Exploring the Cognitive Foundations of the Shared Attention Mechanism: Evidence for a Relationship Between Self-Categorization and Shared Attention Across the Autism Spectrum.

Costa et al. (2017) asked people to do shared-attention tasks. They also gave them autism-spectrum quizzes.

The team wanted to know if poorer shared attention links to higher autism traits. They checked whether weak self-categorization acts as the bridge.

Higher autism-quiz scores predicted worse shared-attention scores. The link was not direct.

Weak self-categorization explained the drop. When people had trouble grouping themselves with others, shared attention broke down.

Alderson-Day et al. (2011) saw the same kind of trouble earlier. Kids with autism used smaller, slower categories when they solved puzzles. The 2017 study widens the lens: categorization problems also hit social moments.

Brosnan et al. (2025) keeps the mediator idea but swaps the players. They show intolerance of uncertainty, not weak self-categorization, drives long deliberation in autistic traits. Both papers agree that an inner process, not autism itself, shapes the outcome.

Olu-Lafe et al. (2014) link higher symptom severity to slower shape-building. Costa et al. (2017) mirror that pattern in the social world: more traits, weaker self-categorization, poorer shared attention.

You can boost shared attention by strengthening self-categorization. Start small: use clear “we” language and highlight shared goals during play or work. When clients see themselves as part of the team, joint attention follows. Track the skill, not just autism scores.