baron-cohen et al. Flashcards
psychology being investigated
- theory of mind (ToM)
- social sensitivity
background
- Measuring cognitive dysfunction
-It’s hard to develop tests that are sensitive enough to detect cognitive
dysfunction, especially for adults with typical intelligence
-Hence, most tests are developed for children. - This was a test for adult social sensitivity/theory of mind.
-It included 25 photos of eyes of famous actors.
-Participants selected 1 of 2 words to best describe how the person in the photograph was feeling.
-Adults with HFA/AS scored significantly lower than matched controls.
problems with the original test
P-problem
S-solution in revised test
1.P: Each item had only two possible answers; a score of 68 % + was needed to be higher than chance alone.
S: Increased number of items from 25 to 36; increased number of answers from 2 to 4.
- P: Basic mental states were used e.g. happy; even
young children can identify these states.
S: Only included complex mental states e.g. contempt. - P: Eye direction could be used to identify some mental states eg. noticing.
S: These were not included in the new test. - P: More female than male faces were included.
S: The same number of male and female faces were used. - P: The correct and foil answer options were
opposites, such as sad versus happy, which was too easy.
S: Similarity between the target word and the 3 foils was increased, making it more difficult.
6: P: Words may not have been understood.
S: The test was presented with a glossary.
aims
- To investigate whether scores on the Autism Quotient (AQ) and the Revised Eyes Test scores are negatively correlated.
- To trial the Revised Eyes Test with adults with HFA/AS.
research method
- quasi-experiment
- correlation
research design
independent measures design
data collection techniques
- Questionnaire: the AQ test – 50 closed questions, answered on 4-point rating
scales. - The Revised Eyes Test: 36 black and white photographs of eyes with four possible
answers
independent variables
whether the participants:
-had HFA/AS or not
-were male or female.
dependent variable/ co-variable
test scores on the Revised Eyes Test and the AQ
group 1 (HFA/AS) sample
size: 15
demographics: Male adults with HFA/AS from the UK;
socioeconomic class
and educational
background similar to
Group 2
sampling technique: volunteer from NAS magazine
group 2 (general population controls) sample
size: 122
demographics: Neurotypical adults
from the UK; wide range of socioeconomic education backgrounds
sampling technique: opportunity sample
education classes and
libraries
group 3 (students) sample
size: 103
demographics: 53 males and 50 females; neurotypical undergraduate
students; high IQ (from highly selective uni)
sampling technique: opportunity sample
from Cambridge
University
group 4 (IQ matched controls) sample
size: 14
demographics: General population;
matched on IQ to
Group 1
sampling technique: random
Procedure
- Eye test development
-The first draft was trialed with 8 independent ‘judges’.
-Items accepted if the target word was selected by 5/8 judges.
-Items rejected if the same foil was picked by more than 2 judges.
- The test was then trialed on Groups 2 and 3. Items were accepted if 50%
selected the target word and no more than 25 %
picked the same foil.
-Four items rejected, leaving 36 items - Revised Eyes Test
- Participants took the Revised Eyes Test individually in a quiet room.
- Groups 1, 3 and 4 completed the AQ.
- Group 1 also identified the gender of the people in the photos.
-Participants could refer to the glossary to clarify word meanings.
controls
- The same tests were taken in the same way (quiet conditions with glossary).
- All items in the Revised Eyes Test were the same size, in black and white, with 4 options.
ethical issues
Psychological harm:
- A lack of understanding of the words/emotions may cause embarrassment.
-People in Groups 2–4 who received extreme scores may need referral for more
detailed assessment
results
- There was a negative correlation between the AQ scores and the Revised Eyes Test
scores (–0.53) for 3 three groups.
2.
- Group 1 performed significantly lower on the Revised Eyes Test than other groups. There were no impairments in the gender recognition task.
- Group 1 scored significantly higher than Groups 3 and 4 on the AQ.
- Although not significant, females scored higher than males on the Revised
Eyes Test.
- Males scored higher on the AQ than females.
conclusions
The Revised Eyes Test:
- is a more sensitive test for social intelligence than the original Eyes Test
- can be used as a measure of severity of autistic traits due to the negative correlation with the AQ.
evaluation
- Reliability
- standardisation (S) - Validity
-lack of random allocation (W)
-theory of mind (W) - Objectivity
-quantitative data (S) - Generalising
-generalising beyond the sample (W)
-generalising to everyday life (W)
issues and debates
- Individual and situational explanations:
-Individual explanation: autism is an individual difference between people that affects the ability to understand mental states from facial expressions.
- Situational explanation: people with HFA/AS are better at recognising other
people’s mental states in some situations more than others eg. where
there is less noise - Application to everyday life
-People with brain damage could take the Revised Eyes Test to detect social
sensitivity deficits. Support could then be offered to help
-The Revised Eyes Test could also be used in schools to target children who may benefit from interventions to improve ToM skills.
