(BOTH) Facts & Figures: Baron-Cohen et Al 2001

What was the primary aim of the Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) study?

To test whether the revised version of the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ Test would accurately differentiate between adults with High-Functioning Autism (HFA) or Asperger Syndrome (AS) and the general population.

How many hypotheses were tested in the study?

Five hypotheses were tested, including that individuals with AS/HFA would score lower on the RMET and higher on the AQ test than control groups.

What research method was used in this study?

A quasi-experiment with an independent groups design.

What was the independent variable (IV) in the study?

Whether the participant had AS/HFA or was a member of the control group, and their gender.

What were the dependent variables (DV) in the study?

Scores on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ).

What sampling methods were used to recruit participants?

Volunteer and opportunity sampling.

Who were the participants in Group 1 (AS/HFA group)?

15 adult males with AS/HFA, recruited through a magazine advertisement from the UK National Autistic Society.

Who were the participants in Group 2 (General population control)?

122 adults from Exeter and Cambridge (55 males, 67 females) from community and educational settings.

Who were the participants in Group 3 (Student control)?

103 Cambridge University students (53 males, 50 females), assumed to have higher IQs than the general population.

Who were the participants in Group 4 (IQ-matched control)?

14 randomly selected adults with an average IQ of 116, matched with the ASD/HFA group.

How was the RMET revised from the 1997 version?

The revised version had 36 images (previously 25), an equal number of male and female faces, more complex mental states, and four answer choices instead of two.

What was the purpose of the gender recognition task?

To ensure that difficulties on the RMET were not due to deficits in basic face perception.

What was the mean RMET score for the AS/HFA group?

21.9 out of 36.

What was the mean RMET score for the general population group?

26.2 out of 36.

What was the mean RMET score for the student group?

28.0 out of 36.

What was the mean RMET score for the IQ-matched group?

30.9 out of 36.

What were the results of the AQ test?

The AS/HFA group scored significantly higher on the AQ than the control groups.

What was the correlation between RMET and AQ scores?

A significant negative correlation (-0.53), meaning higher AQ scores were associated with lower RMET scores.

What conclusion was drawn about individuals with AS/HFA?

They have an impaired theory of mind, which affects their ability to read emotions from eye expressions.

What conclusion was drawn regarding gender differences?

Females in the control groups performed better than males on the RMET, suggesting a gender difference in theory of mind abilities.

Why is this study categorized under the cognitive approach?

It investigates cognitive processing related to theory of mind and how individuals with AS/HFA interpret social and emotional cues.

What ethical considerations were addressed in the study?

Informed consent was obtained, anonymity was maintained, and participants were not subjected to distressing conditions.

What is a key strength of the study?

The revised RMET was a more valid and reliable tool for assessing social intelligence and theory of mind in adults.

What is a key limitation of the study?

The study had a small sample size for the AS/HFA group, limiting generalizability to all individuals with ASD.

How does this study contribute to the nature vs. nurture debate?

It supports the nature argument by highlighting innate cognitive differences in individuals with AS/HFA.

How does the study relate to reductionism?

It takes a reductionist approach by assessing theory of mind using only eye expressions, ignoring other social cues like body language and tone.

What is the ecological validity of this study?

Low ecological validity, as recognizing emotions in real-life interactions involves more than just eye expressions.