4.5 Article

Altruism, Hypocrisy and Theory of Mind in Autistic and Nonautistic Children

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 58, 期 7, 页码 1331-1344

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/dev0000942

关键词

autism; altruism; Hypocrisy; theory-of-mind; social cognition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that selfless altruism was common in both autistic and non-autistic children and significantly predicted by theory of mind. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, showed more individual differences, with no significant correlation between ToM and hypocrisy in autistic children.
Children make choices between generosity and greed every day. Often they must also choose between confession or denial of antisocial acts like greed, thereby displaying either honesty or hypocrisy. Such choices pose cognitive challenges that, in theory, might reflect children's developing social-cognitions and affect their daily social lives and developmental opportunities. Individual differences in altruism and hypocrisy were examined in relation to theory of mind (ToM) in 102 school-age children (44 autistic; 58 typically developing) using ecologically valid altruism and hypocrisy tests where generosity had lasting real-life costs and hypocrisy was self-serving. Selfless altruism was abundant for autistic and nonautistic children alike and was significantly predicted by ToM over and above other predictors like age, gender, and language. More nonautistic (74%) than autistic children (41%) displayed hypocrisy, although individual ToM differences among ASD children were not significantly correlated with it. Findings extend to new instances (altruism and hypocrisy) evidence of ToM's importance for everyday social behaviors that impact upon peer relations while also extending past evidence that: (a) unexpected sociomoral strengths can coexist with ToM delays, (b) attention to individual differences is crucial, and (c) autistic children's capacity to develop sociomoral reasoning should not be underestimated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据