Construction of Past and Future Events in Children and Adolescents with ASD: Role of Self-relatedness and Relevance to Decision-Making.

Ciaramelli et al. (2018) asked 8- to young learners with and without autism to tell short stories. They wanted stories about real past events and possible future events. Half the stories had to be about the child. Half had to be about someone else.

The team counted how many clear, inside details each child gave. They also gave tests for autism traits and theory-of-mind skills.

Kids with autism gave fewer inside details for both past and future stories. The drop was large for self stories and for other-person stories. The fewer details a child gave, the stronger their autism traits and the weaker their theory-of-mind scores.

In plain words: autistic youth struggle to build rich personal movies of yesterday and tomorrow.

Terrett et al. (2013) saw the same future-story gap first. Ciaramelli et al. (2018) widen the lens by adding past stories and self vs. other cues. The new data show the problem is not just future thinking; it is both directions.

Ye et al. (2023) pooled 29 papers and found the same global drop. Their meta-analysis now engulfs the 2018 result, giving it more weight.

Simó-Pinatella et al. (2013) look at a cousin skill: remembering to act later. They found autistic kids miss time-based cues but catch event-based cues. Elisa’s kids also miss self-cues, hinting that both time and self tags may share a fragile base in theory of mind.

If a client cannot picture next week, a goal chart may feel blank. Add visual strips, video models, or peer stories to fill the scene. Break long goals into tiny steps and rehearse each step aloud. Check theory-of-mind tasks early; weak scores flag clients who will need these extra scaffolds.