Thinking, fast and slow on the autism spectrum.
Mark Brosnan, Chris Ashwin
PMID 36325717WHAT IT FOUND
Autistic and control participants changed their answers similarly when given less or more time.
Autistic participants overall gave fewer quick off-the-cuff answers and more slower thought-out answers, but time pressure did not affect them differently than controls. The task was lab reasoning not therapy.
Key findings
01The autism group made fewer intuitive and more deliberative responses than the control group.
02Changing response time affected both groups similarly: less time produced more intuitive answers, and waiting produced more deliberative answers.
03Higher autistic traits were linked to more deliberative responses, and that link stayed after diagnosis was controlled for. The link with fewer intuitive responses did not stay.
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 measured reasoning on a lab test, not therapy outcomes, so it does not show that changing response time improves everyday decision-making. All participants were summer-school students considering university, so it says little about autistic people outside that academic range or with intellectual disability. Cognitive ability was not explicitly assessed, although the authors note the reasoning bias is dissociable from ability. The test had only three items, and intuitive and deliberative answers were linked, so a lower intuitive score could partly reflect a higher deliberative score. Response times were not analysed in the main study because group testing was not suitable for timing. No community involvement was reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the timing finding as proof that giving autistic clients less time makes them better decision-makers. The study only changed response time in a lab reasoning task, did not test therapy, and did not measure everyday social or occupational outcomes.