Arguments of Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder When Comparing Simple Probabilities: a Case Study

Abstract The objective of this paper is to characterize the probabilistic reasoning of five high school students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis, after analyzing the arguments they use when comparing simple probabilities, which are distinguished between subjectivist or objectivist, as well as different types of strategies used for the construction of the latter. Students solved six items in line with the above, all of them designed with a similar structure, and in a context of balls into boxes: between the two possible boxes, they had to choose the one in which the probability of the event getting a black ball is greater. The results obtained warn us that the objectivist arguments determine the choices of the five students and that, for the most part, they are correct. In addition, different strategies have been recognized, related to objectivist arguments, the so-called additive comparison of favorable and unfavorable cases being predominant. Certain difficulties have also been observed by one student when recognizing equiprobability situations. We disccuss possible relationships of the observed performance with some characteristic cognitive traits of people with ASD.