Cited by 68Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Reputation Management: Evidence for Ability But Reduced Propensity in Autism

Cage, Eilidh, Pellicano, Elizabeth, Shah, Punit, Bird, Geoffrey·2013·Autism Research

Abstract

Previous research has reported that autistic adults do not manage their reputation, purportedly due to problems with theory of mind [I zuma, M atsumoto, C amerer, & A dolphs]. The current study aimed to test alternative explanations for this apparent lack of reputation management. Twenty typical and 19 autistic adults donated to charity and to a person, both when alone and when observed. In an additional manipulation, for half of the participants, the observer was also the recipient of their donations, and participants were told that this observer would subsequently have the opportunity to donate to them (motivation condition). This manipulation was designed to encourage an expectation of a reciprocal “tit‐for‐tat” strategy in the participant, which may motivate participants to change their behavior to receive more donations. The remaining participants were told that the person watching was just observing the procedure (no motivation condition). Our results replicated I zuma et al.'s finding that autistic adults did not donate more to charity when observed. Yet, in the motivation condition, both typical and autistic adults donated significantly more to the observer when watched, although this effect was significantly attenuated in autistic individuals. Results indicate that, while individuals with autism may have the ability to think about reputation, a reduced expectation of reciprocal behavior from others may reduce the degree to which they engage in reputation management. Autism Res 2013, ●●: ●●–●●. © 2013 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aur.1313

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cage, E., Pellicano, E., Shah, P., & Bird, G.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Cage, Eilidh
Venue
Autism Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-08
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
433-442
ISSN
  • 1939-3792 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3806
OpenAlex
W1510422073
Cited by
67
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Autism Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
reputation management, autism spectrum disorder, theory of mind, reciprocity, tit-for-tat, charitable giving, social motivation, observed behavior, autistic adults, social cognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Altruism, Aptitude, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Motivation, Self Concept, Social Facilitation, Young Adult, Theory of Mind, Emotional Intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review