Dual process in moral decision making in autistic adults without intellectual disability: features and skills

Dual thinking distinguishes between heuristic- and deliberate-led processes. Applied to general cognition, these processes are similar in autistic and neurotypical subjects. This study in the field of moral cognition aimed to compare the use of heuristic and deliberative moral decision-making in autistic adults and neurotypical adults, both without intellectual disability (ID).

Sixty-one adults (30 autistic, 31 neurotypical; mean age = 39.2 years) without intellectual disability completed six moral dilemmas (Heinz, trolley, footbridge, collision, obstacle, crying baby) under heuristic (immediate response) and deliberative conditions (20-second reflection time). Moral judgments (acceptance, blame, punishment) and justifications were collected. Group comparisons used χ²/Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney tests, complemented by Bayesian analyses and ordinal logistic regression to strengthen inference and account for ordinal response distribution.

Autistic adults and neurotypical adults mostly used the same heuristic and deliberative moral decision-making except for the heuristic in the Heinz dilemma. Estimation of moral action acceptability differed significantly between autistic and neurotypical subjects in the accidental action (collision) dilemma. The justifications proposed by the former differed significantly from those of the latter for certain dilemmas (Heinz, Trolley, footbridge and obstacle).

Moral judgment in autistic adults is complex. For moral decisions that are identical to those of neurotypical people, the cognitive processing and the justifying arguments may differ depending on the context.