CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 113Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia

Open access
Shah, Punit, Catmur, Caroline, Bird, Geoffrey·2016·Molecular Autism
DOI 10.1186/s13229-016-0104-xPMC PMC5062918
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The way choices are framed influences decision-making. These "framing effects" emerge through the integration of emotional responses into decision-making under uncertainty. It was previously reported that susceptibility to the framing effect was reduced in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) due to a reduced tendency to incorporate emotional information into the decision-making process. However, recent research indicates that, where observed, emotional processing impairments in ASD may be due to co-occurring alexithymia. Alexithymia is thought to arise due to impaired interoception (the ability to perceive the internal state of one's body), raising the possibility that emotional signals are not perceived and thus not integrated into decision-making in those with alexithymia and that therefore reduced framing effects in ASD are a product of co-occurring alexithymia rather than ASD per se. Accordingly, the present study compared framing effects in autistic individuals with neurotypical controls matched for alexithymia. Results showed a marked deviation between groups. The framing effect was, in line with previous data, significantly smaller in autistic individuals, and there was no relationship between alexithymia or interoception and decision-making in the ASD group. In the neurotypical group, however, the size of the framing effect was associated with alexithymia and interoception, even after controlling for autistic traits. These results demonstrate that although framing effects are associated with interoception and alexithymia in the neurotypical population, emotional and interoceptive signals have less impact upon the decision-making process in ASD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13229-016-0104-x

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Measuring the framing effect. Participants are shown the sum of money received to play in that trial for 2 s (e.g., “you receive £50”). They are required to choose between a “gamble” or “sure” option within 4 s. The “sure” option is presented as either a the sum of money retained from the initial starting amount (e.g., keep £20 of £50—gain frame) or b money lost from the initial amount (e.g., lose £30 of £50—loss frame). The “gamble” is identical in both frames and represented by a pie-chart showing the probability of winning (yellow) or losing (blue). Feedback about trial outcomes is not presented during the experiment
Fig. 1 Measuring the framing effect. Participants are shown the sum of money received to play in that trial for 2 s (e.g., “you receive £50”). They are required to choose between a “gamble” or “sure” option within 4 s. The “sure” option is presented as either a the sum of money retained from the initial starting amount (e.g., keep £20 of £50—gain frame) or b money lost from the initial amount (e.g., lose £30 of £50—loss frame). The “gamble” is identical in both frames and represented by a pie-chart showing the probability of winning (yellow) or losing (blue). Feedback about trial outcomes is not presented during the experimentCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 The framing effect (FE) by group. a The percentage of trials in which participants chose to gamble in the Loss compared with the Gain frame. Although both controls and autistic participants gambled significantly more in the loss than gain frame, the size of b the FE (i.e., the difference between gambling in the loss and gain frame) was significantly larger in the control group. Error bars denote ±1 SEM
Fig. 2 The framing effect (FE) by group. a The percentage of trials in which participants chose to gamble in the Loss compared with the Gain frame. Although both controls and autistic participants gambled significantly more in the loss than gain frame, the size of b the FE (i.e., the difference between gambling in the loss and gain frame) was significantly larger in the control group. Error bars denote ±1 SEMCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Associations between interoception, alexithymia, and framing effects. a Individuals with greater interoceptive accuracy (IA) showed a larger FE as shown by the correlation between IA and the FE in the control group (r = 0.55, p = 0.012). No such relationship was observed in the ASD group (r = 0.14, p = 0.57). b The correlation between the TAS-20 and the FE was not significant in the ASD group (r = 0.03, p = 0.89), but was in the control group (r = −0.49, p = 0.029)
Fig. 3 Associations between interoception, alexithymia, and framing effects. a Individuals with greater interoceptive accuracy (IA) showed a larger FE as shown by the correlation between IA and the FE in the control group (r = 0.55, p = 0.012). No such relationship was observed in the ASD group (r = 0.14, p = 0.57). b The correlation between the TAS-20 and the FE was not significant in the ASD group (r = 0.03, p = 0.89), but was in the control group (r = −0.49, p = 0.029)CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale—third edition. Administration and scoring manual. San Antonio: Psychol. Corp; 1997.
  2. Wechsler D. WASI-II: Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence—second edition. San Antonio: Psychol. Corp; 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 113

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shah, P., Catmur, C., & Bird, G.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Shah, Punit
ORCID
Venue
Molecular Autism
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-10-13
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
43-43
ISSN
2040-2392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13229-016-0104-x
PMC
PMC5062918
OpenAlex
W2529479083
Cited by
113
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Molecular Autism (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • Baily Thomas Charitable Fund
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, emotional decision-making, framing effects, interoception, alexithymia, decision making under uncertainty, emotional processing, autistic traits, neurotypical comparison
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Adult, Affective Symptoms, Decision Making, Female, Frustration, Happiness, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Male, Case-Control Studies, Interoception

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