Elif Bastan

The university years represent a critical developmental stage in which academic satisfaction and subjective well-being are shaped by demographic factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and year of study. This study examined the relationship between academic life satisfaction and subjective well-being among undergraduate students in Turkey, while exploring the moderating roles of gender, socioeconomic status, and year level. Participants were 427 undergraduates (77.52% female, N = 331; 22.48% male, N = 96). Data were collected through the Personal Information Form, the Academic Life Satisfaction Scale, and the Short Form of the General Well-Being Scale. Results revealed a strong positive association between academic life satisfaction and subjective well-being. Importantly, gender significantly moderated this relationship, with the association being stronger among female students. These findings highlight the importance of considering gender differences in student support programs and suggest that efforts to improve academic satisfaction may foster students’ overall psychological well-being.

The Dual Process Theory in Autism is a contemporary approach used to explain the cognitive processing styles of autistic individuals. The theory proposes that individuals rely on two distinct modes of processing: intuitive (Type I; fast and automatic) and reasoning-based (Type II; slow and analytical). It is suggested that, compared to their neurotypical peers, autistic individuals tend to engage less in intuitive processing and more in reasoning-based processing. This cognitive style has been associated with reduced susceptibility to common biases such as the framing effect, sunk cost fallacy, and conjunction fallacy. Some studies report that autistic individuals demonstrate superiority in logical consistency and produce fewer intuitive responses, whereas others have failed to confirm these differences or have presented contradictory findings. Although self-reports often indicate lower intuitive and higher reasoning tendencies, inconsistencies emerge when compared with performance-based measures. Moreover, issues such as the ecological validity of the tasks employed, the limitations of the samples, and insufficient control of cognitive abilities make the interpretation of existing evidence difficult. Nevertheless, the theory provides a framework for jointly considering both the strengths of autism in non-social domains and the difficulties experienced in social contexts. In particular, the lack of rapid intuitive processing in social interactions may exacerbate communication difficulties, while an analytic approach may offer advantages in structured environments. In conclusion, the Dual Process Theory in Autism offers a valuable framework for understanding autistic cognitive diversity. However, due to inconsistent and limited findings, broader research with higher ecological validity is needed. This approach has the potential to contribute significantly both to theoretical understanding and to the development of support strategies for autism.

ÖZ Bu makalede, bilimsel araştırma sürecine katılımlı araştırma yöntemlerinin entegre edilmesinin öneminden bahsedilmektedir. Katılımlı araştırma yöntemi, araştırılan olguyla direkt veya dolaylı yönden ilişkili hedef kitlenin—bu, otizm araştırmaları özelinde, otistik topluluk anlamına gelmektedir—araştırma sürecine dahil edilmesi şeklinde tanımlanabilir. Bu makalede, katılımlı araştırma yaklaşımının temel unsurları ve bir araştırma sürecinde (araştırma sorusu belirleme, araştırmanın tasarlanması, veri toplama ve araştırma bulgularının yayımlanması gibi) nasıl uygulanabileceği adım adım anlatılmaktadır. Otistik topluluktan oluşan özne-danışma komiteleri ile bu olguyu bizzat deneyimleyenlerden danışmanlık alınması, katılımlı araştırma yöntemine örnek bir strateji olarak sunulmuştur. Katılımlı araştırma yönteminin, araştırmaların kalitesini artırarak araştırma bulgularının uygulamaya çevrilmesini kolaylaştırdığı, otizm topluluğuna anlamlı faydalar sağladığı ve araştırmacılar ile otistik topluluk arasındaki güç dengesizliğini azaltıp iş birliği, etkileşim ve güveni artırdığı vurgulanmaktadır.

Enhanced rationality has been linked to higher levels of autistic traits, characterised by increased deliberation and decreased intuition, alongside reduced susceptibility to common reasoning biases. However, it is unclear whether this is domain-specific or domain-general. We aimed to explore whether reasoning tendencies differ across social and non-social domains in relation to autistic traits. We conducted two experiments ( N ¹ = 72, N ² = 217) using a reasoning task with social and non-social scenario comparisons to evaluate the specific information participants used when making judgments about children, in the social domain, and objects, in the non-social domain. We consistently found a greater reliance on behaviour-based information in the non-social domain, compared to the social domain, indicating a more deliberative approach. In Experiment 1, we found a correlation between autistic traits and the proportion of behaviour-based information, suggesting a more deliberative approach, when making judgments about children, and not about objects. In Experiment 2, with a larger sample, shortened version of the reasoning task, and requests for written justification, we did not identify a significant correlation between these variables. With this study, we introduce a novel scenario-based reasoning task that systematically compares the social and non-social domains. Our findings highlight the complex nature of the relationship between reasoning style and autistic traits.

Autism has been linked to difficulties within the social domain and quick decision-making. The Dual Process Theory of Autism proposes that autistic people, compared to non-autistic people, tend to prefer and perform in a more deliberative and less intuitive reasoning style, suggesting enhanced rationality in autism. However, this theory has not been systematically explored across social and non-social domains. In total, 24 autistic adults and 24 age-, gender- and non-verbal cognitive ability–matched non-autistic counterparts completed subjective and objective measures of reasoning. A scenario-based comparison task was employed, covering both social and non-social domains, to assess whether participants consistently used the same strategy across domains or alternated between strategies for their forced-choice judgements. On a subjective measure of reasoning, compared to their counterparts, autistic participants self-reported lower intuition. However, there was an opposite pattern on an objective measure, in that autistic participants responded more intuitively. No significant group differences were identified between autistic and non-autistic participants on self-reported deliberation, objectively measured reflectiveness or forced-choice moral judgements across social and non-social domains. There might be a discrepancy among autistic people for their subjective preferences and objective performances in reasoning, decision-making and judgements. Lay Autistic people often experience challenges in social contexts, and when decisions need to be made quickly. There is evidence showing that autistic people have a tendency for greater deliberation and lower intuition, compared to non-autistic people. This has led to the researchers’ proposal that autism is associated with an enhanced level of rationality. However, these theories have been mostly explored through the lens of either only non-social domain or only social domain. To address this gap, we recruited autistic adults and carefully matched them with non-autistic adults for comparison. We used a task representing both social and non-social interactions in a comparison structure and asked participants’ moral judgements on scenarios’ main characters. This was complemented by subjective and objective measures of reasoning. Our findings did not reveal meaningful differences between groups in terms of deliberation. However, we did observe that autistic participants self-reported lower levels of intuition, compared to non-autistic participants. Autistic people consistently rate themselves as less intuitive than their counterparts. Nevertheless, objective evidence supporting this across tasks and studies is inconsistent.

Causation is a fundamental way to make sense of both social and non-social domains. High levels of autistic traits have been linked to enhanced rationality, suggesting a more normative way of reasoning. We aimed to systematically compare causal reasoning tendencies across social and non-social domains and evaluate their relation to self-reported autistic traits and thinking styles. We used a causal reasoning task with three binary (present/absent) variables forming common cause networks (X←Z→Y) representing social and non-social domains. Causal mechanisms in the social domain represented social relationships, while causal mechanisms in the non-social domain represented economics and meteorology. We recruited 76 participants from the general population and measured their levels of autistic traits and thinking styles on self-reports. We found that participants consistently violated the normative rules of causal reasoning. We also identified systematic differences across domains. However, we did not identify meaningful differences between clusters of reasoners in their levels of self-reported autistic traits and thinking styles. We conclude with that people violate the normative rules of causal reasoning differently across domains. However, we cannot conclude that this relates to levels of autistic traits or thinking styles. Lay We regularly think about cause-and-effect relationships in the world around us. Previously, researchers reported that people with higher levels of autistic traits reason more consistently and rule-based. However, they have not compared social, involving living things, and non-social, involving non-living things, worlds in relation to people's levels of autistic traits. We used a causal reasoning task to test this. In this task, there were causal scenarios with binary variables, meaning a variable can be either present or absent. The scenarios either reflected a non-social mechanism, for example, economics, or a social mechanism, for example, an interpersonal relationship. Our participants, who did not necessarily have a clinical diagnosis, completed this task and two self-report questionnaires. We found that people did not follow the rules of causal reasoning. We also found that people's responses differed between social and non-social scenarios. We found that this was unrelated to people's self-reported autistic traits and thinking styles. We are confident that people differ in their use of reasoning rules in their causal reasoning, and this happens differently between social and non-social scenarios. Highlights: People consistently violate the normative rules of causal reasoning. This happens differently across social and non-social domains. Neither the levels of self-reported autistic traits nor thinking styles differ between the clusters of decisive and indecisive reasoners, yet further exploration is suggested.