Individual Differences Explanations Of ASD Flashcards
Why was weak central coherence developed?
As TOM was seen to be incomplete - it cannot explain all aspects of ASD (repetitive behaviours).
What is central coherence?
The ability to derive overall meaning from a mass of details.
How can central coherence explain strengths and deficits in those with ASD?
When a task requires a person extract global meaning from many details, to get the ‘big picture’ those with ASD would be at a major disadvantage.
When picking out extreme detail from surrounding masses of info is required, those with ASD would not be in a position to shine.
What did Frith say about weak central coherence?
It’s not just a failure to extract global form and meaning but is also “an outcome of superiority in local processing”. He views it as a bias rather than a lack.
What is weak central coherence?
Having a preference for one form of cognitive processing over the other (local over global for people with ASD). Those with ASD have a detail focused processing style.
What is Frith’s definition of central coherence?
Our ability to integrate fine details into an overall pattern, to understand how elements come together in a meaningful way. Eg, remembering a convo you had a few days ago - you can remember the overall meaning but you struggle to remember individual differences. It’s a universal feature of normal processing and involves understanding context.
A single word can mean many things but the actual meaning is obtained by context.
What would people with ASD struggle with in relation to central coherence?
When presented with a lot of information. They likely pick a single item and focus relentlessly on that. They have a preference towards local processing - weak central processing is impaired global processing but enhanced local processing.
What do people with ASD thrive in doing in relation to weak central coherence?
Due to their way of processing, many of those with ASD excel at tasks which require selecting details, eg, map with every house shown.
How did Shah and Frith test weak central coherence?
20 young people with ASD, 13 young people with learning difficulties, 17 typically developing young people, 16 typically developing children. They were all shown a 2D pattern on the map, they all had to construct the same pattern using smaller individual blocks.
What did Shah and Frith find in relation to ASD and weak central coherence?
People with ASD performed better at the task than the other group. Local processing was used in the tasks. Shows that people with ASD have weak coherence - stronger local processing (they would have problems with tasks that require a grasp of the gist.
How can weak central coherence be linked the ASD characteristics?
Social communication - non-verbal cues, don’t pick up on them (global processing).
Repetitive behaviours - can explain restricted interests - knowing finer details of their subject object.
Give a strength/weakness of weak central coherence (supporting evidence).
Shah and Frith. However, the study lacks ecological validity.
Give a strength of the weak central coherence explanation (explains more).
Explains more characteristics. Eg TOM struggles to explain characteristics beyond social communication deficits. However, this can explain social communication and repetitive behaviours characteristics. People with ASD may not pick up on NVCs as they have local processing. This can also explain why they have fixed interests. So more complete.
Give a weakness of the weak central coherence explanation (unclear mechanisms).
The differences in cognitive processing of people with ASD and neurotypical is clear from the research. However research in why this preference occurs is inconsistent. Research is yet to provide firm conclusions on brain areas responsible for global + local processing.
What is the theory of mind?
Having an understanding that people have thoughts/emotions/beliefs that are different from our own. It has to be inferred.
What did Baron-Cohen (1995) say about TOM?
That people with ASD don’t have a fully functioning TOM.
What leads to deficits in TOM?
Precursors to TOM are seen in behaviours in early child development: eg,:
Engage in pretend play.
Imitate others.
Follow a person’s gaze.
Through doing these, a child shows an understanding that people have goals/intentions on their own.
What did Scaife and Bruner (1975) say about TOM?
They stated that typically developing children will show these skills by 14 months - this is delayed with children who become diagnosed with ASD.
What were the foundations of TOM deficits stated by Baron-Cohen?
1) Ability to distinguish between mental/physical things.
2) Ability to distinguish between appearances and reality.
How would people with ASD struggle to distinguish between mental and physical?
Eg, 2 characters; one is holding juice, the other is thinking about it.
Asked ‘who can drink the juice?’
Child with ASD would find it difficult to answer the question correctly, a neurotypical 4 should answer correctly.
How would people with ASD struggle to distinguish between appearance and reality?
Understanding that things are not always as they seem (eg, a toy apple). A child with ASD would struggle to know that it wasn’t a real apple. Neurotypical child should know.
What was the aim of the Sally-Anne test?
Used to investigate false beliefs. Understanding that others may have mistaken beliefs + act on them - requires TOM.
What was the method of the Sally-Anne test?
3 groups of children:
-Neurotypical.
-Children with down syndrome.
-ASD children.
What is the Sally-Anne test?
Sally puts a marble in a basket and then leaves. When she is gone, Anne takes the marble and puts it in her box.
Children were asked ‘where will Sally look for the marble?’
The answer was in the basket. Their response reflects a child’s ability to recognise that Sally has a different belief from themselves.
What were the results of the Sally-Anne test?
Neurotypical - 85%.
Children with down syndrome - 86%.
ASD children - 20%.
What can we conclude from the Sally-Anne test?
Children with ASD have difficulty processing tasks that require TOM. The tasks are straightforward for those with intellectual disabilities - so difficulties experienced by ASD children cannot be explained in terms of intellectual problems.
Apply theory of mind to RDI.
If research suggests that a lack of theory of mind is a cause of ASD behaviours, then trying to improve this should help reduce these behaviours. ADI is a form of CBT and works on the concept of building dynamic intelligence which is the ability to think flexibly and consider events from different points of view. For example, one area of RDI is emotional referencing where the child’s non-verbal/verbal communication is worked onto help them, understand how others feel and communicate how they feel.
Give a strength of TOM explanation (supporting evidence).
Sally-Anne (give small method + results). However as they were 4 years old they may have been confused by the task. Therefore even though there are significant results, there may be EVs affecting them.
Give a strength of TOM explanation (not all?).
Not everyone experiences deficits of TOM. Further TOM studies have not supported Baron Cohen’s results. Prior et al (1990) found that children with ASD can complete false belief tasks successfully. This means explanation lacks reliability as it has not got consistent results.
Give a strength of TOM explanation (bio basis).
There may be a biological basis for TOM. Brain imaging studies try to locate the neurological circuits responsible for TOM. Superior temporal suculus has been identified as an area responsible for TOM + Cheng found the STS functioned differently in people with ASD. More holistic view of ASD.
