Baron-Cohen et al.

PSYCHOLOGY BEING INVESTIGATED/BACKGROUND 

THEORY OF MIND 

Ability to mentally understand and predict others' behaviour, aka mentalising. Low in autistic people. It involves two stages: determining a person's mental state and its content.

SOCIAL SENSITIVITY

Ability to understand others' feelings and views during social interactions, with high sensitivity in recognizing cues and appropriate responses. 

AUTISM AND ASPERGER’S SYNDROME 

Autism spectrum disorder, previously known as Asperger's syndrome, is a condition characterized by social interactions, communication difficulties, and repetitive behaviour, now known as "high-functioning autism" in the ICD-11. 

AIM 

• To test adults with HFA/AS on the RET  if the deficits on the original test were still there.
• To see if there is a negative correlation between autism quotient [AQ] and eyes test scores.
• To see if females score higher on the eyes test than males.

 HYPOTHESIS 

There would be individual differences in this ability, and that people with conditions such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) would perform differently compared to neurotypical individuals. 

METHODOLOGY 

Baron-Cohen et al. used experiments [scores from the different groups/genders were compared] and correlations [checked whether there was a correlation between the aq and eye test scores] 

DESIGN AND VARIABLES 

IV1: Participant’s group, IV2: Participant’s sex. DV: eyes test and AQ scores. Both the IVs were independent measures design. Co-variables: AQ and eyes test score. SAMPLE    

 PROCEDURE    

The participants took the test in a quiet room in Exeter or Cambridge. They were asked to select one of 4 emotions that matched a set of eyes. The right answer was called the target and the wrong ones were the foils. Group 1 were also asked to recognise the gender of the person in the picture. The other groups didn’t need to do that as they have a ceiling effect. They were given a glossary in case they didn’t know the meanings of any words. 

EYE TEST DEVELOPMENT

2 authors created the target and foils and had them reviewed by 8 judges [4M, 4F]. They picked the target word for each item. 5/8 judges had to agree for it to become a target and more than 2 judges couldn’t pick the same foil. Groups 2 & 3’s data were combined, and for the 225 responses, half needed to select the target and more than 25% couldn’t pick the same foil. 4/40 failed to meet these criteria so 36 items were left on the new test. 

RESULTS 

• Group 1 performed worse on the eye test than the others.
• Females scored better on the eyes test but not significantly.
• Group 1 scored significantly worse than 3&4 on the AQ test [group 2 didn’t take it].
• Males scored higher on the AQ test.
• No correlation between IQ and the eyes test.
• Negative correlation [-0.53] between AQ and the eyes test for all 3 groups.
• Group 3’s eyes test score correlated negatively with the social skills category (–0.27) and communication category (–0.25) of the AQ.
• Adults with HFA/AS scored 33 out of 36 or above on the gender recognition test.

CONCLUSION 

The revised eyes test has proven to be a more sensitive measure of adult social intelligence, with neurotypical adults scoring significantly below the ceiling. Although impaired on the test, adults with HFA/AS could still identify the gender of the eyes on the control task. The AQ and eyes test scores were negatively correlated, suggesting that both can be used to measure the severity of autistic traits.

ETHICAL ISSUES 

The study's ethical weakness is the potential psychological harm to participants with HFA/AS, who may have struggled to comprehend the emotions displayed during the test, potentially leading to distress or embarrassment and potentially lowered self-esteem. 

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES 

RELIABILITY 

Standardisation 

The revised eyes test has a high level of standardisation, with participants seeing the same 36 pairs of eyes, identical black and white images of the same size, and only one correct answer. This standardization allows researchers to verify the reliability of findings and re-examine non-significant findings, such as gender differences. 

VALIDITY

 Lack of random allocation 

Naturally occurring IVs like HFA/AS diagnosis or male/female prevented random allocation. This could have led to participant variables between groups, especially as some were recruited via volunteer sampling from different parts of the UK. This could reduce the validity of the results, as differences between the results may not have been due to the independent variable. Theory of mind The study's weakness lies in its inability to accurately measure theory of mind, as it only focused on determining a person's mental state. The eyes test, which cannot measure the reason behind an emotion, may not be a valid measure of theory of mind, as it cannot accurately measure the mental state.

 OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY 

Quantitative data 

The study's strength lies in its objective quantitative data, allowing for no researcher interpretation. Participants provided pre-determined correct answers, resulting in no room for bias. This ensured the study's validity, as participants were only required to tick whether they chose the correct target answer or one of the incorrect foils. 

GENERALISATION AND ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Generalising beyond the sample 

The small sample size of 15 male adults with HFA/AS, may not be representative of all individuals with the disorder, due to them volunteering because of a specific interest in the research. 

Generalising to everyday life 

The eyes test has a weakness as its static stimuli do not accurately reflect real-life emotion processing. People typically use facial movements and verbal cues to detect emotions, reducing the test's realism and reducing the ability to determine another person's mental state accurately. 

LINKS TO DEBATES AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Cognitive processing, as demonstrated by the lower eyes test scores in adults with HFA/AS, may be influenced by individual factors, with some individuals better at recognizing emotions and mental states in certain situations and with sufficient processing time. Individuals with HFA/AS and neurotypical controls showed differences in Eyes Test scores, indicating individual differences in cognitive processing of emotions through facial expressions.