Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth is: Examining Metacognition in ASD Using Post-decision Wagering.
Katie L Carpenter, David M Williams, Toby Nicholson
PMID 31292897WHAT IT FOUND
Adults with autism were not significantly less accurate than comparison adults at betting on their own perceptual judgements.
They did take longer to place the bet, and in students more autism traits were linked to less accurate betting.
Key findings
01Adults with autism did not differ significantly from comparison adults in accuracy of betting on their own judgements.
02Adults with autism took significantly longer to place their bet than comparison adults.
03In the student sample, higher autism-trait scores were associated with less accurate betting, even after accounting for how well they saw the dots.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
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 study did not test therapy or a clinical intervention. Experiment 2 had small groups, so a real small difference in betting accuracy could have been missed. The participant count is confusing: the paper says 39 students took part in Experiment 1, then says one participant was excluded leaving n = 39. It did not include children, although the authors suggest development may matter.
Declared interests
The Economic and Social Research Council funded the work. The supplied text does not report other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that adults with autism are less accurate about their own confidence. The accuracy difference between groups was not significant, although they took longer to bet.