Attitudes toward risk and ambiguity in patients with autism spectrum disorder.
Junya Fujino, Shisei Tei, Ryu-Ichiro Hashimoto and 8 others
PMID 28824795WHAT IT FOUND
Adults with autism were less bothered by unknown odds when winning was possible, but less willing to take known odds when losing was possible.
They also changed their choices less between winning and losing situations, especially with unknown odds.
Key findings
01When gains were possible, adults with autism were less bothered by unknown odds than controls, while their choices when odds were known did not differ.
02When losses were possible, adults with autism were less willing to take known odds than controls, while their choices under unknown odds did not differ.
03Adults with autism changed their choices less between gain and loss situations when odds were unknown than controls did.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The analyzed sample was small: 24 adults with ASD and 26 controls. Half the ASD participants were taking psychotropic drugs, and different drugs were used, so medication effects cannot be ruled out. The loss session always came after the gain session, so fatigue or order effects could have influenced results. The control group was younger than the ASD group. The study was exploratory and did not correct for multiple comparisons, so some significant findings may not replicate. All ASD participants were high functioning with full-scale IQ above 80, so findings may not apply to autistic adults with lower IQ. The study measured attitudes and correlations, not tested interventions, so it cannot show what treatment would change these patterns.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the significant group differences as proof of a general decision-making deficit in autism or as support for a treatment. Several comparisons were not significant, the study was exploratory and did not correct for multiple comparisons, and no intervention was tested.