Prior research has shown conflicting findings on decision-making differences between autistic and non-autistic individuals. To address this issue, we applied the Ultimatum and Dictator Games to examine explicit measures (probability of endorsing monetary offers) and implicit measures (response times) associated with decision-making behaviors. By analyzing response times, we aimed to determine whether decisions were intuitive (rapid) or deliberative (slower) reasoning processes. In addition, we administered an executive functions questionnaire to explore how cognitive skills correlate with implicit and explicit decision-making behaviors. The study included 24 autistic and 24 non-autistic children and adolescents aged 8-18 years. Results showed that autistic participants were less likely to propose selfish offers in the Dictator Game than their non-autistic peers. Among autistic participants, this lower tendency to propose selfish offers correlated with better executive function skills. Regarding response times, autistic participants exhibited slower responses than non-autistic participants when accepting and proposing selfish offers in both games. These findings reveal differences in selfish offer tendencies and deliberative reasoning among participants, suggesting that slower decision-making in autistic participants reflects a focus on fairness and sociomoral reasoning. Future research can explore how this reasoning style influences social interactions in various scenarios.