Sibling Relationships in Families of Autistic and Typical Children: Similarities and Differences in the Perspectives of Siblings and Mothers.

This study investigates mothers' and siblings' perspectives regarding similarities and differences in siblingships with and without autism. Twenty-nine typical children (Mage = 8.78 years, SD = 2.05) whose younger siblings have a diagnosis of autism and their mothers constituted the 'autism group.' Forty-six typical children (Mage = 9.12 years, SD = 2.06) with younger typical siblings and their mothers constituted the 'typical group'. Children and mothers completed the Sibling Relationship Questionnaires and were interviewed. Children's reports illustrated similarities in sibling relationships across groups, with no between-group differences in overall warmth, conflict, rivalry, or relative power in the sibling relationship. Mothers of autistic children reported their children to have less warmth and closeness (F(1,72) = 5.63, p = .02, η2 = .073) and less conflict (F(1,72) = 6.66, p = .012, η2 = .085) with their siblings than mothers of typical children. More disagreement was found between mothers and children in the autism group than in the typical group. Mothers and children reported less intimacy and less quarreling between the siblings in the autism group than in the typical group. The qualitative analysis suggests that siblings focused on the present experience, while mothers also referred to processes in the sibling relationship. Interviewees in the autism group referred to various specificities in the siblingships without explicitly using the term "autism". The findings highlight a typical-like experience for siblings of autistic children. At the same time, mothers' perspectives emphasize differences and challenges in siblingships, reporting a pattern of decreased involvement. It is important to consider both perspectives in research and clinical work with families of autistic children.

Does Having a Sibling Affect Autistic People's Empathy?

This study examined whether autistic people with siblings score higher on measures of empathy than those without siblings. Cohorts of autistic children (n = 939; mean age = 7.35 years (SD = 2.15)) and autistic adults (n = 736; mean age = 37 years (SD = 12.39)) from the Cambridge Autism Research Database (CARD) were each divided into two groups: with or without siblings. Empathy was measured using the children version of the Empathy Quotient (EQ) (parent-report) for children. For adults, the EQ (self-report version) and the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) were used. Contrary to the hypothesis, autistic children without siblings scored higher on EQ than those with siblings (t(283.70) = 4.20, p < .001; d = 0.50). In adults, there was no difference between autistic adults with and without siblings on both measures, but there was an interaction effect between sex and group on the RMET (f(1732) = 4.10, p = 0.04): whilst autistic males without siblings on average scored lower than females, autistic males with siblings on average performed similarly to females. Future research should investigate the possible effect of siblings on autistic males' empathy performance in a larger cohort of autistic individuals. Children's empathic abilities may be underestimated by their parents when they have siblings due to a contrast effect.

Are there positive effects of having a sibling with special needs? Empathy and prosociality of twins of children with non-typical development.

This study examined whether typically developing (TD) twins of non-TD children demonstrate enhanced empathy and prosociality. Of 778 Hebrew-speaking Israeli families who participated in a twin study, 63 were identified to have a non-TD child with a TD twin, and 404 as having both twins TD. TD twins of non-TD children (27% males) were compared to the rest of the cohort of TD children (46% males) on measures of empathy and prosociality. Participants were 11 years old. TD twins of non-TD children scored significantly higher than TD twins of TD children in a measure of cognitive empathy (d = .43). No differences were found in emotional empathy and prosociality. The specificity of the positive effect on cognitive empathy is discussed.

Empathic Accuracy in Clinical Populations.

Empathy, broadly defined as the ability to understand the other and to share others' emotions, motivates prosocial behavior and underlies successful interpersonal relations. Dysfunctions in this ability may cause fundamental difficulties in social communication. Empathy has been measured in various ways, from self-report questionnaires to laboratory objective performance tests. Empathic accuracy (EA), i.e., the ability to accurately empathize, is measured using more complex and ecological paradigms, such as asking participants to infer filmed interactions, or having people narrate personal emotional stories then assessing the correspondence between the perceiver and the target of empathy as the criteria for empathic ability. This measure is particularly useful in the study of clinical populations, where deconstructing the multifaceted concept of empathy may contribute to a more complete understanding of specific clinical profiles. This paper presents a scoping review of the literature on EA in clinical populations, and on EA and clinical traits and states in nonclinical or high-risk populations. Following an exhaustive literature search, 34 studies were found eligible to be included in this review. The largest category was studies focused on EA in people with schizophrenia (31%; 11 papers), followed by studies focused on EA in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and autistic traits in a nonclinical population (22%; 8 papers). Studies were also found on EA and depression tendencies, psychopathy, social anxiety, behavior disorders, and personality disorders, and a few other clinical conditions. The included studies varied on research aims, designs, sample sizes, and male:female ratios. The overall synthesized results suggest that EA is reduced in schizophrenia and ASD. In other clinical populations, the number of studies was very limited. We urge researchers to further examine EA in these less-studied populations. The review reveals a general underrepresentation of female participants in studies on EA in clinical populations. We suggest that future research address understudied clinical populations, such as those diagnosed with psychopathy. Subject, target, and situational variables should also be considered, with special attention to gender differences (and similarities), the association between EA abilities and adaptive functioning, and the study of individuals with clinical conditions as targets, not just observers, in EA tasks.