Autistic and non-autistic prosocial decision-making: The impact of recipient neurotype

A body of research suggests cross-neurotype interpersonal interactions may be more challenging, and non-autistic individuals show less interest in interacting with their autistic peers. However, it is not clear whether such cross-neurotype differences extend to prosocial decision-making behaviour – something that is vital for forming and maintaining social bonds. Using a physical-effort-based decision-making paradigm, in combination with computational modelling, we examined 30 autistic and 30 non-autistic individuals’ prosocial willingness to exert physical effort for oneself and others, as a function of whether the beneficiary shares their neurotype or not. We compared decisions to exert effort and action energisation when participants made decisions for the S elf , Other Same neurotype and Other Different neurotype . Results showed a robust self-bias in effort discounting, with both groups choosing to exert more effort for themselves than others, and no differences between same and different neurotype others. However, while non-autistic participants showed no difference in action energisation between the same and different neurotype others, autistic participants exerted significantly more force for others of the same neurotype. Implicit, but not explicit, biases held about autism played a role: in autistic participants, higher implicit autism stigma predicted differences in effort discounting between same and different neurotype others, while in non-autistic participants, implicit bias predicted differences in actual effort exerted rather than decision-making. This work has important implications for understanding how interactor neurotypes and autism-specific biases may feed into prosocial decision-making contexts such as employment, health and education settings, where autistic individuals face the everyday consideration of whether to disclose their diagnostic status. • Robust self-bias in effort decisions in autistic and non-autistic adults regardless of recipient. • Computational modelling reveals identical effort discounting patterns across groups. • Autistic adults exert more effort for same-neurotype others in action execution. • Implicit, not explicit, bias predicts prosocial behaviour in both groups. • Cross-neurotype prosocial motivation differs between decision-making and actions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Research in Autism
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reia.2025.202710
Primary Topic
Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Autistic and non-autistic prosocial decision-making: The impact of recipient neurotype

Selma Lugtmeijer, Michael Joe Munyua Gachomba, Connor Tom Keating, Anna Davis et al.
Research in Autism
Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
article

Autistic and non-autistic prosocial decision-making: The impact of recipient neurotype

Selma Lugtmeijer, Michael Joe Munyua Gachomba, Connor Tom Keating, Anna Davis, Sophie C. Hannon, Sophie Sowden, Patricia L. Lockwood, Matthew A J Apps, Kelan Todd, Peter Rush, Alexander Iddles, Evie Allmark, Aradhna Beejadhur, Amy Tarling, Chaitrali Vichare
article en

Abstract

A body of research suggests cross-neurotype interpersonal interactions may be more challenging, and non-autistic individuals show less interest in interacting with their autistic peers. However, it is not clear whether such cross-neurotype differences extend to prosocial decision-making behaviour – something that is vital for forming and maintaining social bonds. Using a physical-effort-based decision-making paradigm, in combination with computational modelling, we examined 30 autistic and 30 non-autistic individuals’ prosocial willingness to exert physical effort for oneself and others, as a function of whether the beneficiary shares their neurotype or not. We compared decisions to exert effort and action energisation when participants made decisions for the S elf , Other Same neurotype and Other Different neurotype . Results showed a robust self-bias in effort discounting, with both groups choosing to exert more effort for themselves than others, and no differences between same and different neurotype others. However, while non-autistic participants showed no difference in action energisation between the same and different neurotype others, autistic participants exerted significantly more force for others of the same neurotype. Implicit, but not explicit, biases held about autism played a role: in autistic participants, higher implicit autism stigma predicted differences in effort discounting between same and different neurotype others, while in non-autistic participants, implicit bias predicted differences in actual effort exerted rather than decision-making. This work has important implications for understanding how interactor neurotypes and autism-specific biases may feed into prosocial decision-making contexts such as employment, health and education settings, where autistic individuals face the everyday consideration of whether to disclose their diagnostic status. • Robust self-bias in effort decisions in autistic and non-autistic adults regardless of recipient. • Computational modelling reveals identical effort discounting patterns across groups. • Autistic adults exert more effort for same-neurotype others in action execution. • Implicit, not explicit, bias predicts prosocial behaviour in both groups. • Cross-neurotype prosocial motivation differs between decision-making and actions.

Research in AutismVol. 128
University of Oxford (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.