Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Mindreading beliefs in same- and cross-neurotype interactions

View through CrossRef
A large sample of autistic and non-autistic adults was recruited to investigate whether self-reported beliefs about their own and other people’s mindreading abilities were in line with either mindreading deficit accounts of autism or the double empathy problem (DEP) (which proposes mindreading difficulties are relational in autism). Three hundred and forty-eight (139 autistic) participants completed an online questionnaire which asked about autism identification and diagnostic status and their beliefs about their own mindreading abilities in relation to autistic and non-autistic others, and about autistic and non-autistic others’ abilities to read their (the participant’s) own minds. While autistic participants did report weaker mindreading abilities, this was only true in relation to non-autistic others. Both groups reported better mindreading abilities in same- than other-neurotype interactions, with autistic participants reporting mindreading abilities commensurate with non-autistic participants in relation to autistic targets. The same pattern was found when participants were asked about other people’s mindreading abilities. The findings were more consistent with the DEP than deficit theories, as the target reference group strongly impacted participants’ perceived mindreading abilities. While self-reported beliefs do not necessarily reflect actual mindreading abilities, they may still have important consequences for intergroup relations and social outcomes for autistic people. Lay Abstract Autistic people are often characterised as having problems with mindreading, which refers to understanding other people’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings. However, it has recently been suggested that mindreading difficulties may be a two-way issue between autistic and non-autistic people. This would imply that autistic people may not have difficulty reading the minds of other autistic people, whereas non-autistic people may struggle to read autistic people effectively. In this study, we created a survey in which we asked a relatively large sample of autistic and non-autistic people to rate their own and others’ mindreading abilities in relation to autistic and non-autistic others, respectively. Both groups believed that they were better at reading others in their own group than the other group. The autistic respondents reported levels of mindreading skill at least commensurate with the non-autistic respondents when the mind to be read was specified as autistic. Thus, both groups of participants’ responses were consistent with the notion that mindreading abilities are relational. Although self-reports are subjective, such beliefs could have important consequences for well-being and intergroup relations.
Title: Mindreading beliefs in same- and cross-neurotype interactions
Description:
A large sample of autistic and non-autistic adults was recruited to investigate whether self-reported beliefs about their own and other people’s mindreading abilities were in line with either mindreading deficit accounts of autism or the double empathy problem (DEP) (which proposes mindreading difficulties are relational in autism).
Three hundred and forty-eight (139 autistic) participants completed an online questionnaire which asked about autism identification and diagnostic status and their beliefs about their own mindreading abilities in relation to autistic and non-autistic others, and about autistic and non-autistic others’ abilities to read their (the participant’s) own minds.
While autistic participants did report weaker mindreading abilities, this was only true in relation to non-autistic others.
Both groups reported better mindreading abilities in same- than other-neurotype interactions, with autistic participants reporting mindreading abilities commensurate with non-autistic participants in relation to autistic targets.
The same pattern was found when participants were asked about other people’s mindreading abilities.
The findings were more consistent with the DEP than deficit theories, as the target reference group strongly impacted participants’ perceived mindreading abilities.
While self-reported beliefs do not necessarily reflect actual mindreading abilities, they may still have important consequences for intergroup relations and social outcomes for autistic people.
Lay Abstract Autistic people are often characterised as having problems with mindreading, which refers to understanding other people’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings.
However, it has recently been suggested that mindreading difficulties may be a two-way issue between autistic and non-autistic people.
This would imply that autistic people may not have difficulty reading the minds of other autistic people, whereas non-autistic people may struggle to read autistic people effectively.
In this study, we created a survey in which we asked a relatively large sample of autistic and non-autistic people to rate their own and others’ mindreading abilities in relation to autistic and non-autistic others, respectively.
Both groups believed that they were better at reading others in their own group than the other group.
The autistic respondents reported levels of mindreading skill at least commensurate with the non-autistic respondents when the mind to be read was specified as autistic.
Thus, both groups of participants’ responses were consistent with the notion that mindreading abilities are relational.
Although self-reports are subjective, such beliefs could have important consequences for well-being and intergroup relations.

Related Results

Is Recursive “Mindreading” Really an Exception to Limitations on Recursive Thinking
Is Recursive “Mindreading” Really an Exception to Limitations on Recursive Thinking
The ability to mindread recursively – for example by thinking what person 1 thinks person 2 thinks person 3 thinks – is a prime example of recursive thinking in which one process, ...
Mindreading and Social Cognition
Mindreading and Social Cognition
The cognitive ability to think about other people's psychological states is known as `mindreading'. This Element critiques assumptions that have been formative in shaping philosoph...
Cooperative gender beliefs and cost-benefit trade-offs of gender inequality
Cooperative gender beliefs and cost-benefit trade-offs of gender inequality
<p>Cooperative gender beliefs are characterizations of women, men and heterosexual relationships that focus on positive aspects of traditional traits and roles, and heterosex...
An Exploratory Study of Mathematics Anxiety in Caribbean Preservice Teachers
An Exploratory Study of Mathematics Anxiety in Caribbean Preservice Teachers
The Problem Correlational studies suggest that gender, attitudes to mathematics, mathematics performance, the number of college mathematics courses taken, and mathematics teacher ...
Blood Cross Matching Without Anti-Human Globulin (AHG) and Bovine Serum: A New Interest for an Old Idea
Blood Cross Matching Without Anti-Human Globulin (AHG) and Bovine Serum: A New Interest for an Old Idea
Abstract  Introduction Transfusion medicine promotes the safety of blood transfusions by rigorously testing to eliminate risks of infection and hemolytic. The efficacy (to correct ...
Happy Thoughts: The Role of Communion in Accepting and Sharing (Mis)Beliefs
Happy Thoughts: The Role of Communion in Accepting and Sharing (Mis)Beliefs
The negativity bias favors the cultural diffusion of negative beliefs, yet many common (mis)beliefs—naturopathy works, there’s a heaven—are positive. Why? People might share ‘happy...
Normative beliefs, discursive claims, and implementation of reform‐based science standards
Normative beliefs, discursive claims, and implementation of reform‐based science standards
AbstractReform‐based science instruction is guided by teachers' normative beliefs. Discursive claims are how teachers say they teach science. Previous research has studied the chan...
Commonsensism
Commonsensism
‘Commonsensism’ refers to one of the principal approaches to traditional theory of knowledge where one asks oneself the following Socratic questions: (1) What can I know?; (2) How ...

Back to Top