A look at “Theory of Mind and Moral Decision-Making in the Context of Autism Spectrum Disorder” by Jessica E. Ringshaw, Katie Hamilton and Susan Malcolm-Smith (2022)
Imagine you have ten stickers to share between two children. One worked harder, or has fewer toys, or is unwell. Do you give more to the child who seems more deserving, or split them evenly? There’s no single right answer. Philosophers have been arguing about it for millennia. But this South African study treats the answer as a window into how autistic children think about others.
What they found
The researchers worked with 76 boys aged 6 to 12: 38 autistic and 38 non-autistic, matched on age and family background. The boys completed tasks measuring theory of mind (the ability to work out what other people think, know or feel), as well as a sharing game. In the game, they divided resources between characters who differed in how hard they’d worked, how wealthy they were, or how healthy they were.
The headlines:
- Both groups mostly gave more to the “deserving” character, such as the harder worker or the poorer child. This is called equity-based sharing.
- But autistic boys were more likely to split things equally.
- Theory of mind scores predicted sharing choices. Boys with higher scores were more likely to give extra to the character in a disadvantaged position.
The authors suggest that differences in theory of mind may make it harder for autistic children to connect their feelings of empathy with moral information about who “deserves” more. They describe the preference for equal sharing as “atypical”.
A grain of glitter ✨
This is a carefully designed study, and it adds valuable data from outside Europe and North America. But its framing deserves a long, hard, sparkly look.
The biggest issue is that splitting things equally isn’t wrong. It’s a perfectly coherent principle of fairness, and many moral traditions favour it. The authors themselves note that preferring to reward “deservingness” reflects individualistic cultural norms. Treating the neurotypical choice as the benchmark, and anything else as a deficit, is exactly the kind of thinking the neurodiversity movement challenges. Some might argue a consistent “everyone gets the same” rule shows a strong sense of justice, not a lack of one.
The idea of theory of mind “deficits” in autism is also increasingly contested. The double empathy problem suggests that misunderstandings between autistic and non-autistic people run both ways. Only verbal boys were included, so girls, gender-diverse children and non-speaking children are absent. And the study is now a few years old, from a field that’s moving quickly.
Why this matters
If you’re autistic and have ever been told you’re “rigid” or “black and white” for wanting things to be fair and equal, this study, ironically, shows how such judgements get made. A different way of reasoning about fairness isn’t a broken one. In therapy, it’s worth being curious about your values rather than assuming they need correcting.
This unicorn’s view? Equal shares of glitter for all, and a very firm talking-to for anyone who hogs the rainbow.