore these issues. Specifically, we evaluated the possibility that children with autism spectrum disorders may be less likely than typically developing children to show a prioritisation of equality. A total of 69 typically developing (mean age 11;6 years) and 57 cognitively able children with autism spectrum disorders (mean age 11;7 years) played a social decision game in which the equality option was pitted against alternatives that varied in instrumental outcomes. Results showed that both groups were more likely to choose the equality option when there was no cost to the self. However, even though children with autism spectrum disorders appeared to view equality as preferable to causing explicit harm to others, they departed from an equality stance when there was an opportunity to increase instrumental gain without any obvious harm to the self or the other. Typically developing children, in contrast, showed similar prioritisation of equality across these contexts. Future research needs to address the question of how differences in the commitment to equality affect children's social behaviour and relationships in daily life.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2015 · doi:10.1177/1362361313516547