AICE Baron-Cohen et al

AICE BARON-COHEN ET AL VOCABULARY

What was the Aim of Baron-Cohen et al?

-To test adults with high-functioning autism(HFA)/asperger syndrome(AS) on the revised test to see if the deficits on the original test were still seen 

-To see if there is a negative correlation between autism quotient(aq) and eyes test scores

-To see if females score higher on the eyes test than males 

See if there was a correlation between the AQ and eyes test score

What were the IVs and DVs of Baron-Cohen et al?

IVs: Which group the participant was in; gender of the participant 

DVs: Eyes test and AQ score 

What was the Sample of Baron-Cohen et al?

Group 1- 15 Male adults with HFA/AS: Volunteer sample from adverts in UK National Autistic Society magazine or support groups. 

• Diagnosed using established criteria; Socioeconomic status and education level matched G2

Group 2- 122 neurotypical adults(General population control): Adults community and education classes in Exeter or public libraries in UK

• Broad range of occupations and education levels 

Group 3- 103 (50F and 53M) neurotypical undergraduates from Cambridge University

• Assumed to have high IQ due to very high university entry requirements

Group 4- 14 randomly selected people from the general population (IQ-matched control)

• Matched on IQ and age to Group 1
  
  

What was the Procedure of Baron-Cohen et al?

Participants all took the revised test in a quiet room individually. The test required them to select which of the 4 words matched the expression of the sets of eyes. Participants with HFA/AS were also asked to determine the gender of the eyes as a control task. Participants were given a glossary, they were told to use it and read the meaning of the words they were unsure about. 2 authors created the target words and foils for each item. These were then presented to groups of 8 judges (4F; 4M), who had to pick the target word to match each pair of eyes. 5 out of 8 judges needed to agree on the target word for an item to pass and no more than 2 judges could choose the same foil.

What was the Result of Baron-Cohen et al?

-G1 performed significantly worse on the eyes test than other groups

-Females scored higher than Males on the eyes test

-Males scored higher on the AQ than females

What were the Strengths of Baron-Cohen et al?

-High level of standardization: All saw the same 36 pairs of eyes. Images were always the same, in black and white, with 4 options, including 3 foils. Only had 1 correct answer and all participants were provided with a glossary of terms.

• Other researchers can check the reliability of the findings and re-examine non-significant findings

-Use of Quantitative Data (objective data): Participants were either right or wrong in their answers as it was a fixed-choice task with pre-determined correct answers, leading to quantitative data.

• No room for researcher bias and subjective interpretation when analyzing participants answers as the researchers simply had to tick whether the participant had chosen the correct or incorrect target answer (Increased Validity)

What were the Weaknesses of Baron-Cohen et al?

Ethics: Might have caused psychological harm to participants with HFA/AS. When completing the test, they may not have been able to understand the emotions shown by many of the sets of eyes, which might have caused them distress or embarrassment 

• Might have left the study with lowered self-esteem as a result 

Lack of Allocation: Could not be randomized to groups. Each group were being recruited in different ways and from different parts of the UK

• May have shared similar features, causing them to perform worse or better on the eyes test

• Reduced validity as any differences between the HFA/AS group and control conditions may not have been due to the independent variable

Generalization: Might not be generalizable to other individuals with HFA/AS. The sample was small (15M who self-selected to take part).

• Were particularly motivated to take part in the research or had a special interest in the study ← May not be a representative of all individuals with HFA/AS

Generalization to Everyday Life: Stimuli of eyes are static and do not reflect the processing of human emotions in real-life settings.

• Reduces mundane realism of the test and means that the measurements taken do not reflect a person’s real-world ability to determine the mental state of another individual.

What was the Conclusion of Baron-Cohen et al?

-Revised study replicated findings that AS/HFA adults are significantly impaired in identifying the emotions of others

-Revised study replicated findings that AS/HFA adults score significantly higher on the AQ test than the general population

-Revised test was a more sensitive measure of adult social intelligence

-Revised eyes test found gender differences, as females performed better than men