Abstract:

Deviations in reciprocal behavior between children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and typically developing (TD) children often give rise to challenges in inclusive settings. Previous theoretical frameworks based on the perspective of others have presented several contradictions. From the dual-process theory perspective, and by introducing the concept of self-other distinction, it is proposed that the self-centered bias in children with ASD and the other-centered bias in TD children jointly contribute to the differences in reciprocity between the two groups. Specifically, according to dual-process theory, children with ASD demonstrate a stronger preference for logical reasoning, while children with TD show a stronger preference for intuitive reasoning. In different forms of reciprocity, the focus on the ‘self-perspective’ in children with ASD becomes a crucial cue for their logical reasoning responses, thereby promoting their systematic reciprocal responses. In contrast, the focus on the ‘other-perspective’ in children with TD serves as a key cue for their intuitive reasoning responses, thereby promoting their intuitive reciprocal responses.

For example, in direct reciprocity, children with ASD have difficulty recognizing the intentional motives behind others’ behaviors. However, in this ‘give-and-take’ form of direct reciprocity, self-gain can form a clear corresponding relationship with the initiator, meaning that all gains come from the initiator. The egocentric bias of this group often leads to a preference for focusing on self-gain and precisely becomes the most intuitive reasoning clue in direct reciprocity. Therefore, children with ASD are more inclined to make non-social reciprocal responses such as give back exactly what is received. In comparison, children with TD can quickly extract others’ motives during interaction. The other-centric bias of this group often leads to a preference for focusing on others’ intentions and subsequently become the intuitive reasoning clue in direct reciprocity. Thus, children with TD are more inclined to make social reciprocal responses such as ‘tit for tat’.

In generalized reciprocity, when facing a third party, the egocentric bias of children with ASD leads to a focus on self-norms. Norms such as equality and fairness, cultivated under traditional cultural influence, subsequently become logical reasoning clues in generalized reciprocity. Therefore, this group is more inclined to make fair responses to the third party, such as ‘Regardless of how you treat me, I will be fair/friendly to others’. In contrast, children with TD are more easily influenced by the cognitive anchoring effect of others’ behaviors during interaction. The other-centric bias of this group often leads to a focus on others’ behaviors, and subsequently become intuitive reasoning clues in generalized reciprocity. Thus, this group is more inclined to make responses that transmit valence, such as ‘You are nice to me, so I will be nice to others; you are mean to me, so I will be mean to others’.

In observer reciprocity, children with ASD struggle to understand the social significance of others’ behaviors. However, under the influence of the observer role in observer reciprocity, the egocentric bias of this group further leads to a focus on self-observation, and precisely becomes the most intuitive reasoning clue in observer reciprocity. Therefore, children with ASD are more inclined to make observation-based reciprocal responses such as ‘give based on what was seen’. In contrast, children with TD can quickly recognize the social significance of others’ behaviors in observer reciprocity and make differentiated behavioral responses to different parties. When facing the initiator, children with TD can form correspondent reputation beliefs about the initiator’s behavior. The other-centric bias of this group further leads to a focus on others’ reputation and subsequently becomes the intuitive reasoning clue in observer reciprocity. Therefore, children with TD are more inclined to make reciprocal responses to the initiator such as ‘love begets love; malice begets malice’. When facing the recipient, children with TD can quickly extract the recipient’s situation. The other-centric bias of this group further leads to a focus on others’ situation and subsequently becomes the intuitive reasoning clue in observer reciprocity. Therefore, children with TD are more inclined to make reciprocal responses to the recipient such as ‘I help you because you are disadvantaged; I do not help you because you are advantaged’. When facing a third party, compared to generalized reciprocity, children with TD, as observers rather than participants, do not directly receive reciprocal behaviors from others. Therefore, the cognitive anchoring effect of others’ behaviors is weakened. Due to the lack of direct reciprocal experience, children with TD may be more inclined to rely on others’ identity as an intuitive reasoning clue, which is related to their strong other-centric bias. In such scenarios, children with TD are more likely to make reciprocal responses such as fair and equal based on others’ identity.

According to dual-process theory, highlighting the other-perspective for children with ASD may induce an other-centric bias, making their reciprocal behaviors more similar to those of children with TD, thereby reducing the reciprocity differences. Future research should disentangle the potential influence of task parameters, conduct in-depth analyses of the differences in reciprocal pathways between the two groups, and develop scientific and effective intervention models for reciprocal behavior.

Key words: autism spectrum disorder, reciprocal behavior, self-other distinction, perspective highlighting