Deceptive behaviour in autism: A scoping review.
Ralph Bagnall, Ailsa Russell, Mark Brosnan and 1 others
PMID 34825581WHAT IT FOUND
Across 28 studies, many autistic children were less successful at deception games and everyday deception, and often could not maintain deception.
Some autistic adults deceived as well as or better than comparison groups, especially with higher verbal ability.
Key findings
01Four studies found autistic children significantly less likely than typically developing children to pass a hide-and-seek deception task.
02Many autistic children used verbal deception to cover a transgression, but significantly fewer than typically developing children maintained it when asked about the object's identity.
03A study found autistic adults were equally likely as typically developing adults to deceive a computerised opponent, and more likely to deceive when it was optional.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
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 review included only English sources and used specific databases and search terms, so relevant studies may have been missed. Studies that only tested deception understanding or detection were excluded, so the review is narrower than all deception-related abilities. It included reviews, theoretical papers and unpublished work, so the evidence base was not limited to primary studies. Most included studies were quantitative case-control designs, and many samples were male, with 72% of autistic participants male. The mean age of autistic participants was 12.86 years, and only eight studies involved autistic adults; four of those used mixed age samples and did not separate younger and older participants. Training studies had very small samples, including reports with three participants, and the review could not separate improved understanding from learned responses. Members of the autism community were not involved in design, implementation or interpretation. The review did not establish why deception varied, because theory of mind and executive function findings were inconsistent and compensatory strategies were not measured.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The work was conducted as PhD research jointly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the University of Bath.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat deception training as proven. The training studies had very small samples, and the review could not separate improved understanding from learned responses.