You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 9 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Simon Baron-Cohen and colleagues' study of "theory of mind" in adults is the contemporary study for the individual-differences theme of understanding disorders, and it could hardly be more different from its classic partner, Freud's Little Hans. Where Freud studied one child in immense qualitative depth and interpreted his behaviour through an unfalsifiable theory, Baron-Cohen studied groups of adults with a standardised, quantified psychometric test and reported statistics. Where Freud's disorder was a phobia understood as unconscious conflict, Baron-Cohen's concern was autism and Asperger syndrome, understood partly in cognitive and biological terms. The study introduced a now-famous instrument — the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test, usually called the Eyes Task — designed to be a subtle, "advanced" test of the ability to infer another person's mental state from limited information: in this case, from a photograph of the region around the eyes alone.
The study's guiding idea is that people with autism have difficulties with theory of mind — the capacity to attribute mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions) to oneself and others, and thereby to understand and predict behaviour. Earlier tests of theory of mind had used tasks (like false-belief tasks) that most children pass by around age four, so they could not detect the subtler difficulties experienced by high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome, whose intelligence is in the typical range. Baron-Cohen's team set out to build a harder, "adult" test sensitive enough to reveal these residual difficulties. This lesson tells the study in the OCR "tell the story" format — background, aim, method, results, conclusions, evaluation, and links — and pays particular attention to the contrast between its rigorous, nomothetic approach and Freud's idiographic one, since that contrast is the heart of the pair lesson that follows.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 02 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Background: theory of mind and autism/Asperger syndrome | Section A — Individual differences; theme: understanding disorders (contemporary) | AO1 knowledge |
| Method: quasi-experiment; the Eyes Task; the participant groups | Section A — Core study (Baron-Cohen) | AO1; AO2 |
| Results (Eyes Task scores; Strange Stories; group differences) | Section A — Core study | AO1 |
| Conclusions (theory-of-mind deficit; a sensitive adult test) | Section A — Core study | AO1; AO3 |
| Evaluation: method, data type, ethics, validity, reliability, sampling | Section A; Section B debates | AO3 |
| Links to theme, area (Individual differences), perspective and debates | Section B — Areas, perspectives, debates | AO1; AO3 |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for its exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (the aim, the test, the groups, the results and conclusions), AO2 (applying the theory-of-mind concept to novel scenarios) and AO3 (evaluating the study's validity, controls, sampling and ethics).
The concept at the centre of the study is theory of mind (ToM) — sometimes called mentalising or mind-reading. It refers to the ability to attribute independent mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions, knowledge, emotions) to other people and to oneself, and to recognise that others' mental states may differ from one's own and from reality. Theory of mind is what allows us to make sense of behaviour in terms of why people do things — to grasp that someone searching in the wrong place is doing so because they hold a false belief about where an object is. It is fundamental to ordinary social life: to conversation, cooperation, deception, empathy and tact.
By the 1990s a substantial body of research (much of it Baron-Cohen's own) had established that autism is associated with characteristic difficulties in theory of mind. Autism (and the closely related Asperger syndrome, at the time regarded as a form of "high-functioning" autism without language delay) is a developmental condition marked by difficulties in social interaction and communication, and by restricted or repetitive interests and behaviour. The influential hypothesis was that a core feature of autism is an impaired or delayed theory of mind — that people with autism find it harder to intuit others' mental states, which would help explain the social and communicative difficulties.
The problem the study addresses is one of measurement sensitivity. The standard tests of theory of mind — such as the false-belief ("Sally-Anne") task, in which a child must predict where a character will look for an object that has been moved in her absence — are passed by most typically developing children by about age four, and by many able children and adults with autism. Such tasks have a ceiling effect: they are too easy to discriminate among high-functioning adults, all of whom pass. Yet clinically, high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome plainly do still experience subtle social difficulties. Baron-Cohen's team reasoned that these residual difficulties would only show up on a much harder, "advanced" theory-of-mind test — one that required inferring a mental state from minimal cues, without the supporting context that everyday situations (and easier tasks) provide.
Their solution was the Eyes Task. The eyes are one of the richest natural sources of information about another person's mental state; we routinely read interest, doubt, hostility or flirtation from the region around them. A test that presented only the eyes, and asked the participant to choose which of two mental-state words best described what the person was thinking or feeling, would strip away all other cues and isolate the ability to mentalise from subtle social information. If people with autism have a residual theory-of-mind deficit, they should do worse on such a task even when their general intelligence is normal.
The study had several linked aims. The central aim was to test whether high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome have a deficit in theory of mind (mind-reading) that persists into adulthood despite normal intelligence, using a new, more sensitive "advanced" test — the Eyes Task. A second aim was to validate the Eyes Task itself as a measure of theory of mind, by checking that a clinical group predicted to have ToM difficulties (the autism/AS group) scored lower than control groups, while a control group with a different disorder (Tourette syndrome) did not. A third aim was to see whether Eyes Task performance related to other measures (such as the older "Strange Stories" theory-of-mind task) and to establish whether any deficit was specific to mentalising rather than a general perceptual or intellectual problem.
The study was a quasi-experiment, using an independent-measures design. The independent variable — which group a participant belonged to (autism/AS, or one of the control groups) — was not manipulated by the researchers but was a pre-existing characteristic of the participants; this is what makes it quasi-experimental rather than a true experiment, and it limits the causal conclusions that can be drawn. The dependent variables were the scores on the Eyes Task (and on the additional tasks). It combined this group comparison with the use of psychometric measurement.
There were three groups in the main comparison (plus a fourth group used to establish the "normal" pattern):
| Group | Number | Key features |
|---|---|---|
| Adults with autism or Asperger syndrome | 16 | 13 men, 3 women; all of normal intelligence (recruited via a magazine and support groups) |
| "Normal" adult controls | 50 | Drawn from the general population; age-matched, no known psychiatric history |
| Adults with Tourette syndrome | 10 | 8 men, 2 women; matched to the autism group on age and IQ; a clinical control group |
| (Normal control group for a matched comparison) | — | Used to establish normal performance and select items |
The Tourette control group is a crucial and clever feature of the design. Tourette syndrome, like autism, is a developmental disorder that begins in childhood and is more common in males, and it too can involve difficulties in daily functioning — but it is not associated with theory-of-mind problems. By including a group matched on age and IQ but with a different disorder, the researchers could check that any deficit in the autism group was specific to autism (and to theory of mind) rather than a general effect of "having a disorder" or of lower ability. The autism and Tourette groups were also matched on IQ, controlling for general intelligence.
The Eyes Task consisted of 25 black-and-white photographs of the eye region (from the middle of the nose to just above the eyebrows) of different male and female faces, taken from magazines and standardised for size. For each photograph, the participant was given a forced choice between two mental-state words (a "target" term and a "foil"), such as concerned versus unconcerned, and asked to choose which best described what the person in the photograph was thinking or feeling. The maximum score was therefore 25. The mental-state adjectives were chosen and piloted so that typical adults reliably agreed on the correct answer.
Alongside the Eyes Task, participants (or subsets of them) completed several control and comparison measures, designed to rule out alternative explanations:
Participants completed the tasks individually. For the Eyes Task, each of the 25 eye photographs was presented in turn, with the two adjective choices, and the participant selected the word they judged correct; there was no time pressure. The other tasks were administered similarly. Scores were then compared across the groups, and correlations examined between the Eyes Task and the other measures. The design's use of control tasks (gender recognition, basic emotion) within participants meant the researchers could show that a poor Eyes Task score coincided with intact performance on tasks that used the same stimuli but did not require mentalising.
The findings supported the hypothesis clearly, and the candidate should know the key comparisons.
Eyes Task scores. The autism/Asperger group scored significantly lower on the Eyes Task than both control groups. On the maximum of 25, the groups' average scores were approximately:
| Group | Approximate mean Eyes Task score (out of 25) |
|---|---|
| Adults with autism / Asperger syndrome | about 16.3 |
| "Normal" adult controls | about 20.3 |
| Adults with Tourette syndrome | about 20.4 |
The autism group's mean of roughly 16 was markedly and statistically significantly below the two control groups' means of roughly 20; the two control groups did not differ from each other. This is exactly the pattern the study predicted: the deficit was specific to the autism/AS group and did not appear in the age- and IQ-matched Tourette group.
Control tasks ruled out alternative explanations. Crucially, the autism group did not differ from controls on the gender-recognition control task using the same eye photographs, and had no difficulty with basic emotion recognition. This shows their low Eyes Task score was not caused by a general problem in perceiving eyes or faces, nor by low intelligence (they were IQ-matched to the Tourette group), but was specific to the mentalising the Eyes Task required.
Sex differences among controls. Within the normal control group, there was a modest tendency for females to score slightly higher than males on the Eyes Task — a finding Baron-Cohen would later develop into his "empathising–systemising" account of typical sex differences and of autism as an "extreme male brain", though that theory goes beyond this study.
Convergent evidence. Eyes Task performance was broadly consistent with performance on the older Strange Stories task among those who took both, supporting the claim that the Eyes Task measures theory of mind rather than something unrelated.
Baron-Cohen and colleagues drew two main conclusions. First, that adults with autism or Asperger syndrome have a subtle but real deficit in theory of mind that persists into adulthood despite normal general intelligence. The impairment is not global — these are high-functioning adults who pass simpler ToM tasks and have normal IQs — but it shows up on a sufficiently advanced test that isolates the inference of mental states from minimal cues. This supports the broader hypothesis that a core feature of autism is difficulty in mentalising, and helps explain the social and communicative difficulties that characterise the condition even in able individuals.
Second, that the Eyes Task is a valid and sensitive measure of adult theory of mind. It successfully discriminated the clinical group predicted to have ToM difficulties (autism/AS) from both a general-population control group and a clinical control group with a different disorder (Tourette), while control tasks confirmed that the deficit was specific to mentalising and not to face perception or intelligence. The task therefore overcame the ceiling problem of earlier ToM tests and offered a tool for detecting the residual mind-reading difficulties of high-functioning autism.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 9 lessons in this course.