Baron-Cohen

What is the psychology being investigated? (Baron-Cohen)

Autism and Asperger Syndrome effects on tasks and theory of mind

Background and previous relevant research (Baron-Cohen)

In the original study in 1997 Baron-Cohen developed the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task for adults with autism because they believed that people with autism lack or have an underdeveloped cognitive process called a 'theory of mind'. It is to test their empathy. They redid the study in 2001 to test their reliability.

Apparatus/special equipment, materials used in the study

(Baron-Cohen)

The AQ, revised Eyes Test, and a quiet room, glossary of terms

aim (Baron-Cohen)

Main Aim- whether groups of adults with Asperger Syndrome (AS) or High-functioning Autism (HFA) would be impaired on the revised version of the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task

Whether there was an association between performance on the revised "Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task and measures of the autistic traits, and to investigate if there were sex differences in those without autism.

Hypothesis (Baron-Cohen)

Main Aim- if an upgraded version of the eyes test was used than the results would be different from the first

If the participants with HFA take the revised 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task, they will score significantly lower than the control group.

If participants with HFA take the Autism Spectrum Quotient Test (AQ), then they will score significantly higher.

If female participants in the 'normal' groups take the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task, then they will score higher than the males in that group.

If male participants in the 'normal' group take the AQ, then they will score higher than females.

If the scores on the AQ and the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task were compared, they would be negatively correlated

Research Method (Baron-Cohen)

Lab, survey/questionnaire

Strengths of this method (Baron-Cohen)

All confounding variables could be controlled

It was very standardized which improves reliability and validity.

Increased ecological validity

No demand characteristics

Weakness of this method (Baron-Cohen)

No control over the allocation of participants to groups

No control over the IV

Artificial environment

Research Design-explain how it worked (Baron-Cohen)

Independent groups- not every participant was used for each level of the experiment

Matched pairs- Group 4 was matched to group 1 with IQ

Strength of this design (Baron-Cohen)

Could control a variety of participant variables

No order effects

Weakness of this design (Baron-Cohen)

Matching is difficult and time-consuming

Participants cannot be matched on every level so there's still some participant variables

IV (Baron-Cohen)

Type of participant in each condition

DV (Baron-Cohen)

Test scores/performance

Scores on AQ test

Scores on the revised 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task

IQ scores in AS/HFA and IQ matched comparison group

Any other important variables (Baron-Cohen)

Ev- some participants did not return the AQ test

Quantitative data produced and importance (Baron-Cohen)

No one checked more than 2 words in the glossary which is important because it means the participants have a good memory or they already knew the words before the experiment.

All participants in group 1 scored 33 or above out of 36 in the sex recognition test which is important because it means they don't have a problem differentiating sex.

Qualitative data produced and importance

(Baron-Cohen)

Group 1 correctly identified fewer target words than the other groups which is important because it proves Baron-Cohen's hypothesis.

On the AQ test group 1 scored significantly higher which Baron-Cohen predicted.

There was a significant negative correlation between the AQ and Eyes Test Task scores which was predicted.

Sampling method (Baron-Cohen)

Volunteer (Group 1), Opportunity (Group 2 & 3)

Participants, how many and demographic information (Baron-Cohen)

254 participants

Group 1 (AS/HFA) : 15M:0F and mean of 29.7 years of age. All AS/HFA

Group 2 (Adult Comparison Group): 122 participants and mean of 46.5 years of age. 'Normal' students selected from the adult community and education classes in Exeter and public library users.

Group 3 (Student Comparison Group): 103 participants and mean of 20.8 years of age. All Cambridge University students without AS/HFA.

Group 4 (IQ Matched Group): 14 participants with a mean age of 28 years and mean IQ of 116 matched with group 1. Randomly selected.

Strength of the sampling method (Baron-Cohen)

Group 2 and 3 had a lot of participants

Weakness of sampling method (Baron-Cohen)

Gender is not representative

Group 1 and 4 didn't have many participants

Group 2 and 3 can be similar people because of where they were chosen from

Procedure: describe the overall procedure (Baron-Cohen)

All participants in the four groups were tested on the revised Eyes Test. Participants in group 1 were also asked to judge the sex in the photo. All participants except group 2 were asked to complete the AQ test. Each participant read through a glossary of terms that were to be used so they know the meaning and were able to refer back to the glossary. Each participant was given a practice item and then presented with the 36 eyes (18M:18F) and four possible target words for the emotion shown. There was no time limit.

Main Conclusion

(Baron-Cohen)

People with AS or HFA have trouble identifying emotions in other individuals. Their lack of a theory of mind is strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders. In the sex difference comparison there was evidence that males performed worse on the Eyes Test than females and showed more autistic traits; however, more research would need to be conducted to prove this. The revised test appeared to overcome the initials of the original version

Ethics, which one and explain, include if it was ethical or not (Baron-Cohen)

Participants consented to take part in the study and were aware of the nature of the research. -Ethical

Confidentiality -all data was anonymized which is ethical. Protection of participants physically

Is this study generalizable? (Baron-Cohen)

This study isn't very generalizable. The sample of AS/HFA participants is small and the participants aren't very representative of all individuals who have been diagnosed with AS/HFA.

Debate, which one and explain

(Baron-Cohen)

Nature vs. nurture AS/HFA can still be debated (that's what rozanksi put)

Situational vs. Individual because did the participants determine the emotion because they guessed correctly because since there was only 4 choices they already had a 25% chance, or because they actually knew the emotion.

Issue, which one and explain

(Baron-Cohen)

Application to everyday life- a person's eyes wouldn't be static and shown for a limited amount to time in everyday life and the sample isn't very representative. Also, people use the entire face to differentiate emotions, so the eyes test wouldn't be the most valid way to test their hypotheses.

Any additional important information (Baron-Cohen)

This therefore validates it as a useful test with which to identify subtle impairments in social intelligence in otherwise normally intelligent adults