J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376

DOI 10.1007/s10803-011-1369-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Moral and Social Reasoning in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Cory Shulman • Ainat Guberman • Noa Shiling •

Nirit Bauminger

Published online: 30 September 2011

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract This study compared moral and social reason- reciprocal interactions, as well as repetitive, restrictive and
ing in individuals with and without autism spectrum dis- stereotypic behaviors (APA 2000). Even more cognitively
orders (ASD). Ten familiar schoolyard transgressions were able individuals with ASD experience marked and sus-
shown to 18 participants with and 18 participants without tained difficulties in social interactions and emotional
ASD. They judged the appropriateness of the behavior and relatedness, which continue to impede the development of
explained their judgments. Analysis of the rationales intimate and effective social interactions throughout their
revealed that participants with typical development used lives (Volkmar et al. 2009). Two recurring themes which
significantly more abstract rules than participants with are critical to successful functioning in the social world are
ASD, who provided more nonspecific condemnations of the ability to understand social and moral rules and the
the behaviors. Both groups judged social conventional ability to apply them flexibly. These areas are the focus of
transgressions to be more context-bound than moral the present research. In the current study, the cognitive
transgressions, with this distinction more pronounced in processes which underlie social functioning were studied
typically developing individuals, who also provided sig- by comparing the understanding of social and moral rules
nificantly more examples of situations in which the and the flexible application of these rules in a cohort of
depicted behaviors would be acceptable. The educational high functioning individuals with ASD and typically
implications of these findings for individuals with ASD are developing CA- and MA-matched counterparts.
discussed. Moral reasoning was first studied by Kohlberg (Kohlberg
and Kramer 1969). He presented hypothetical moral
Keywords Autism spectrum disorders
Social and moral dilemmas and asked participants to judge whether a pro-
reasoning
Abstract thinking tagonist’s behavior in these hypothetical problematic situ-
ations was right or wrong, and to explain their judgments.
Within this approach moral reasoning is assessed through
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurodevelopmental the analysis of the resultant narratives. Kohlberg claimed
disability, is characterized by a triad of impairments that moral reasoning develops, through a series of univer-
including severe difficulties in communication and social sally ordered stages, from a utilitarian approach avoiding
punishment and/or obtaining social and emotional rewards
(stages 1 and 2, pre-conventional morality) to an under-
C. Shulman (&)
N. Shiling standing of simple and then abstract behavior governing
School of Social Work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
rules as issued by authority figures (stages 3 and 4, con-
Mount Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel
e-mail: [email protected] ventional morality) and finally into post conventional
morality, a stage which is not attained by all. At stage 5, rules
A. Guberman are perceived to be commonly agreed upon principles nee-
David Yellin Academic College of Education, Jerusalem, Israel
ded in order to maintain the public’s welfare and subject
N. Bauminger to change according to societal needs (stage 5). Stage 6
Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel reflects a ‘‘moral’’ conscience wherein individuals base their

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376 1365

explanations and judgments upon universally applicable specific rules issued by authority figures. Examples of social
moral values which they are able to justify independently of conventional norms are dress codes and table manners.
current social norms or the mandate of authority figures. Within Turiel’s paradigm, which was later adapted by others
Through the study of these stages, developmental age norms (for examples, see Killen and Smetana 1999; Smetana 1981;
have been established, although they are not universal. Tisak et al. 2006), participants were presented with pictorial
Generally speaking, the pre-conventional stage character- representations of familiar school transgressions, some of
izes preschool aged children through age 10. By age 13, which depict moral transgressions (e.g., hitting, stealing),
most children are at the conventional stage, at which stage while others portray violations of social conventional norms
they stop developing morally. Those who continue reach the (e.g., eating on the floor and daydreaming in class). Children
post conventional stage along with the development of are first asked to describe the events depicted in the pictures,
Piagetian abstract thinking as they enter adolescence, but in order to assess their understanding of the interaction.
only 10% of adults reach stage 6 (Kohlberg 1984). Smetana (1981) was the first to try this methodology with
Moral reasoning in autism has been studied previously preschoolers and if the children did not successfully describe
using Kohlberg’s conceptualization of moral development the interactions, the experimenters provided explanations
as reflected in the analysis of solutions presented to moral and named the transgressions. Then the children were asked
dilemmas (e.g., Grant et al. 2005; Takeda et al. 2007). to judge the behaviors along a number of dimensions, such
However, although each study investigated different as the seriousness of the transgressions portrayed in
aspects of moral judgment and reasoning, the findings from the picture (moral transgressions considered ‘‘worse’’ than
both studies addressed the fact that Kohlberg’s methodol- social transgressions), the contextuality/universality of the
ogy requires the ability to use language skills in a manner depicted violations (moral transgressions considered ‘‘uni-
which is difficult even for quite capable individuals with versally wrong’’, while social transgressions are considered
ASD. For example, individuals with ASD use fewer mental context-bound) and authority contingency (moral trans-
state words (Bishop and Norbury 2002; Tager-Flusberg and gressions are judged less contingent on authority than social
Sullivan 1995) in their descriptions of interactions and conventional rules).
therefore their explanations for Kohlberg’s dilemmas never Typically developing children as young as 3 years of
received high scores. The Grant et al. study revealed that age responded differentially to moral transgressions
although the participants with autism were as likely as and social conventional violations, with their judgments
controls to judge culpability on the basis of motive, and to reflecting the dimensions delineated above (Killen 1991;
judge injury to persons as more culpable than damage to Nucci and Turiel 1978; Smetana 1981). The ability
property, most of their justifications were of poor quality to distinguish between moral and social transgressions
and simply reiterated the story line. Supporting the diffi- seems universal with some fluctuations for cultural norms
culty of using this methodology with individuals with (Humphries et al. 2000; Killen et al. 2006a, b; Smetana
ASD, Takeda et al. found that there were significant 2002; Song et al. 1987; Tisak and Turiel 1988). These
positive correlations between moral reasoning and verbal results seem to be contradictory to Kohlberg’s theory
ability in the ASD group, while no such correlation which attributed the ability to justify behavioral rules by
emerged in the MA- and CA-matched typically developing the moral and social values they serve to post-conventional
children. Thus, a simpler methodology is required, which morality, a stage attained after adolescence, if at all.
would demand a lower level of language abilities and have The fact that young children could justify their judg-
less of a cognitive load, while still being a valid and reli- ments using this paradigm implies that the verbal skills
able assessment of moral reasoning in ASD. required for this task may be different from those reflected
Turiel (1983, 1989) developed such a paradigm based on in the Kohlberg dilemmas, and therefore this paradigm
the social domain theory. According to the social domain might be an appropriate methodology for assessing moral
theory, there is a fundamental distinction between moral and reasoning in individuals with ASD.
social conventional norms of behavior. Moral norms are Blair was the first to use this methodology with indi-
based on an understanding of justice, prohibiting behaviors viduals with ASD, in a paper published in this journal (Blair
such as lying, stealing and inflicting physical and/or emo- 1996). Using this task, he assessed the moral/social dis-
tional harm on someone else, and are universally applicable tinction through the use of three yes/no questions examining
(Stich et al. 2009). Social conventions, on the other hand, the acceptability of the action, the seriousness of the
facilitate social interactions by coordinating mutual behav- transgression, and its dependence on authority. His findings
ioral expectations and unite individuals within the same revealed that individuals with ASD were able to distinguish
social system (Killen et al. 2006a, b; Turiel and Wainryb between moral and social transgressions and, to his surprise,
1998). They are arbitrary, contextually-bound, and their no relationship between theory of mind abilities and the
application is typically dependent upon the existence of moral/social distinction emerged. Ten years later, Leslie

123
1366 J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376

et al. (2006) also employed the moral/social distinction task were analyzed. The number of details which were included
as a measure of social reasoning in ASD, and investigated in the explanations but were not pictorially represented was
whether the distinction is related to the level of distress calculated. The rationales concerning the unacceptability
shown by the individuals involved in the interaction. They of the various transgressions given by the participants were
found that individuals with ASD distinguish between moral then categorized according to the aforementioned types of
and social rules, and that their moral judgments are not moral considerations. The categories included justifications
based upon the protagonist victim’s visually depicted level based on an awareness of general principles prohibiting the
of distress but rather upon the causes of the distress, thus depicted behaviors and concern over the damage resulting
limiting their moral condemnation only to situations in from the specific transgression. These categories reflect
which the protagonist victim’s rights were violated. Their Kohlberg’s conventional morality. In the moral domain,
results support Blair’s previous findings that individuals both categories reflect awareness of other people’s rights.
with ASD distinguish between moral and social transgres- In the social domain, the two categories reflect awareness
sions and that the ability to discriminate between moral and of the social goals served by the violated rules (Turiel
social transgressions is based upon cognitive considerations 1983). On a less complex level, explanations based on an
rather than emotional empathy. Previous research findings awareness of a simple and/or specific rule prohibiting the
regarding the ability of individuals with ASD to distinguish behavior are indicative of Kohlberg’s second stage of pre-
between social and moral transgressions imply that the conventional morality. Finally, utilitarian justifications,
depicted behaviors were understood, and yet it is not clear if akin to Kohlberg’s first stage of pre-conventional morality,
their ability to discriminate between moral and social were based on instrumental explanations. Additional cate-
transgressions reflects an understanding which is similar to gories included a category of idiosyncratic rationales and a
that of typically developing children, since there is evidence category of non-specific answers.
that individuals with ASD attend to irrelevant details, thus Previous studies which compared individuals with ASD
diminishing their ability to process complex information and those with typical development based the comparison
into a coherent total entity (Happé and Frith 2006; Frith either on matching for chronological age or on matching
1997; Porter and Coltheart 2006; Teunisse et al. 2001). If for IQ. In the present study the comparison group of par-
such a tendency is found in the descriptions provided by the ticipants with typical development was matched for overall
participants with ASD of the social situations presented to mental ability, as measured by verbal, performance and full
them in the present research paradigm, it may explain some scale IQs, and for chronological age, thus enabling close
of the difficulties individuals with ASD face as they try to examination of the ways in which cognitively capable
assess complex social situations. To the best of our individuals with ASD make sense of social and moral
knowledge, the studies that have assessed moral judgment norms, and how they differ from closely matched, typically
in individuals with ASD through the moral/social distinc- developing peers.
tion task have not analyzed the participants’ descriptions of In addition to the investigation of moral reasoning, the
the depicted behaviors nor their explanations for their present research also focused on the ability to flexibly
judgments, although the latter has been done with typically apply moral and social rules appropriately according to the
developing children. context. This ability requires flexible thinking, which has
A review of the research literature in which children’s been shown to be an area of weakness for individuals with
justifications were elicited suggests a developmental tra- ASD (Geurts et al. 2009; Hill 2004; Solomon et al. 2008).
jectory inherent in moral reasoning (Smetana 2006; Turiel In the current study, cognitive flexibility was studied by
2006). This trajectory is characterized by a progression assessing participants’ ability to judge transgressions which
from concern regarding concrete harm and specific cases in were previously evaluated by them as unacceptable in the
which others’ welfare was compromised to a general schoolyard as acceptable in alternative circumstances. In
concern with comprehensively applicable universal con- addition, their ability to generate examples of situations in
cepts of fairness. This trend has not been similarly delin- which the targeted behaviors could be considered appro-
eated within the social conventional domain, although priate was also included as a measure of cognitive
similar patterns of development occur in social reasoning flexibility.
(Crane-Ross and Tisak 1995; Harvey et al. 2001; Shantz The aim of the present research was to investigate the
1999). In the present research, a yes/no question examining moral/social distinction task in individuals with ASD in
the acceptability of the portrayed behaviors was asked of comparison to individuals with typical development. It was
all the participants, partially replicating the Blair and Leslie predicted that both typically developing adolescents and
et al. studies. Departing from those studies, the partici- those with ASD would correctly describe the ten familiar
pants’ descriptions of the portrayed behaviors and their schoolyard interactions and be able to correctly evaluate
explanations for their judgments concerning acceptability the rightness/wrongness of the depicted behaviors.

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376 1367

Although no previous research has addressed the issue of students was assessed using the Autism Diagnostic Inter-
analysis of differences in the descriptions provided by the view-Revised (ADI-R: Lord et al. 1994) and the Autism
two groups, we hypothesized that the descriptions provided Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS: Lord et al.
by the participants with ASD would include more extra- 2000). All the participants with autism in the study met
neous information than those of typically developing par- diagnostic criteria on these two instruments.
ticipants as a result of a difficulty in differentiating between The students with ASD were recruited through the
relevant and irrelevant details in individuals with ASD Special Education Department of the Israel Ministry of
(Loth et al. 2008). In addition, we hypothesized that the Education. These students were all placed in local schools
rationales provided by the ASD group would be simpler, by the municipal educational placement committees. All
more concrete, less elaborate, and less flexible, while more but one (5.5%) were integrated in inclusive programs;
of the rationales provided by the typically developing thirteen children (72%) were in special classes for high
participants would incorporate abstract rules, as abstraction functioning students with autism in regular schools; two
has been identified as an area of difficulty for people with children (11%) were in non-categorical programs for sup-
ASD (Best et al. 2010; Klinger and Dawson 1991; Shulman porting students with special needs in the regular class-
et al. 1995). Furthermore, we hypothesized that the moral/ rooms and two (11%) were fully included in regular classes
social distinction would be evident in the answers provided in regular schools. Typically developing students were
by both groups on the basis of universal applicability and recruited from various elementary and junior high schools
specific contextuality explanations, although the partici- in the central region of the country. They were recruited
pants with ASD might be less definitive than their CA- and from schools in which no program for students with autism
IQ-matched typically developing peers, due to the diffi- existed. Students who were receiving any type of special
culties they experience in interpreting social situations treatment were excluded. All the participants came from
(Loveland et al. 2001). Finally, it was predicted that par- middle-class families in the larger urban areas of Israel,
ticipants with typical development would provide more and all were in Hebrew speaking educational programs.
examples of situations in which behaviors that might be Thirty-four participants were assessed in Hebrew and two
considered as transgressions in one context would be in English. All were living at home with at least one bio-
acceptable in other contexts, thus exhibiting more cogni- logical parent.
tive flexibility than the participants with ASD.
Instruments

Method The Autism Diagnostic Interview Revised (ADI-R; Lord

et al. 1994) is a standardized semi-structured interview
Participants used to ascertain an autism diagnosis, which is designed to
be used with a parent (or primary caregiver) familiar with
Participants in this study included 36 preadolescents and the developmental history and current behavior of the
adolescents with average intelligence who were divided individual being assessed. It consists of three major
into two matched groups: 18 individuals with ASD and 18 domains: language and communication; reciprocal social
typically developing individuals. The two groups were interaction; and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped
matched on full-scale, verbal and performance IQ scores, behaviors and interests. The ADI-R criteria are based on
and on chronological age. The IQ scores were derived DSM-IV (APA 1994) and ICD-10 (WHO 1992) criteria.
through the WISC-III (Wechsler 1991). Forty-four high The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS;
functioning adolescents with ASD and thirty typically Lord et al. 2000) is a semi-structured assessment protocol
developing students were assessed in order to match the that consists of various activities that facilitate the obser-
two groups on the abovementioned parameters. The mean vation of social and communication behaviors related to
scores, standard deviations and age range are reported in the diagnosis of autism. Each activity provides an oppor-
Table 1. As is apparent, there are no significant differences tunity for the child to demonstrate social reciprocity and
in any of the matched measures, and there is more variation communication skills.
in the scores and ages of the group of individuals with ASD The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third
than in the typically developing group. Edition (Wechsler 1991) was used to match the groups of
The participants with ASD were initially included if participants on verbal, performance and full scale IQ
they were identified within the school system as having an scores. The WISC-III measures cognitive abilities for
autism spectrum disorder, which involved having an children who score developmentally between the ages of
independent clinical diagnosis from a certified psychologist 6 and 16 years, 11 months. Five subtests are mandatory
not associated with the study. Subsequently, each of these for computation of summary verbal scores, including:

123
1368 J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376

Table 1 Sample characteristics glass bottle at another; (4) one student not sharing food
Autism spectrum Typical
with another who is requesting it; (5) one student stealing
disorder-ASD development-TYP something from another’s bag. The five social conventional
transgressions were (1) one student eating his snack on the
Number of participants 18 18
floor while other students in the class are eating at their
Chronological age tables; (2) one student daydreaming while the other stu-
Mean (SD) 12.07 (2.76) 11.61 (2.72) dents listen to the teacher; (3) two students coming in from
Age range 8.08–17.16 8.66–16.72 recess, one of whom places his bag on a chair while the
Full scale IQ other one hangs his up in its place; (4) two students one of
Mean (SD) 94.31 (13.81) 97.85 (7.49) whom is tearing his book while the other is reading his; (5)
Range 77–119 82–115 one child drawing on the walls, while the other students are
Verbal IQ drawing on paper at their desks.
Mean (SD) 92.66 (14.64) 96.06 (5.38)
Range 76–128 87–105 Coding Conventions
Performance IQ
Mean (SD) 97.12 (14.64) 102.55 Accuracy of Descriptions involved the ability to correctly
Range 77–133 82–122 describe the interaction portrayed in the picture when the
Gender (M/F) 16/2 15/3 participants were asked question 1, ‘‘What is happening in
the picture?’’. If the participant correctly described an
interaction depicted in the picture, 1 point was scored, and
information about common events, places, and people; if no understanding of the picture was expressed in the
similarities in word pairs; comprehension; vocabulary; and description, a code of 0 was given. For those who had
arithmetic problems answered orally. Similarly five subtest received a code of ‘‘0’’, the interaction was described by
scores are necessary to compute the performance nonverbal the examiner, without specifically pointing out the trans-
IQ and they include picture completion, picture arrange- gression. In addition to the straightforward scoring of the
ment, coding, block arrangement, object assembly, and participants’ understanding of the depiction, descriptions
mazes as an optional subtest in case one of the others is not which included additional information not pictorially rep-
administered for some reason. The full score IQ is derived resented in the pictures were scored. An example of this is
from these two domain scores. the description given by one participant with ASD for the
The Experimental Task (adapted from Smetana 1981) picture of a child tearing a book instead of reading it as the
included 10 pictures of familiar occurrences in the class- child next to him was doing: ‘‘Screany and Meany are
room and schoolyard. In some of the original ten situations, reading books. Screany is angry because he is being pun-
individual children were portrayed, but because of the ished and not allowed to go out to recess, so he is tearing
linguistic characteristics of the Hebrew language, in which the book in anger’’. Each additional piece of information
a distinction is made according to number and gender, we was afforded one point. Thus, in the aforementioned
made sure to include at least two children in each inter- example, the child received 3 points for supplementary
action and presented all questions in the plural and mas- information: 1 point for naming the participants in the
culine. The illustrations of the children interacting in the picture; 1 point for describing the emotional state of the
pictures were drawn as older children than those used in the child (angry), and 1 point for his missing recess as a
original study and were not clearly boys or girls, with punishment.
emotions portrayed in facial expressions. Ten pictures were Act Evaluation (justification regarding acceptability of
presented individually in a random order to the participants the depicted behavior) was assessed through the judgment
who were asked six questions about each picture: (1) What of the participant as to the appropriateness of the behavior
is happening in the picture?; (2) Is it OK to behave that (question 2: Is it OK to behave in this manner?). If the
way?; (3) If it’s not OK, why is it wrong to behave in this answer supplied by the participant was negative, question 3
manner?; (4) Would it be OK to behave in that way in any was administered (Why is it wrong to behave in this
other situation, such as at home? If the answer to question 4 manner?). Some of the participants supplied more than one
was positive, the participant was then asked to generate explanation for their judgment regarding the acceptability
additional examples. Two additional questions regarding of the behavior and each was coded, resulting in 389
punishments were not included in this study. responses to be coded, which were more than the expected
In the present study, the five moral transgressions con- 360 (36 participants 9 10 pictures) rationales. If the
sisted of pictures depicting (1) one student hitting another; judgment was that the behavior was unacceptable, the
(2) one student pushing another; (3) one student throwing a rationale provided by the participants was analyzed,

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376 1369

resulting in the following six categories of explanations: two authors, while the third author scored all the answers
(a) the rationale reflected an understanding of the super- concomitantly. For the items in which a discrepancy
ordinate category of rules to which the specific behavior emerged, the three judges returned to the items and attained
depicted in the picture belonged (e.g., ‘‘it is not permissible consensus scoring.
to hit others, because we should not behave in an aggres-
sive manner’’ or ‘‘you can’t tear that book because it’s Procedure
school property and does not belong to you’’). This code
reflects an abstraction of general principles governing After receiving approval from the Ministry of Education,
behavior; (b) the rationale for the unacceptable behavior we contacted school programs in which students with ASD
included a recognition of possible damage resulting from were included in mainstream classrooms, thereby ensuring
the action and included taking another’s perspective (e.g., a high probability that the students would have at least
‘‘he (i.e. the victim) will get hurt’’; ‘‘other people might average intelligence. After parental permission was
want to read the book.’’); (c) the explanation given rested obtained, the WISC-III was administered by a qualified
on a simple rule specific to the transgression depicted in the psychologist who has experience working with ASD and
picture (e.g., ‘‘it is forbidden to tear books’’); (d) the typically developing school-aged students. All the typically
rationale was utilitarian expressing a desire to prevent developing participants and those with ASD were tested by
negative consequences to the offenders resulting from their the same psychologist. The research sample resulted from
behavior (e.g., ‘‘the teacher will be angry’’ or ‘‘No one will matching on all WISC-III measures (full score IQ, verbal
want to be his friend’’); (e) the explanation presented IQ and performance IQ), which required the assessment of
marginal, less substantive reasons for the unacceptability of thirty-six children with ASD and thirty typically develop-
the behavior (e.g., ‘‘It is forbidden to hit others because ing children. All thirty typically developing students
others may imitate the behavior’’) or idiosyncratic reasons completed the entire battery of pictures, in order to have
(e.g., ‘‘It is forbidden to hit others without the teacher’s the largest possible group from which to match the two
permission’’); (f) the explanation consisted of simply reit- groups. The WISC testing and the experimental task were
erating the description of the behavior or saying it was presented individually in a small room in the student’s
‘‘wrong to behave in such a manner’’ without further educational framework.
explication (e.g., ‘‘that is not allowed’’). These categories
reflected the type of reasoning behind the acceptability
judgments and served as the basis for analysis of the Results
manner in which the participants understood behavioral
conventions. Accuracy of Descriptions
Universal Applicability was based on the participants’
explanations for all of the questions, with particular Before testing our hypotheses, it was important to establish
emphasis placed on the answer given for question 4 that the participants understood the transgressions depicted
(Would it be OK to behave in that way in any other situ- in the pictures. Most of the participants correctly identified
ation, such as at home?). This parameter was coded cate- the pictorial representation of the transgressions. One
gorically: the participant received a score of ‘‘1’’ when the participant with autism correctly described what was hap-
answer was ‘‘no’’, and this behavior was judged as unac- pening in the first picture (‘‘a child eating’’) without
ceptable in all circumstances, ‘‘2’’ when the answer was referring to the fact that the child was eating on the floor,
‘‘yes’’, it would be acceptable in another place or under while the classmates were eating at their tables. In the
other conditions, though unacceptable as depicted, or ‘‘3’’ second picture he did not see the child who was day-
if the behavior was judged as acceptable in all situations. A dreaming as not paying attention but rather described the
score of ‘‘2’’ in ‘‘universal applicability’’ was analyzed child as listening to a story that the teacher was telling and
further as it was perceived as a measure of contextuality. In identified the child as feeling sad, as a result of the content
the cases in which the participants’ judged that the of the story. After the examiner described each picture for
behavior was acceptable in some but not all contexts, they the child, emphasizing the context in which the interactions
were asked to provide examples of contexts in which the were occurring, the participant with ASD then correctly
behavior would be acceptable. Each example was afforded interpreted the remaining 8 pictures.
one point. The mean number of examples could be com- The picture of the student putting his backpack on the
pared by group (i.e., ASD/typical development) and by chair instead of hanging it on its hook seemed to bewilder
type of transgression (i.e., moral/social). three of the typically developing children and two partic-
All the coding was analyzed from written transcripts of ipants with ASD, who described the placing of the pack on
the answers given by the participants, and coded by the first the chair and on the hook as the same behavior. The picture

123
1370 J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376

portraying a child who was not willing to share food with Act Evaluation (Justification of Acceptability
another child elicited two different interpretations, both of of the Depicted Behavior)
which were judged as correct interpretations as they were
possible descriptions of the interaction. Most of the par- The evaluation of the appropriateness of the action was
ticipants (30) viewed the interaction as a situation in which assessed through the judgment of the participants as to the
one child was unwilling to share food, while six others acceptability of the behavior (question 2—Is it OK to
perceived the situation as the child with the food having behave in this manner? and question 3—Why is it wrong to
taken it from the first child without permission. behave in this manner?) for all 36 participants. Interjudge
The picture of the child ‘‘stealing’’ from another’s reliability was calculated according to percentage of
backpack elicited three types of transgression attributions: agreement for all of the responses provided by the partic-
five of the 36 participants described it as ‘‘going through ipants and found to be 89%. Since some of the participants
another’s backpack without permission’’, but not actually provided more than one explanation for each picture,
as stealing. Twenty-four participants determined that the 389 rationales were analyzed. No significant differences
child going through the backpack was actually stealing, occurred on the more frequently provided rationales, which
while seven participants described the action as ‘‘search- included damage resulting from the transgression (25%;
ing for something in someone else’s backpack’’. All three n = 97) and the citing of specific rules prohibiting the
responses were coded as correct answers, since they depicted behaviors (23%; n = 90). Participants with typi-
included a coherent description of what was occurring in cal development provided significantly more abstract rules
the picture while recognizing a behavioral transgression, as rationales for their judgments of the unacceptability of
with no statistically significant group differences. Thus, in the behaviors (t(34) = -3.8, p \ 0.01), whereas the par-
summary, a near-to-ceiling effect emerged from the ticipants with ASD provided more nonspecific condemna-
descriptions of the transgressions in the pictures, sup- tions of the behaviors without rationales (t(34) = 2.881,
porting the fact that all the participants understood what p \ 0.01) and more answers in which a utilitarian per-
was depicted in the pictures. Consequently any differ- spective was discerned (t(34) = 2.92, p \ 0.01). No sig-
ences which emerged could be interpreted as resulting nificant group differences emerged in idiosyncratic
from the reasoning processes employed by the partici- rationales (n = 21, 5.4%). The depicted behaviors were
pants and not from a lack of understanding of the evaluated as acceptable 32 times (8%).
interactions.

Extraneous Information Universal Applicability as a Marker of the Moral/Social

Distinction
In the analysis of the extraneous pieces of information in
the descriptions, overall interjudge reliability was 90.56%. After establishing that the participants understood the
The mean number of extraneous pieces of information for transgressions depicted in the pictures, it was possible to
the entire sample of 36 participants was 5.28 (SD = 5.55), compare the moral transgressions and the social conven-
with some participants not adding any extraneous infor- tional transgressions on the basis of whether the partici-
mation. Two participants, one with autism (twenty-seven pants viewed the transgression as universal or context
complementary descriptions) and one with typical devel- bound, as presented in Table 2. Universal applicability as
opment (seventeen complementary descriptions) were coded from the participants’ response to the question
excluded as outliers from the analysis of group differences regarding whether it would be acceptable to behave in that
in providing extraneous information in their descriptions. manner in any other situation for each transgression is
After the outliers were excluded, a significant group dif- presented in Table 3 (n = 36). From this table, it is clear
ference emerged (t(32) = 1.97, p \ 0.05), with the partici- that throwing a glass bottle, pushing a child, hitting a child,
pants with autism providing a mean of 5.47 (SD = 4.46) stealing, tearing a book and coloring on the walls, which
extraneous pieces of information and the participants with were interpreted as vandalism, and not sharing food were
typical development adding an average of 3.12 supple- judged by the majority of the participants in this study as
mentary pieces of information to their descriptions unacceptable, while daydreaming instead of listening to the
(SD = 2.09). These two participants were included in all teacher in class, putting a backpack on a chair instead of
other analyses as the number of extraneous pieces of hanging it on a hook, and eating on the floor were viewed
information was not pertinent to other analyses in the as acceptable in some or all other contexts by the majority
study. of the participants.

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376 1371

Table 2 Acceptable contexts by frequency The interaction between the type of transgression and
group affiliation was significant in both analyses F1(1,34) =
Behaviors Not Allowed Generally
allowed in in other allowed
10.69, g2 = .24, p \ 0.01; F2(1,8) = 9.43, g2 = .54,
any context contexts p \ 0.05, suggesting that the distinction is more pro-
nounced within the typically developing children. Post hoc
Dreaming in class 8 (22%) 26 (72%) 2 (6%)
comparisons reveal that participants with ASD tended
(percentage)
to view social norms as more universally abiding than par-
Put bag on chair 8 (22%) 17 (47%) 11 (31%)
(percentage) ticipants with typical development, F(1,34) = 4.88, p \
Eating on the floor 10 (28%) 19 (53%) 7 (19%) 0.05, whereas no difference was found between the two
(percentage) groups’ judgments of the moral transgressions.
Does not share food 21 (58%) 8 (22%) 7 (19%) The results from the present study revealed that both
(percentage) groups judged social conventional violations to be more
Coloring on walls 23 (64%) 13 (36%) context-bound than moral transgressions. However, par-
(percentage)
ticipants with ASD evaluated violations of social norms
Tearing book (percentage) 26 (72%) 10 (28%)
more inflexibly, with their judgments being more rule
Steal from backpack 27 (75%) 9 (25%)
bound than the judgments of the participants with typical
(percentage)
development. Thus, despite the ability to distinguish
Hit a child (percentage) 28 (78%) 5 (14%) 3 (8%)
between moral and social transgressions, the judgments of
Push a child (percentage) 32 (89%) 4 (11%)
violations of social norms in the group with ASD were
Throw glass bottle 32 (92%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%)
(percentage) more similar to those regarding moral transgressions than
in the typically developing group.

Examples of Possible Contexts as Marker of the Moral/ Group Differences in Contextuality

Social Distinction
We calculated the mean number of novel examples the
The number of novel examples the participants provided participants generated for possible contexts in which the
for contexts in which the depicted behaviors might be depicted behaviors could be judged as acceptable, despite
acceptable are presented in Table 4. Of the 85 participant- the fact that as depicted they were judged as unacceptable.
generated examples, 57 (67%) were provided in response In order to test the hypothesis that both groups would
to social conventional transgressions and 28 (33%) were provide more examples for social conventional transgres-
provided in response to moral transgressions (t(35) = 3.64, sions than for moral transgressions, we compared the mean
p \ 0.01). Thus, overall, social conventional transgressions number of examples provided for each type of transgres-
were more context dependent than moral transgressions. sion in each group, and found that although both groups
provided more examples for social conventional trans-
Group Differences in Universal Applicability gressions than for moral transgressions, the difference was
significant only within the typically developing group
In order to test the hypothesis that both groups would dis- (t(17) = 4.46, p \ 0.001).
tinguish between moral and social conventional transgres-
sions, and that the distinction would be more clearly
pronounced within the typically developing group, we cal- Discussion
culated the mean of the applicability judgments for the two
types of transgressions within each group. Two multivariate The findings from this study revealed that the participants
analyses were performed: subject analysis (F1) with the type from both groups were able to accurately describe the
of transgressions as within-subject factor and the group interactions depicted in the pictures and to identify the
affiliation as between-subjects factor, and item analysis (F2) unacceptable behaviors as transgressions. The participants
with the type of transgressions as between-items factor and with ASD added more extraneous information in their
group affiliation as within-items factor. Both analyses show descriptions than those with typical development. When
a main effect for the group affiliation F1(1,34) = 7.48, asked to provide explanations for their judgments regard-
g2 = .18, p \ 0.05; F2(1,8) = 8.47, g2 = .51, p \ 0.05, ing the unacceptability of the depicted behaviors, the most
and the subject analysis shows a main effect of the type of frequent rationales provided by the participants included
transgression, F1(1,34) = 40.04, g2 = .54, p \ 0.001, expected damage which would result from the transgres-
which wasn’t replicated in the item analysis F2(1,8) = 4.33, sions and citing of specific simple rules prohibiting such
n.s. The group differences are displayed in Fig. 1. behavior. Participants with typical development provided

123
1372 J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376

Table 3 Examples for contexts

The proposed contexts where behavior is permissible
in which the depicted behaviors
are acceptable Behaviors Own With Outdoors/Pubic Other, specific contexts
property permission places

Dreaming in class 1 7 With no attention to you 2

If uncomfortable 1
With strangers 1
At an unimportant place 1
At relatives’ house 1
Put bag on chair 1 3 If you don’t need it 2
In the car 1
At other peoples’ house 1
Eating on the floor 2 8 On a carpet 1
Does not share food 2 1 The owner is hungry 2
There’s plenty of food 1
Protagonists are strangers
2
Coloring on walls 1 6 Graffiti 3
On a page 3
Arts room 1
Tearing book 6 By accident 2
Book not needed 1
Book banning rally 1
Hit a child 1 Judo lesson 1
Pillow fight 2
At home, if provoked 1
A slap 1
Push a child If provoked 2
Among siblings 1
Throw glass bottle If provoked 1
Plastic bottle 1
Launching a ship 1
Steal from 3 4 Security inspection 1
backpack

Table 4 Novel examples for contextual dependency universally applicable than moral transgressions, with this
Type of transgressiona Mean Standard deviation distinction being more pronounced in individuals with
ASDb TYPc ASD TYP
typical development, who also provided significantly more
examples of places and situations in which the depicted
Social conventional .25 .46 .25 .32 behaviors would be acceptable.
Moral .16 .19 .24 .17 According to the social domain theory (Turiel 2008;
a
There were 5 behaviors in each category Smetana 2006), cognitive structures are developed and
bc
There were 18 participants in each group classified within fundamental categories, or ‘‘domains’’, the
purpose of which is to organize social knowledge. The two
significantly more abstract rules as rationales for their categories investigated in the present research were the
judgments, whereas participants with ASD provided more moral and social conventional domains. Morality is struc-
nonspecific condemnations of the behaviors (e.g., ‘‘that’s tured around intrinsic issues of human welfare, fairness,
bad’’, ‘‘you can’t do that’’) and more answers in which a and not causing damage, whereas social conventions are
utilitarian perspective was discerned (e.g., ‘‘the teacher will essentially arbitrary (Sousa et al. 2009; Wainryb 2006),
get mad’’). Supporting findings from previous studies, the based on cultural customs and shared norms, the purpose of
results from the present study revealed that both groups which is to help coordinate interactions and facilitate social
judged social conventional transgressions to be less functioning. Previous research has shown that even very

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376 1373

people with ASD process information in a piecemeal

fashion, responding to both meaningless and meaningful
stimuli similarly (Frith 1997; Porter and Coltheart 2006;
Teunisse et al. 2001). In the current study, participants with
ASD provided more irrelevant, unsubstantiated details in
their descriptions. This difference cannot be ascribed to
differences in intellectual abilities since they and the typ-
ically developing participants were matched on both verbal
and nonverbal intelligence. Furthermore, it is possible that
difficulties in discerning the relevant aspects of the inter-
action undermined the ability of the participants with ASD
to understand when the application of the more flexible
social conventional norms was appropriate. Consequently,
Fig. 1 Group differences in contextuality of moral and social rules
individuals with ASD may have judged violations of social
conventional norms more stringently than the participants
with typical development and perceived them as if they
young children are aware of these principles (Smetana were moral transgressions.
1989; Smetana and Braeges 1990; Turiel 2008). The open- Abstract thinking also involves the identification of
ended questions in the present study offered a unique relevant and salient characteristics of stimuli from various
opportunity to analyze the rationales upon which the par- sources. Abstractions are established as a result of bringing
ticipants’ judgments were based. For example, when col- together the essential parts shared by each source and
oring on the walls was viewed as ‘‘vandalism’’ or as ‘‘a assimilating them into some general scheme (Sperber and
violation of the owner’s property rights’’, it was judged as a Wilson 1995; Hahn and Chater 1998). These schemes
moral transgression, whereas when it was perceived as coalesce into abstract rules which are based on the dis-
behavior requiring permission by the owners of the prop- tinctive aspects which have been isolated and incorporated
erty, it was viewed as a violation of social conventions and into a prototype, which is an identified area of impairment
judged as acceptable in certain circumstances, such as for individuals with ASD (Best et al. 2010; Klinger and
coloring on the walls in art class, or at home with parental Dawson 1991; Shulman et al. 1995). In the present study,
permission. Thus, although the current study’s participants’ participants were asked to provide rationales explaining
evaluations of the depicted behaviors could differ from why the depicted transgressions were wrong, and the typ-
each other and from previous findings, the basic principles ically developing participants used abstract rules signifi-
distinguishing between moral and social conventional cantly more frequently than the participants with ASD,
domains remained germane. From our results, which are whose judgments regarding the transgressions remained
supported by previous findings (Blair 1996; Leslie et al. specific and individual and did not reflect an understanding
2006), it seems that both groups’ judgments reflected the of the underlying principles behind the prohibitions.
moral/social distinction. Unfortunately, the number of participants in each group
However, despite being matched on verbal and non- was too small to allow the calculation of the correlation
verbal cognitive abilities, a closer examination of the between participants’ use of abstract rules in their justifi-
rationales provided by the participants revealed cognitive cations and the addition of extraneous information, leaving
differences between the two groups. In order to compre- the possibility of a correlation between the ability to form
hend what is happening in the world, attention must be abstract rules and the ability to detect relevant details in
focused on the relevant aspects of a stimulus or an action interactions to be explored in future studies.
upon which judgments are made (Newell and Broder Several cognitive processes affect the formulation of
2008). The attention of individuals with ASD is often abstract rules and previous research findings have revealed
captured by surface features or fragments of objects or that abstract thinking in ASD is compromised when faced
interactions, not those which are the most salient for others. with cognitive overload (Happé and Frith 2006). Although
Because they focus on the details, it becomes difficult for the social situations presented in the current experimental
individuals with ASD to discern the relevant features as task were familiar and simple, they may have been inher-
different and as more important than irrelevant ones. ently complex for people with ASD, because of the social
Therefore, even after identifying the relevant aspects of the (Loveland et al. 2001) and verbal load. The fact that they
stimuli, individuals with autism continued to add irrelevant were asked to justify their social judgments verbally might
details often clouding their originally correct answer have compounded the cognitive difficulty (Surian et al.
(Happé and Frith 2006). Likewise, there is evidence that 1996), resulting in the diminished use of abstract rules and

123
1374 J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376

the higher rate of nonspecific condemnations of the addressed in future research. The findings from this study
transgressions. were based on a small sample and replicating them with a
Finally, in addition to the generation of abstractions, the larger sample, extending the ages of the participants to a
flexible use of cognitive skills is imperative in formulating younger and older cohort, and including more females,
judgments. Flexible thinking, which refers to the ability to would add to the validity of the findings reported in the
shift to different thoughts or actions depending on the sit- current study. Similarly, it is important to see if similar
uational demands (Monsell 2003), is another identified area results would emerge when individuals with a wider range
of difficulty for individuals with ASD (Corbett et al. 2009; of cognitive abilities are included. Although group
Dawson et al. 2000). Flexible thinking has been frequently matching in the current study was more scrupulous, with
assessed using rule switching paradigms (Meiran 2010). matching on verbal, performance and full score IQ mea-
Although the differentiation between the moral and social sures, whereas in previous studies, the matching was only
transgressions in the current study was not made explicitly, according to a measure of verbal mental age measures
the participants’ judgments regarding universal applica- (e.g., Blair 1996; Grant et al. 2005; Leslie et al. 2006), the
bility and contextuality required implicit rule changing as issues examined in the current study should also be
the moral/social distinction is a distinction between two investigated among individuals with ASD of all levels of
types of interactions: those in which one rule applies (i.e., cognitive functioning.
moral transgressions) and those in which the appropriate- In addition, there may have been an inherent bias in this
ness of the behavior is contingent upon the particular set of research as only pictures of transgressions were presented
circumstances of each interaction (i.e., violations of social to the participants. Although this is an acceptable meth-
conventions). The participants with ASD in the current odology in the moral/social discrimination task, the inclu-
study seemed less aware of the possibility that the rules sion of pictures depicting interactions which could have
which prohibit social conventional transgressions might been judged as acceptable would add another dimension to
change according to the specific contextual conditions of the judgments regarding the interactions and could broaden
each interaction and that some of these changes could lead our understanding of social and moral reasoning in ASD.
to a different evaluation of the acceptability of the depicted Finally, it is important to stress that the use of this meth-
behavior. odology does not predict how individuals with ASD would
These findings have specific implications for rule describe, judge and explain interactions in real life situa-
learning and specifically for social and moral education, in tions. The pictures were presented in order to provide
ASD. Evidence from earlier research (Billings 2007) sug- straightforward stimuli to be analyzed, but it is not clear if
gests that even in typical development it should not be the judgments and rationales provided by the individuals
assumed that abstract thinking will be used flexibly and with ASD would also express themselves when they found
will be generalized to new contexts. Cognitive skills have themselves in such interactions. A discrepancy between the
long been perceived as situation-specific and highly manner in which typically developing children understand
dependent on domain-specific knowledge (Brown et al. transgressions and their behavior in actual situations has
1991). When teaching moral and social rules to individuals been documented (Turiel 2008). The level of moral rea-
with ASD, there is a need to deliberately teach ‘‘mindful soning reflected in the explanations given by the partici-
abstraction’’ of principles (Zelazo and Frye 1998). In order pants with ASD may rest on analytical cognitive skills and
for appropriate generalization and transfer from one situ- not necessarily be expressed in live interactions.
ation to another to be achieved, thorough and diverse In conclusion, the findings from this research emphasize
practice must be provided and abstraction of rules must be the need to understand the manner in which people with
explicitly articulated (Perkins and Salomon 1987) together ASD think about the world around them as a basis for
with self-monitoring practices (Forbes and Grafman 2010). intervention strategies designed to maximize their under-
Given the appropriate conditions, such as cueing, practic- standing of and involvement in the social world. Previous
ing, generating abstract rules, and socially cogent expla- research which focused on the nature of moral reasoning in
nations and principles, skills can be transferred from one the moral/social conventional transgression distinction
situation to another (Anderson 1989). Otherwise, the con- found moral reasoning relatively intact, whereas the justi-
text, the interaction and/or the rule can become inflexible fications of the participants with ASD were characterized
and situation-specific (Killen and Smetana 2008). by difficulties in abstraction of rules which govern
Although the results from the present study lead to behavior, a tendency to overgeneralize and an inflexible
important intervention strategies which might help indi- adherence to social norms. It is possible that these diffi-
viduals with ASD understand and reason about social and culties may cause some of the social impairments in ASD.
moral interactions in a more effective manner, there were Therefore, the manner in which social rules are taught
several limitations in the present study which remain to be needs to reflect the underlying difficulties which

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376 1375

individuals with ASD experience as they reason about the Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak central coherence account:
social world around them. When helping individuals with Detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1),
ASD navigate the social world it is important to teach the 5–25.
principles upon which behavior governing rules are based, Harvey, R. J., Fletcher, J., & French, D. J. (2001). Social reasoning: A
practice transferring them from one situation to another, source of influence on social aggression. Clinical Psychology
and stress the contextuality of behavior governed by social Review, 21, 447–469.
Hill, E. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive
conventional rules, rather than simply emphasize the Sciences, 8(1), 26–32.
‘‘immorality’’ of doing something wrong. Humphries, M. L., Parker, B. L., & Jagers, R. J. (2000). Predictors of
moral reasoning among African American children: A pre-
liminary study. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 51–64.
Killen, M. (1991). Social and moral development in early childhood.
References In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral
behavior and development (pp. 115–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical rence Elbaum Associates.
manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV), 4th edn. Washington DC: Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stanger, C. (2006). How
APA. children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
manual of mental disorders (fourth edition-revised). Washington 67(4, serial no. 271).
DC: APA. Killen, M., Margie, N. G., & Sinno, S. (2006b). Morality in the
Anderson, L. M. (1989). Implementing instructional programs to context of intergroup relationships. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana
promote meaningful, self-regulated meaning. In J. E. Brophy (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 155–183). Mah-
(Ed.), Advances in research technology (Vol. 1, pp. 311–345). wah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishing.
NYC: JAI Press. Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (1999). Social interactions in preschool
Best, C. A., Minshew, N. J., & Strauss, M. S. (2010). Gender classrooms and the development of young children’s conceptions
discrimination of eyes and mouths by individuals with autism. of the personal. Child Development, 70(2), 486–501.
Autism Research, 3(1), 1–6. Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2008). Moral judgment and moral
Billings, D. (2007). Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher neuroscience: Intersections, definitions and issues. Child Devel-
education: Cognitive skills. Higher Education, 53, 483–516. opment Perspectives, 2(1), 1–6.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Norbury, C. F. (2002). Exploring the borderlands Klinger, L. G., & Dawson, G. (1991). A fresh look at categorization
of autistic disorder and specific language impairment: A study skills in persons with autism. In E. Schopler & G. Mesibov
using standardized diagnostic instruments. Journal of Child (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 119–136). New
Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(7), 917–929. York: Plenum Press.
Blair, R. J. R. (1996). Brief report: Morality in the autistic child. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, 571–579. nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper Row.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1991). Situated cognition and Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities
the culture of learning. In M. Yazdani & R. W. Lawler (Eds.), in childhood and adult moral development. Human Develop-
Artificial intelligence and education (Vol. 2, pp. 245–268). ment, 12, 93–120.
Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing. Leslie, A., Malton, R., & DiCorcia, J. A. (2006). Transgressor,
Corbett, B. A., Constantine, L. J., Hendren, R., Rocke, D., & Ozonoff, victims and cry babies: Is basic moral judgment spare din
S. J. (2009). Examining executive functioning in children with autism? Social Neuroscience, 1, 270–283.
autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disor- Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L.,
ders, and typical development. Psychiatry Research, 166, DiLavore, P. C., et al. (2000). The autism diagnostic observation
210–222. schedule–generic: A standard measure of social and communi-
Crane-Ross, D., & Tisak, M. S. (1995). Mixed-domain events: The cation deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of
influence of moral and conventional components on the devel- Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205–223.
opment of social reasoning. Early Education and Development, Lord, C., Rutter, M., & Le Couteur, A. (1994). Autism diagnostic
6, 347–365. interview—revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview
Dawson, G., Osterling, J., Meltzoff, A., & Kuhl, P. (2000). Case study for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive develop-
of the development of an infant with autism from birth to two mental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-
years of age. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, ders, 24, 659–685.
21(3), 299–313. Loth, E., Gomez, J. C., & Happe, F. (2008). Event schemas in autism
Forbes, C. E., & Grafman, J. (2010). The role of the human prefrontal spectrum disorders: The role of theory of mind and weak central
cortex in social cognition and moral judgment. Annual Review of coherence. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38,
Neuroscience, 33, 299–324. 449–463.
Frith, U. (1997). The neurocognitive basis of autism. Trends in Loveland, K. A., Pearson, D. A., Tunali-Kotoski, B., Ortegon, J., &
Cognitive Science, 1(2), 73–77. Gibbs, M. (2001). Judgments of social appropriateness by
Geurts, H. M., Corbett, B., & Solomon, M. (2009). The paradox of children and adolescents with autism. Journal of Autism and
cognitive flexibility in autism. Trends in Cognitive Science, Developmental Disorders, 31(4), 367–376.
13(2), 74–82. Meiran, N. (2010). Task-switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs.
Grant, C., Boucher, J., Riggs, K., & Grayson, A. (2005). Moral flexible self-control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope
understanding in children with autism. Autism, 9, 317–331. (Eds.), Self-control in society, mind and Brain (pp. 202–220).
Hahn, U., & Chater, N. (1998). Similarity and rules: Distinct? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Exhaustive? Empirically distinguishable? Cognition, 65(2–3), Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Science,
197–230. 7(3), 134–140.

123
1376 J Autism Dev Disord (2012) 42:1364–1376

Newell, B. R., & Broder, A. (2008). Cognitive processes, models and Surian, L., Baron-Cohen, S., & van der Lely, H. (1996). Are children
metaphors in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, with autism deaf to Grecian maxims? Cognitive Neuropsychia-
3(3), 195–204. try, 1(1), 55–72.
Nucci, L. P., & Turiel, E. (1978). Social interactions and the Tager-Flusberg, H., & Sullivan, K. (1995). Attributing mental states
development of social concepts in preschool children. Child to story characters: A comparison of narratives produced by
Development, 49, 400–407. autistic and mentally retarded individuals. Applied Psycholin-
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1987). Transfer and teaching thinking. guistics, 16(3), 241–256.
In D. N. Perkins, J. Lockhead, & J. Bishop (Eds.), Thinking: The Takeda, T., Kasai, K., & Kato, N. (2007). Moral judgment in high-
second international conference (pp. 285–303). Hillsdale, NJ: functioning pervasive developmental disorders. Psychiatry and
Lawrence Elbaum Associates. Clinical Neurosciences, 61, 407–414.
Porter, M., & Coltheart, M. (2006). Global and local processing in Teunisse, J. P., Cools, A. R., van Spaendonck, K. P. M., Aerts, F.
Williams syndrome, autism and Down syndrome: Perception, H. T. M., & Berger, H. J. C. (2001). Cognitive styles in high-
attention and construction. Developmental Neuropsychology, functioning adolescents with autistic disorders. Journal of
30(3), 771–789. Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 55–66.
Shantz, C. U. (1999). Commentary: Development, modalities, and Tisak, M. S., Tisak, J., & Goldstein, S. E. (2006). Aggression,
relationships. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relation- delinquency, and morality: A social-cognitive perspective. In M.
ships as developmental contexts, The Minnesota symposia on Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development
child psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 315–322). Mahwah, NJ, US: (pp. 611–632). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tisak, M. S., & Turiel, E. (1988). Variation in seriousness of
Shulman, C., Yirmiya, N., & Greenbaum, C. W. (1995). From transgressions and children’s moral and conventional concepts.
categorization to classification: A comparison among individuals Developmental Psychology, 24, 352–357.
with autism, mental retardation and normal development. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(4), 601–609. convention. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Smetana, J. (1981). Preschool children’s conception of moral and Turiel, E. (1989). Domain-specific social judgments and domain
social rules. Child Development, 52(4), 1333–1336. ambiguities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 89–114.
Smetana, J. G. (1989). Toddlers’ social interactions in the context of Turiel, E. (2006). The development of morality. In N. Eisenberg, W.
moral and conventional transgressions in the home. Develop- Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology,
mental Psychology, 25(4), 499–508. Volume 3: Social, emotional and personality development (6th
Smetana, J. (2002). Culture, autonomy, and personal jurisdiction in ed., pp. 789–857). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
adolescent-parent relationships. In R. V. Kail & H. W. Reese Turiel, E. (2008). Thoughts about actions in social domains: Morality,
(Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 29, social conventions and social interactions. Cognitive Develop-
pp. 51–87). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ment, 23, 136–154.
Smetana, J. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies Turiel, E., & Wainryb, C. (1998). Concepts of freedoms and rights in
and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In a traditional, hierarchically organized society. British Journal of
M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 375–395.
(pp. 119–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Volkmar, F. R., State, M., & Klin, A. (2009). Autism and autism
Smetana, J. G., & Braeges, J. L. (1990). The development of toddler’s spectrum disorder: Diagnostic issues for the coming decade.
moral and conventional judgments. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(1–2), 108–115.
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 329–346. Wainryb, C. (2006). Moral development in culture: Diversity,
Solomon, M., Ozonoff, S., Cummings, N., & Carter, C. S. (2008). tolerance and justice. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.),
Cognitive control in autism spectrum disorders. International Handbook of moral development (pp. 211–240). Mahwah, NJ:
Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 26, 239–247. Erlbaum Publishing.
Song, M., Smetana, J. G., & Kim, S. (1987). Korean children’s Wechsler, D. (1991). WISC-III: Wechsler intelligence scale for
conceptions of moral and conventional transgressions. Develop- children. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, Harcourt
mental Psychology, 23, 577–582. Brace Jovanovich.
Sousa, P., Holbrook, C., & Piazza, J. (2009). The morality of harm. World Health Organization. (1992). International classification of
Cognition, 113(1), 80–92. diseases, 10th edn. Geneva: WHO.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1998). Cognitive complexity and control:
cognition (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Company. The development of executive function in childhood. Current
Stich, S., Fessler, D. M. T., & Kelly, D. (2009). On morality of harm: Directions in Psychological Science, 7(4), 121–126.
A response to Sousa, Holbrook and Piazza. Cognition, 113(1),
93–97.

123
Copyright of Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders is the property of Springer Science & Business
Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.