Baron-Cohen Case Study

background

original “eyes test” was developed in 1997 to test TOM (theory of mind: ability to attribute mental states to oneself and other people), original test discriminated adults w/ AS or HFA from adult control groups, upgraded test to make it better

aims/hypothesis

(1) to test whether a group of adults with AS or HFA would be impaired on the revised version of the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ task / (2) to test if there was an association between performance on revised eyes test & measures of autism traits/ (3) to investigate if females scored higher on the eyes test than males

research methodology

IMD → 4 groups did NOT do the same tasks / laboratory experiment → completed at Cambridge/Exeter University / used experiments & correlations, quasi experiment

participant sample

group 1: AS/HFA → 15 male adults (volunteered through magazine - volunteer sample), avg age 29.7, mean IQ 115 / group 2: adult comparison/general population → 122 adults, avg age 46.5 (community & education classes in Cambridge public library - volunteer sample) / group 3: student comparison/Cambridge University → 103 adults, 53 M & 50 F, avg age 20.8, opportunity sample / group 4: IQ match→ 14 adults, avg age 28, mean IQ 116, volunteer sample

psychology being investigated

Theory of Mind: cognitive ability that enables us to realize others have different feelings, beliefs, knowledge, & desires from our own (often linked to empathy), autism: deficits of ToM

IV’s and DV’s

IV 1: group P was in (HFA/AS, adult/student comparison, IQ match) / IV 2: sex (male/female) / DV: eyes test & AQ scores

procedures

30 sets of eyes (18 male, 18 Female) each w/ 4 choices of emotion on the face of the target → for each group, target & foil words developed using groups of 8 judges, at least 5 judges has to agree → all 4 P groups tested on revised eyes test → P in AS/HFA group asked to judge sex of target in each photo → each P given a glossary of terms to ensure they knew word meanings on eye test → P allowed as much time as needed & worked alone → all P consented & aware of nature of research & data was anonymous

equipment/material used

autism spectrum quotient test (AQ): self-report questionnaire w/ scores ranging from 0-50, higher score suggests more autistic traits / revised eyes test: tests ability to attribute emotional labels to others

results (quantitative data)

group 1: eyes test mean score 21.9, AQ mean score 34.4 / group 2: eyes test mean score 26.2, no AQ test given / group 3: eyes test mean score 28.0, AQ mean score 18.3 / group 4: eyes test mean score 30.99, AQ mean score 18.9

results (qualitative data)

P with AS/HFA scored significantly higher than student comparison and IQ comparison groups on AQ test / significant difference between male & female AQ scores

conclusions

P with AS/HFA have a deficit in cognitive process that allows a person to identify emotions in other individuals (lack of ToM is strongly linked to autism disorders) / males showed more autistic traits & performed worse on eyes test than females / revised eyes test used in the study was a more sensitive measure of adult social intelligence than previous study

strengths

revised eyes test used for all P → increases validity as same scale is used / standardized procedures → tests & scale

weaknesses

psychologists question whether revised eyes test measures ToM traits or just ability to complete eyes test

situational & individual explanations

individual: people are born w/ different intelliegences → born/develop autism or not, intelligence based upon learning environment

nature vs nurture

nature: born w/autism based upon genetics or environment

generalizability

(weakness) not generaliable to females with autism or other individuals with AS/HFA due to some particularly motivation/interested to study / (weakness) lack of mundane realism due to eyes not reflecting processing of human emotions in a real-life setting since other facial movements are used, does not reflect real-world ability

reliability

(strength) high lvl of standardization, revised eyes test had standardized procedures (same 36 pairs of eyes, images all the same size, in black & white, 4options+ 3 foils, only 1 correct answer, glossary of terms

validity

(weakness) lack of random allocation → P not randomly allocated bc IV is natural (AS/HFA), P within each group had similar features & affected performance on eyes test / (weakness) may not have been measuring ToM → only studied first stage of ToM (determining mental state of a person), ToM additionally involves understanding reason behind emotions which eyes test cannot measure

application

provides information to attributing emotion to individuals, possible to teach HFA/AS individuals skills of interpreting emotions, eyes test can be developed further to aid initial diagnosis of individuals to investigate underlying autistic disorders

ethics

(strength) all P provided informed consent / (weakness) may have causedpsychological harm to P with AS/HFA due to not being able to understand emotions → possible distress/embarrassment → left study with lowered self esteem