Abstract

The moral judgements we make, and how we make them, have a critical impact on our ability to function in any social groups we are part of. They are informed by a plethora of social factors, but less is known about how the way moral judgements are formed may vary between individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and their neurotypical peers. Previous research suggests autistic individuals may differ in the way they form and implement moral judgements, however, often the way these studies are implemented do not play to strengths of autistic individuals.
This study gathered qualitative data from four typically developing and four autistic 7–10-year-old children, using a novel task that asked them to consider four scenarios focused on peer altercations in a school context. Each scenario manipulated different information about the victims and the perpetrators, to determine if there was any variation between the two groups in the way this information was interpreted and used toward forming a moral judgement. Many similarities were found between groups, as well as several variations that suggest there may be different underlying assumptions between the two groups about the information given in each scenario. These variations were most salient in the areas of apologizing, the accidental nature of the incident, focusing on specific story details, and focusing on others’ feelings and intentions. These findings indicate that autistic individuals may hold different assumptions about the world around them that influence their interpretation of moral scenarios.