Overview
This summary reviews Baron-Cohen et al.'s (2001) revised "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test, which examines theory of mind differences in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions. The study addresses limitations of the original Eyes Test and explores the relationship between autistic traits and social sensitivity.
Psychology Being Investigated
- Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A neurodevelopmental disorder that impairs social and communication skills, especially interpreting eye contact, facial expressions, body language, and gestures.
- High-Functioning Autism (HFA) and Asperger Syndrome (AS): Milder forms of autism where individuals can function in society but have difficulties with social interaction and understanding nonverbal cues.
- Theory of Mind: The ability to recognize that others have different beliefs, desires, and emotions from one's own, enabling the prediction and explanation of others' actions.
- Social Sensitivity: The skill of interpreting nonverbal cues, particularly from the eyes, to understand others' mental states.
- Revised Eyes Test (RET): Measures social sensitivity by asking participants to identify complex emotions from photographs of the eye region, using four answer choices per item.
- Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ): A self-report questionnaire that quantifies autistic traits in adults; higher scores indicate more autistic characteristics. Researchers expected an inverse correlation between Eyes Test and AQ scores.
Background and Aims
- Original Eyes Test (1997):
- Used only two answer choices per item, making it easier to guess correctly.
- Included more female than male faces and focused on basic emotions, which were often too easy to identify.
- Some participants could guess emotions based on gaze direction, leading to ceiling effects (most people scored very high).
- Revised Eyes Test (2001):
- Increased answer choices to four per item, reducing the chance of guessing.
- Balanced the number of male and female faces.
- Used more complex mental states and provided a glossary to clarify word meanings.
- Aimed to create a more valid and reliable measure of social intelligence and theory of mind.
- Main Aims:
- Test whether the revised Eyes Test can distinguish adults with AS/HFA from neurotypical adults.
- Compare performance between non-autistic females and males.
- Investigate the correlation between Eyes Test scores and AQ scores in normal adults.
Method and Procedure
- Sample Groups:
- Group 1: AS/HFA Group
- 15 male adults diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism.
- Recruited via advertisements in autism support groups and diagnosed at specialist centers.
- Mean IQ: 115; mean age: 29.7 years.
- Group 2: General Population Control Group
- 122 adults from the general population, recruited from community and education classes and public libraries.
- Broad range of occupations and educational backgrounds.
- Mean age (for 88 participants): 46.5 years.
- Did not complete the AQ test.
- Group 3: Student Control Group
- 103 undergraduate students from Cambridge University (53 males, 50 females).
- Assumed high IQ due to university entrance requirements; IQ not directly tested.
- Mean age: 20.8 years.
- Group 4: IQ-Matched Control Group
- 14 adults from the general population, randomly selected and matched for IQ with Group 1.
- Mean IQ: 116; mean age: 28 years.
- Used to control for the influence of intelligence on test performance.
- Design:
- Quasi-experimental, using independent groups and matched pairs.
- Naturally occurring independent variable: group membership (AS/HFA, general population, students, IQ-matched controls).
- Gender was also considered as an independent variable.
- Procedure:
- Development of Revised Eyes Test: Target words and foils were created and piloted with eight judges. For a target word to be accepted, at least five judges had to agree it was the best descriptor, and no more than two could select a foil. Items not meeting criteria were revised and retested.
- Test Administration: Conducted individually in a quiet room, with no time limit. Participants could use a glossary and ask for clarification. A practice test was given before the main test.
- Revised Eyes Test: 36 black-and-white photos of eye regions; participants chose the best descriptor from four options for each. Foil words were similar in intensity or valence but had different meanings.
- AQ Test: Groups 1, 3, and 4 completed the AQ, a 50-item self-report questionnaire (agree/disagree format).
- Gender Identification Task: Group 1 also identified the gender of each photo as a control for basic visual perception.
Comparison: Revised Eyes Test vs. Original Eyes Test
- Original Test:
- Two answer choices per item.
- More female faces than male.
- Focused on basic emotions, often easy to identify.
- Prone to ceiling effects and guessing.
- Revised Test:
- Four answer choices per item, reducing chance of correct guesses.
- Equal number of male and female faces.
- Focused on complex mental states, making the test more challenging.
- Included a glossary to ensure understanding of terms.
- Improved validity and reliability as a measure of theory of mind and social intelligence.
Results
- Group Comparisons:
- AS/HFA group (Group 1) scored significantly lower (mean 21.9/36) than all control groups (means ranged from 26.2 to 30.97).
- The AS/HFA group performed normally on the gender identification task, indicating their lower Eyes Test scores were not due to visual perception issues.
- Correlation with AQ:
- Significant negative correlation between Eyes Test and AQ scores (r = -0.53): higher autistic traits were associated with lower social sensitivity.
- Gender Differences:
- Females scored higher than males in the control groups (e.g., in the student group, females: 28.6, males: 27.3).
- IQ Control:
- No correlation found between IQ and Eyes Test scores, suggesting social sensitivity is independent of general intelligence.
Strengths
- Improved Validity:
- Increased answer choices, use of complex emotions, gender balance, and glossary improved the test's accuracy and reduced ceiling effects.
- Controlled Design:
- Used both independent groups and matched pairs, with an IQ-matched control group to rule out intelligence as a confounding factor.
- Standardized procedures and administration increased reliability.
- Clear Group Comparisons:
- Inclusion of four distinct groups allowed for nuanced analysis of theory of mind across different populations.
Weaknesses
- Low Ecological Validity:
- The test uses static images of eyes, which do not reflect real-life social interactions that involve dynamic cues and context.
- The AQ is a self-report measure, which may be influenced by social desirability or inaccurate self-assessment.
- Limited Generalizability:
- Small, all-male autism sample (Group 1) limits applicability to females and the broader ASD population.
- All participants were from the UK, so findings may not generalize to other cultures.
- No child participants included.
- Data Limitations:
- Relied solely on quantitative, close-ended data; did not capture participants' reasoning or thought processes.
- Despite more answer choices, there was still a 1-in-4 chance of guessing correctly.
Ethics and Applications
- Ethical Considerations:
- Some participants, especially in the autism group, may have experienced distress or discomfort during testing.
- A few autistic participants did not submit their AQ forms, possibly due to distress about being assessed for autistic traits.
- Applications:
- The Eyes Test can help screen for social cognition difficulties and may be used as a diagnostic tool for AS/HFA.
- Results can inform interventions to improve social intelligence, such as targeted training for individuals with low scores.
- The test may be used to identify individuals who could benefit from additional support in social skills.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Neurodevelopmental disorder affecting social and communication skills.
- High-Functioning Autism (HFA)/Asperger Syndrome (AS): Milder forms of ASD with preserved intellectual ability but social difficulties.
- Theory of Mind: Understanding that others have distinct thoughts, beliefs, and emotions.
- Revised Eyes Test (RET): Test measuring social sensitivity by identifying emotions from eye images, using four answer choices.
- Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ): 50-item self-report questionnaire assessing autistic traits.
Action Items / Next Steps
- Review the practice questions provided in the lecture, focusing on group differences and test design.
- Study the summary sheet and familiarize yourself with key results, especially the comparison between the revised and original Eyes Test.
- Prepare answers for sample exam questions on methodology, findings, and evaluation, including strengths and weaknesses related to the sample groups and test improvements.
Commonly Tested Questions (AS Cambridge Psychology Syllabus)
Recall and Description
- Identify the sampling technique used to recruit the AS/HFA group in this study.
- State the number of participants diagnosed with AS/HFA in this study.
- Name the test that was being revised in this study.
- Outline one aim of this study.
- Describe the original version of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test.
- Describe the procedure of the Eyes Test.
- Describe how the target words and foils were developed for the revised Eyes Test.
- Describe the theory that Baron-Cohen et al. were testing with their Eyes Test.
- The AS/HFA participants were the only group asked to make two judgments about each photograph. One was about the emotion; name the other judgment.
- Identify two ways the revised Eyes Test increased the range of scores a participant could obtain.
Results and Data Interpretation
- Outline one result from this study, referring only to results from the Eyes Test.
- Outline one result in relation to the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ).
- Outline one result comparing the participants of Group 1 to Group 2, using data.
Application and Evaluation
- Explain one reason why the study has validity and one reason why it does not, using evidence from this study.
- Evaluate the study in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one point must be about generalizations or the use of self-reports.
- Outline one methodological strength of this study.
- Outline one ethical weakness of this study.
- Suggest one real-world application based on the results of this study.
- Explain one useful application of the findings if child participants were used in this study.
- Explain how one finding from the study supports an assumption of the cognitive approach.
- Describe one methodological problem that could arise if child participants were used in this study.