Skip to main content
Autism

Why Are Autistic People So Generous with Strangers?

A new study debunks several common assumptions about autism.

Key points

  • In experiments, autistic adults gave significantly more money to strangers than non-autistic adults.
  • Both groups were equally generous with their loved ones.
  • Researchers ruled out repetitive responding and "not valuing money" as explanations for prosocial choices.
  • Researchers conclude autistic people consistently show enhanced prosocial behavior, likely due to fairness.
Rawpixel / Rawpixel
Source: Rawpixel / Rawpixel

The Stereotype: Autistic people lack empathy. They struggle to care about others.

The Research: Independent studies across three countries demonstrated the same thing: autistic adults are just as generous with their loved ones as non-autistic adults, and significantly more generous with strangers.

And, a just-published study shows that this is not because they are “simply doing the same thing rigidly” or “don’t understand the value of money.”

Well-Matched Samples, Careful Design

Researchers at University College London recruited 37 autistic adults (all with formal clinical diagnoses) and 38 non-autistic adults. The groups were carefully matched on age, gender, and IQ at slightly above average—meaning any differences couldn't be explained by intelligence or demographics. The only major difference was that autistic participants scored much higher on the Autism Quotient questionnaire, as would be expected.

Participants completed a well-established economic task called the Social Value Orientation (SVO) questionnaire. Here's how it worked: they were given money to split between themselves and another person, choosing from nine different distribution options on a slider. Options ranged from more prosocial (generous) to competitive (giving others very little). Participants made selections six times for each of six different social distances:

  • Distance 1: The person emotionally closest to them
  • Distance 5, 10, 20: People progressively less close
  • Distance 50: Someone they'd met before but couldn't remember the name of
  • Distance 100: A stranger

The clever part: Each of the six allocation sliders was unique; you couldn't just pick the same spot each time. This design was crucial for testing whether autistic participants were genuinely making prosocial choices or just responding repetitively.

The Results: Autistic Generosity

At social distance 1 (closest person), both groups showed similar generosity.

But differences emerged as social distance increased. While non-autistic people showed a steep decline in generosity as social distance increased, autistic people showed a much less decline, maintaining substantial generosity even toward strangers.

At social distance 50, autistic adults were nearly three times more generous.

At social distance 100 (strangers), autistic participants were more than twice as generous as non-autistic adults.

Busting the "Rigidity" Explanation

The study authors anticipated that skeptics might say: "Well, autistic people just picked the same response over and over because of repetitive behavior tendencies." They checked and counted how many unique SVO values each participant chose across all social distances.

The result: No difference. Autistic participants averaged 4.54 unique responses; non-autistic participants averaged 4.68. Three people in each group gave the same response across all distances.

The increased generosity in autism wasn't about rigidity or repetitive responding. It was a genuine pattern of choosing to be fairer to socially distant others.

Busting the "They Don't Understand Money's Value" Explanation

The researchers went further. They tested another potential dismissive explanation: "Maybe autistic people are more generous because they don't really understand or value money the way non-autistic people do?"

To test this, all participants rated their agreement with 16 statements about money across four dimensions:

Power: "Money is important because it shows how successful and powerful you are."
Freedom: "There are very few things money can't buy."
Love: "I am very generous with the people I love."
Security: "I'd rather save money than spend it."

The result: No significant differences on any dimension. Autistic and non-autistic adults valued money similarly across all four areas. They understood its power implications, its ability to provide security, its role in relationships, and its capacity to facilitate freedom and options.

This matters because it crosses off the condescending interpretation that autistic people were only more generous because they "didn't get it," didn't understand money's importance or value. Nope, they got it just fine. They chose to allocate it more equitably despite social distances and extend generosity more consistently to people they weren't connected to, or even did not know.

Three Countries, Same Finding

The pattern of autistic generosity to strangers isn't a fluke. This is now the third independent study showing this pattern. Previous research in Japan and in Germany found it. This study in the UK confirmed it.

Different countries, different research teams, different samples, same result: autistic adults show enhanced prosociality toward socially distant others.

Are Autistic People More Fair?

The researchers propose that autistic people may apply fairness norms more consistently across all people, regardless of social closeness. Prior research supports this idea: autistic individuals make more consistent decisions across contexts, are more consistent when following moral rules, and are more committed to fairness as a foundational moral principle.

Non-autistic people often give preferential treatment to their people—friends, family, in-groups. Autistic people are more likely to extend fairness and consideration to everyone, treating strangers with the same kindness they'd show close friends. Autistic people might be applying a more inclusive model of fairness, one that doesn't automatically privilege in-group members. From the neurodiversity perspective, that's not a deficit. That's a different view on social fairness. And considering how much harm is caused by ingroup bias, favoritism, and tribalism, perhaps this is a much-needed counterbalance.

advertisement
More from Ludmila N. Praslova, Ph.D.
More from Psychology Today