PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Differences between autistic and nonautistic people are often framed as deficits. This research considers whether some of these differences might actually be strengths. In particular, autistic people tend to be less sensitive to their social environment than nonautistic people who are easily influenced by the judgments, opinions, beliefs and actions of others. Because autistic people are less susceptible to social influence, as employees they are more likely to take action when they witness an operational inefficiency or an ethical problem in the organization. By reporting problems, autistic employees may contribute to the introduction of innovations and improvements in organizational processes and effectiveness that result in superior performance. This paper considers whether and the extent to which these differences between autistic and nonautistic employees are moderated by \"moral disengagement,\" a set of interrelated cognitive mechanisms that allow people to make unethical decisions by deactivating moral self-regulatory processes. While previous research has shown that moral disengagement is related to unethical decisions, there is no research on whether and the extent to which autistic people are vulnerable to moral disengagement. Thirty-three autistic employees and 34 nonautistic employees completed an on-line survey to determine whether differences between autistic and nonautistic employees with regards to (1) likelihood they would voice concerns about organizational dysfunctions, and (2) degree to which they were influenced by the presence of others when deciding to intervene, are moderated by individual differences in moral disengagement. As predicted, autistic participants scored lower on moral disengagement than nonautistic participants. In terms of the moderating effects of moral disengagement, the results are mixed. Although moral disengagement reduced intervention likelihood, there was not a difference between autistic and nonautistic employees in the degree to which intervention likelihood was changed by an individual\'s level of moral disengagement. However, there was a difference between autistic and nonautistic employees in the extent to which acknowledging the influence of others was affected by moral disengagement. These findings suggest that autistic adults are not just more likely to intervene when they witness dysfunction or misconduct in an organizational context; they are also less likely to engage in unethical behavior in general due to lower levels of moral disengagement. The reduced susceptibility to the bystander effect evidenced by autistic adults in the workplace may be accounted for, in part, by their lower levels of moral disengagement compared with nonautistic adults.
摘要：
自闭症患者和非自闭症患者之间的差异通常被视为缺陷。这项研究考虑了这些差异中的一些是否实际上是优势。特别是,自闭症患者对他们的社会环境往往不如容易受到判断影响的非自闭症患者敏感，意见,他人的信仰和行为。因为自闭症患者不太容易受到社会影响，作为员工，当他们目睹组织中的运营效率低下或道德问题时，他们更有可能采取行动。通过报告问题，自闭症员工可能有助于引入创新和改进组织流程和有效性，从而实现卓越的绩效。本文考虑了自闭症和非自闭症员工之间的这些差异是否以及在多大程度上受到道德上的脱离，“一套相互关联的认知机制，允许人们通过停用道德自我调节过程来做出不道德的决定。虽然先前的研究表明，道德上的脱离与不道德的决定有关，没有研究自闭症患者是否以及在多大程度上容易受到道德脱离的影响。33名自闭症员工和34名非自闭症员工完成了一项在线调查，以确定自闭症和非自闭症员工之间是否存在差异（1）他们可能会表达对组织功能障碍的担忧，（2）在决定干预时，他们受到他人存在影响的程度，受到道德脱节的个体差异的调节。正如预测的那样，自闭症参与者在道德脱离方面的得分低于非自闭症参与者。就道德脱离的调节作用而言，结果喜忧参半。尽管道德上的脱离减少了干预的可能性，孤独症和非孤独症员工在干预可能性被个人的道德脱离程度改变的程度上没有差异。然而,自闭症和非自闭症员工在承认他人的影响受到道德脱离影响的程度上存在差异。这些发现表明，自闭症成年人不仅在组织环境中目睹功能障碍或不当行为时更有可能进行干预；由于道德上的脱离程度较低，他们通常也不太可能从事不道德行为。工作场所中自闭症成年人对旁观者效应的易感性降低可能是原因，在某种程度上,与非自闭症成年人相比，他们的道德脱离程度较低。
