Baron Cohen E Sheet PDF

Preview

Summary

baron cohen...

Description

Study title & authors:

Area/perspective:

EVALUATION SHEET:

Baron-Cohen Study of Advanced Theory of Mind (1997) Assumptions of this area/perspective: .Individual Differences Area: • In order to understand the complexity of the human mind and behaviour we must focus on and investigate the differences between people rather than what we have in common. • These individual differences can be studied and measured. When conducting research this can be measured through the use of psychometric tests such as personality inventories and intelligence tests.

•

It is assumed that each person's behaviour is unique due to genetic and physiological factors, social experiences, and personal qualities. Therefore, the individual differences area generally focuses on psychological abnormality and personality types rather than the situation.

Key theme

Understanding disorders

Background

Autism is a life-long disorder which is usually diagnosed at childhood (age 4 is the most common). It is a communication disorder characterised by difficulty in social interactions through difficulties with understanding social situations, communication and imagination. Individuals vary in their level of autism so it is referred to as a spectrum. Although the exact cause of autism is unknown, there are ideas. Baron-Cohen suggested that autism is caused by a problem of "theory of mind" and that autistics lack in their ability to perceive mental states in other people. Baron-Cohen states if we cannot read other people's mind, it is difficult to have meaningful interactions with them and without this it cannot be expected for individuals to be able develop normal language or form friendships. This idea has been supported by the Sally-Anne False Belief Task devised by Leslie & Frith (1989) in which children are shown that Sally puts a marble in her basket and then goes for a walk. Anne takes the marble and puts it into the box. Sally returns, and the children are asked where she will expect the marble to be. All children of age 4 were able to pass the task however only 20% of autistic children, even above age four, were able to pass it. However, adults with high-functioning autism were able to pass this task. BaronCohen then suggested that these standard theory of mind tasks were too easy for high-functioning adults and therefore devised a more difficult test (Eyes Task) in order to test whether they would be able to pass this task, compared to adults with no clinical conditions and adults with a different developmental disorder.

note any relevant theory/previous studies that informed this research

Aim

To test whether high functioning adults with autism e.g. Aspergers Syndrome would struggle with a new and more difficult test for theory of mind, known as "the eyes task". Method If an experiment – • Design • IV • DV If not an expt give full details

Also include: • Procedure • Materials • Sample Who was the sample? Sampling technique ?

Method: 16 adult volunteers with ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) were shown 25 photographs with pairs of eyes, and were asked to identify the emotions in them. Control groups of 50 adults with no diagnosis and 10 adults diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome carried out the same task. Design: The study used a quasi experiment as a research method. The design used was independent measures. The independent variable in this experiment was naturally occuring (quasi) and it was the three conditions of the adults having either Aspergers Syndrome, Tourettes Syndrome or no clinical disorders. The dependent variable was the performance of the participants on the Happe Strange Stories task and the Eyes task. Sample: The ASD group consisted of 13 men and 3 women of a normal IQ who were diagnosed with high functioning autism or Aspergers Syndrome. Altogether, there were 16 participants in this group. They had an age range of 18-49 years with an average age of 28 years. The sampling technique was self-selecting as the group was a volunteer sample recruited through clinics (their doctors) and in response to an advert listed in the National Autistic Society's magazine. There were two control groups of people with no diagnosis and people diagnosed with Tourettes Syndrome. The Tourettes group consisted of 10 participants with 8 males and 2 females. They had a normal IQ and were recruited through a referral centre in London. Their age range was 18-47 years with the average age being 27 years. The control group of people with no diagnosis consisted of 50 participants, divided into 25 males and 25 females. They were assumed to be of normal intelligence but had not taken an IQ test and their age range was if 18-48 years with the average age being 30 years. Random sampling was the technique used here as they were recruited through random selection of the general population of Cambridge. Procedure: Eyes Task: Participants were shown 25 black and white photographs of eyes for three seconds each and asked two choose between two mental states the eyes were showing e.g. attraction v repulsion. Some choices were basic e.g. sad v afraid but some were more complex e.g. fantasising v noticing.

Control tasks: The control tasks were carried out to ensure that the participants did not have a visual problem which meant they could not process the photographs and therefore not properly carry out the Eyes task. There was a gender recognition task in which participants had to identify the gender of the eyes to check participants had sight well enough to see the difference between both genders. There was also a basic emotion recognition task in which participants had to identify basic emotions in photographs of whole faces to check they could undestand and identify basic emotions. Happe's Strange Stories: This was done in order to validate the eyes task. This was done to measure the theory of mind ability. As the eyes task was a new test, the participants in the autistic and tourettes group took another difficult test which was already more established to test theory of mind. This was the Happe's strange stories task. If the eyes task really measured theory of mind ability, then those who struggle with the eyes task should also struggle with the strange stories task.

Quantitative:

Although the score of 16.3/25 for the autistic group may seem to be reasonably high, each participant had a 50% chance of guessing an emotion correctly in the Eyes task as they were only given two emotions to choose from. A result of 16.3 is barely above what would be expected from simple guessing.

Conclusions

1.

2. 3.

Even high-functioning adults with autism, including those with Aspergers Syndrome and those with higher IQs have a significant problem with theory of mind. They find it hard to read mental states in other people - the theory of mind deficit is central to understanding autism, it may even directly cause its main symptoms. The Eyes Task is a valid test for theory of mind and is suitable for high-functioning adults with autism. In the normal population (those not diagnosed with a disorder), females have a higher theory of mind than males.

A distinguishing feature of this study (something which makes it unique-eg, it uses a pilot study or new technology etc)

Methodological Evaluation issues Internal validity Can include: a) Are demand characteristics likely to have affected the results? (i.e guessing the hyp AND altering behaviour) b) Is social desirability likely to have affected the results? (i.e altering behaviour to present yourself in a positive light, esp in self-report or observation) c) Which extraneous variables were controlled and how? d) Any uncontrolled EVs?

Internal Validity: Strengths: The concurrent validity of the Eyes task was tested as results between the strange stories task, which was an established test of theory of mind, and the newly devised Eyes task were correlated. The same results were found and therefore there was a high correlation, causing concurrent validity to be good and increasing internal validity of the study. Moreover, the Eyes task was definitely testing theory of mind as there were control tasks to test facial and emotional perception to ensure participants performing badly on the task was due to impaired theory of mind rather than other factors. The internal validity was also good as the study occurred in a controlled setting to control for possible situational variables. There were also control groups to ensure the problem with theory of mind only linked to autistic people and not everyone with developmental disorders e.g. Tourette's. Weaknesses: It is not sure whether the Eyes task was actually measuring theory of mind and this reduces internal validity of the study. It was difficult to actually see the eyes in the task as they were unclear so participants may have just guessed emotions and there also may have been problems with not understanding the words used to describe the eyes. The test was also subjective. As the study was a quasi experiment, it was also harder to establish cause and effect as it wasn't a true experiment due to the naturally occuring conditions. These groups may not have been matched on relevant participant variables - although there was matching on IQ and age, the condition of non-diagnosed adults were not rigorously tested to ensure they were comparable with the other groups. Demand characteristics are not likely to have affected results. Social desirability is unlikely to have affected results. Extraneous variables which were controlled were situational variables such as the lighting, which may affect the way participants would have seen the eyes. Participants were all tested in a quiet room individually to control for peer pressure and noise. There were also two control conditions - the group of adults with Tourette's Syndrome and a group of adults without any clinical disorder. These conditions were also controlled for age and IQ as they were all tested to have a normal IQ and were in the same age range. The control condition of adults with Tourette's Syndrome was good as it ruled out the possibility that the results of the Eyes task were not due to a neuropsychiatric disorder but something specific to autism. The control group of non-diagnosed adults was good as it ruled out the possibility that the Eyes task was simply too difficult for all adults to pass, rather than just adults with autism. They also controlled for order effects as different participants took the 4 tests in different orders.

Ecological validity

Can results be

There were uncontrolled extraneous variables in this study as from the options given to choose from in the Eyes task, participants may have been guessing or they may not have understood the words chosen to describe the emotions shown in the eyes which were given as an option in the task. Moreover, researchers couldn't find out what mental state participants really thought was shown in the eyes as they were given options to choose from. As there were only two options to choose from, good results could have just been a reflection of lucky guessing in the task. The options given to choose from were also opposites and this may have made it easier for participants to guess the answer or choose the correct answer; options which were closer would have made the test harder and been better at measuring the theory of mind. This test was later revised by Baron-Cohen to give 4 options which weren't based around opposites. Ecological Validity: Strengths: In reality, we may just judge emotions based on looking at someone's eyes for very short periods of time. Weaknesses: The tasks were carried out under controlled conditions, which lowers

generalised to everyday life? Consider mundane realism & experimental realism

Reliability

Internal – are findings from measures within the study consistent? If an observation used, what was the inter-rater reliability? External – if replicated are results likely to be similar (consider: standardisation, controls, use of objective measures, quantitative data) Type of data used: Quantitative/qualitative

Population validity – sample and sampling technique Any sampling bias – explain (eg prone to DCs; ethnocentric etc) Population validity – can results be generalised beyond this sample to the target population? Explain/justify

ecological validity as the tasks cannot generalise to everyday life settings as much. Moreover, there was low mundane realism in the task. The experience of judging emotion by looking at an isolated pair of eyes is very different to real life as in reality, we judge emotion based on the full face of the person not just their eyes. Moreover, in reality we do not look at someone for only 3 seconds during an entire conversation in order to judge their emotion. In reality there are also other cues to show the emotion the person is feeling such as body language, tone of voice, speech etc. The task was very reductionist as we do not just use someone's eyes to judge emotion. In addition, the pictures of the eyes were in black and white whereas in reality we can see in colour. Results therefore cannot be generalised to everyday life. Overall, ecological validity was low in this task. Internal Reliability: Strengths: Eight different people were used to assess the emotion state in each pair of eyes (the correct answers in the Eyes task) rather than just one person and this gives high inter-rater reliability. Participants were also shown the exact same images of the exact same size at the same time of 3 seconds under the same conditions with standardised instructions. They were also all tested individually in quiet rooms in order to control for peer pressure and noise. This meant participants had a consistent experience and this means internal reliability is good. External Reliability: Strengths: The study was carried out in a laboratory under highly controlled and standardised conditions, making the study easy to replicate and therefore high in external reliability. Weaknesses: No testing of external reliability was reported in the paper, so it is questionable whether the external reliability is actually good. Quantitative Data: Strengths: The quantitative data which recorded the task and performance of the participants e.g. number of correct answers out of 25 on the eyes task was good as it allowed easy comparison of different conditions. This clearly showed that theory of mind is worse in autistic people than in people with other disorders (Tourette's) or no disorders. Weaknesses: There was a lack of qualitative data in this study and this is a weakness as there was no opportunity for participants to comment on what they experienced when they looked at the eyes in the task, or what they found difficult or easy during the task. They were also not asked on why they chose certain answers e.g. whether they guessed or they genuinely thought the eyes portrayed the emotion they chose. This additional information could have added to the completeness of the findings and led to a better understanding of theory of mind in autistic people. Sample and Sampling Technique: Strengths: The conditions in the sample were controlled for age, gender and IQ as they all had the same age range and a normal IQ. There was also a random sampling technique used to select participants in the non-diagnosed condition and this is good as it is the most representative sampling technique. Also, there was a mix of both genders in each condition and although there was more boys than girls in the Autism and Tourette's condition, this is not a problem as in real life there are more males than females with autism. Weaknesses: A volunteer sample was used for the Autism and Tourette's group and this is a weakness as the self-selecting sample means it is not representative of the target population. Moreover, the sample can be said to be too small to generalise to all people with ASD. Sampling Bias: The sample can be said to be unbiased by ethnocentrism as ASD and Tourette's are neurodevelopmental disorders and therefore they are considered to be concerned with cognitive and biological processes and would therefore be species specific. This is because these disorders occur within people regardless of their cultural background and this suggests that genetics may be at play in causing these disorders and therefore results can be expected to apply to other cultures anad societies. However, the sample can be considered ethnocentric as judging emotions can be said to be culturally limited. There are variations between cultures in how people are at reading emotions from the eyes alone and facial expressions could be interpreted differently varying on culture. Moreover, there are differences in diagnosing autism in other cultures as there are higher rates of diagnosis in the West. Different cultures diagnose autism differently and the West may be better at diagnosing it or in other non-western cultures the symptoms of autism may be considered as normal behaviour, especially if the person is high-functioning. Population Validity: The sample used in the study was small and therefore it wouldn't generalise to the

full target population. For example, there were only 16 people used in the AS condition and only 3 females within this; it can be argued that you cannot make generalisations to all females with Aspergers Syndrome based off 3 females. The small amount of females is also a problem as the study found that women did better than men on the Eyes task but this could be due to the larger amount of males having a negative impact on their results. Likewise, the Tourettes Syndrome condition was even smaller with only 10 participants. These samples are too small to make generalisations from. The generalisability is also reduced as the Autistic group and the Tourettes group were both volunteer samples. This makes the sample less generalisable as the volunteers may have less social difficulty in the case of the AS condition as if they really had that much of a problem socially, they would not have volunteered. This makes it harder to generalise these results to people on all ends of the Autism spectrum. Overall population validity is very low. Any other methodological issues? How this study links to: • The area: (PEET - relate to the key concepts and assumptions) A core assumption of the individual differences area is that it is important to investigate the ways in which people differ from one another. Baron-Cohen's study falls within this area because it investigates the psychology of those who have been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. He investigates this through the Eyes task and testing whether those with autism perform better or worse on a task based on theory of mind. The results of the Eyes task show that people with other neurodevelopmental disorders such as Tourette's and people who have not been disagnosed with a disorder perform better on the Eyes task than those with Aspergers Syndrome and this proves that autistic people have a core deficit in theory of mind. Therefore, as autistics are proved to lack in their theory of mind as opposed to others, Baron-Cohen is investigating the way in which people differ through their theory of mind and therefore this study fits into the area of individual differences. However, it can be noted that his study also falls under the cognitive area of psychology because it investigates the internal mental deficit of theory of mind causing those with the autism spectrum dirsorder difficulties when trying to recognise the emotions and thoughts of others, as shown through the Eyes task and the Happe Strange Stories task. Due to this, BaronCohen believes people with ASD also differ in cognitive ways.

• Key theme Baron-Cohen's study relates to the key theme of understanding disorders as it advances our understanding of Aspergers Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) through demonstrating the role played by an impaired theory of mind. This is done through the Strange Stories task and the Eyes ta...