Baron-Cohen et al

ojitos lindossss

Background

1997 ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes' task:

• Investigated whether adults with ASD had problems with theory of mind

• Results showed that ASD ppts correctly identified few emotions than ppts in the non-ASD group

Problems with the original eyes test and their solutions in the revised eyes test:

1. Questions were between 2 options that were opposite in meaning

• The number of options were increased to 4 and they weren’t opposites; 3 foils had similar valence

2. Only 25 sets of eyes were used (many in ASD group scored 24/25 - ceiling effect)

• 36 sets of eyes used

3. The eyes illustrated both basic & complex emotions

• Only eyes expressing complex emotions were used

4. Some photos could be solved by checking the direction that the eyes were gazing in

• These sets of eyes were deleted

5. Imbalance of male and female faces

• Equal # of male and female faces

6. Participants might not have understood words in the task

• Participants were given a glossary

Theory of Mind:

• The cognitive ability to attribute mental states to ourselves and others, like desires and emotions.

• It is also about how we use this knowledge to predict the actions of others

• We use this knowledge to understand that people may have different ideas and hold different emotions to us

Psychology being investigated:

• A person with ASD doesn’t fully develop cognitive processes linked to social interaction, like communication

• Theory of mind: a cognitive ability that enables people to realise that others have different feelings, beliefs, and desires from their own

  • Those ASD have an underdeveloped cognitive process of this and find it difficult to understand the point of views of other people

• ToM is often linked to empathy, which is the ability to understand the world as another person does

Aims

• To investigate whether an improved version of the Eyes test would show clear impairment in a group of adults with ASD to assess its effectiveness

• To test whether there was an association b/t performance on the revised Eyes test and measures of traits of ASD

• To test if females would score higher on the Eyes test than males

Hypotheses

1. Ppts with ASD will score significantly lower on the revised Eyes test than the control

2. Ppts with ASD will score significantly higher on the AQ test than the control

3. Females in the ‘normal’ groups (2 & 3) will score higher on the Eyes test than males in these groups

4. Males in the ‘normal’ group (3) would score higher on the AQ measure than females

5. Scores on the AQ and the Eyes test would be negatively correlated

Research method

• Lab experiment

• Questionnaires

• Quasi experiment: ppts can’t be randomly allocated to group (e.g. only those with ASD in Group 1)

Research design

Independent groups design:

* Comparisons were made b/t different groups of ppts Group 1 vs. Groups 2, 3, and 4

IV

Type of ppt in each condition

DV

Score on the revised Eyes and AQ test

Group 1 (AS/HFA)

• 15 adult males with AS/HFA

• All were diagnosed in specialist centers using DSM or ICD criteria

• Mean IQ: 115

• Mean age: 29.7

• Self-selected sample through adverts in an Autistic Society magazine and support groups

Group 2 (adult comparison)

• 122 ‘normal’ adults without AS/HFA

• Mean age: 46.5

• Opportunity/volunteer sample, selected from adult community & education classes in Exeter

• 55M/67F

Group 3 (student comparison)

• 103 ‘normal’ students without AS/HFA

• Opportunity/volunteer sample from the University of Cambridge - ‘intelligent’

• Mean age: 20.8

• 53M/50F

Group 4 (IQ matched)

• 14 adults without AS/HFA

• Mean IQ: 116

• Mean age: 28

• Randomly selected from general population

How was the revised Eyes test developed?

Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright started with 40 sets of eyes, target words, and foil words

• The one target word and three foil words for each set of eyes was developed using groups of 8 judges

  • At least 5 judges had to agree that the target word was the most appropriate for the eyes

  • If more than 2 judges selected a foil word instead of target, a new target word, foils, or both, were generated and the item was retested

• In the end, 36 sets of eyes were chosen because 4 items were removed when the results of these items from Groups 2 and 3 produced inconsistent results

How did the RET begin?

Every ppt read through a glossary of words used in the test to describe the emotions used, to ensure they knew the meaning of each word

* They were told they could refer back to the glossary when necessary

Each ppt was given a practice item, then…

they were presented with 36 sets of eyes and 4 possible target words, for which they had to select the correct target word to describe the emotion of the picture.

Group 1 was given a…

**gender recognition test** as a control task, to show that ppts in G1 were able to identify characteristics of the eyes used in the RET that weren’t dependent on having a ToM

The Eyes test for all ppts were completed:

with a researcher in a quiet room in Exeter or Cambridge, with no time limit.

Ppts in G1, G3, and G4 took the…

AQ test

On the RET, ppts in G1…

correctly identified significantly fewer target words than ppts in the 3 comparison groups

Results of the RET:

Mean scores:

• G1: 21.9

• G2: 26.2

• G3: 28.0

• G4: 30.9

On the AQ test, ppts in G1…

scored significantly higher than G3 & G4

Results of the AQ test:

Mean scores:

• G1: 34.4

• G3: 18.3

• G4: 18.9

What gender in G2 and G3 scored higher on the RET?

Females

What gender in G3 scored higher on the AQ?

Males

What was the correlation b/t the AQ and Eyes test?

A significant negative correlation of -0.53

Conclusions

• Ppts in G1 had a specific deficit in a cognitive process (ToM) that should help them to identify emotions in other individuals

• The Revised ‘Eyes Test’ overcame the problems of the original version making it a valid test of social intelligence

The use of a lab experiment allowed:

• Ppts to complete the task in a standardised way

• Confounding variables to be controlled:

  • Reducing the risk of distraction by being in a quiet room & ensuring all ppts had read the glossary prior to the test

• Improved internal validity and allowed research to repeated to check the reliability of results

Since this is a quasi-experiment, a confounding variable could be introduced, like:

A factor other than ASD that causes the difference in scores b/t conditions

* Partly resolved by having 2 different control groups, so that some ppts were matched on IQ to make groups as similar as possible

There was a lack of ecological validity because:

• A person’s eyes wouldn’t be static or be shown in isolation from the rest of their face

• Any attempt to apply results from this research to an everyday situation may be flawed

Since G1 only had 15 ppts…

they might not be representative of all individuals with AS/HFA, and results might not be able to be generalized to everyone with AS/HFA.

Direct comparisons could be made across groups because…

all ppts had the same 36 pairs of eyes to judge

Ethics:

• All ppts gave informed consent, so there wasn’t any use of deception

• Ppts’ data was kept confidential

• Ppts’ may have felt psychological distress since they may not have understood the emotions in any of the eyes, which could’ve resulted in stress.

In the instance of an evaluation:

2 strengths:

• Quantitative data

• The use of a lab experiment

2 weaknesses:

• Generalisations

• Ethics

Everyday applications:

• It might be possible to develop a program to teach individuals with ASD to help improve their skills of interpreting emotions

• The Eyes test could be further developed to aid in the diagnosis of ASD

Individual vs. Situational:

Individual:

* Since ppts in G1 performed worse on the Eyes test, this suggests that the ability to read emotions in the eyes is an individual skill that is developed