Responses to the Negative Emotions of

Others by Autistic, Mentally Retarded,

and Normal Children

Marian D. Sigman, Connie Kasari, Jung-Hye Kwon,

and Nurit Yirmiya
University of California, Los Angeles

SIGMAN, MARIAN D.; KASARI, CONNIE; KWON, JUNG-HYE; and YIRMIYA, NURIT. Responses to the
Negative Emotions of Others by Autistic, Mentally Retarded, and Normal Children. CHILD
DEVELOPMENT, 1992, 63, 796-807. Attention, facial aFfect, and behavioral responses to adults
showing distress. Fear, and discomfort were compared for autistic, mentally retarded, and normal
children. The normal and mentally retarded children were very attentive to adults in all 3
situations. In contrast, many of the autistic children appeared to ignore or not notice the adults
showing these negative affects. As a group, the autistic children looked at the adults less and
were much more engaged in toy play than the other children during periods when an adult
pretended to be hurt. The autistic children were also less attentive to adults showing fear,
although their behavior was not difFerent From the normal children. Few oF the children in any
group showed much Facial aFFect in response to these situations. The results are discussed in
terms oF the importance of afFect in the social learning experiences of the young child.

The social relationships of children de-
pend critically on attentional and affective
interactions. Moreover, children appear to
learn about the inanimate and animate envi-
ronment by observing the emotional reac-
tions oF others (Gampos & Stenberg, 1981;
Feinman, 1982; Gunnar & Stone, 1984; Klin-
nert, Gampos, Sorce, Emde, & Svedja, 1983;
Walden & Ogan, 1988). The importance oF
understanding and communicating aFfect in
early social interactions is highlighted when
one considers what happens to interactions
in which affect and attention are not inte-
grated, such as appears to occur with autistic
children. Clinical observations and very lim-
ited empirical data suggest that autistic chil-
dren do not respond to other people's afFect
in the same way as normal and mentally re-
tarded children.
InFormation about the responses oF au-
tistic children to the afFects oF others is lack-
ing, despite the recognition that autistic in-
dividuals universally show deviations in
their social relationships. A number of stud-
ies have investigated the capacity of older
autistic children to identify aFfects correctly
from photographs, drawings, and videotaped
depictions (Braverman, Fein, Lucci, & Wa-
terhouse, 1989; Hobson, 1986; Ozonoff, Pen-
nington, & Rogers, 1989; Prior, Dahlstrom,
& Squires, 1990). Autistic subjects have
been found to be less accurate in identifying
Facial aFFect than control subjects, although
group diFFerences are smaller and often not
significant when groups are matched on ver-
bal abilities. However, even autistic individ-
uals oF normal intelligence have more diFfi-
culty than normal controls in identiFying
afFects accurately, particularly in depictions
oF social situations (MacDonald et al., 1989;
OzonofF, Fennington, & Rogers, in press;
Yirmiya, Sigman, Kasari, & Mundy, in
press).
AFFective responses oF young autistic
children in social interactions have been ob-
served. Gontrary to clinical descriptions,
empirical studies have Found Fewer overall
diFferences in facial expressions of positive
aFFect between autistic and control children
than anticipated (Dawson, Hill, Spencer,
Galpert, & Watson, 1990; Kasari, Sigman,
Mundy, & Yirmiya, 1990; Yirmiya, Kasari,
Sigman, & Mundy, 1989). On the other hand,
autistic children do show less positive afFect

This research was supported by grants NS25243fromNINDS and HD17662fromNICHD.

Jung-Hye Kwon is currently at Seoul University and Nurit Yirmiya is currently at the University
of Jerusalem. We are grateful to Alison Anson, Michael Espinosa, Stephanie Freeman, Margie
Greenwald, Alisa Hoffman, Nicholas Lofthouse, Alma Lopez, and Susan Toth For their contribu-
tions to this research. Send reprint requests to: Marian Sigman, Department oF Psychiatry,
68-237B NPI, UGLA Medical School, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
[Child Development, 1992, 63, 796-807. © 1992 by the Society for Research in Child Development Inc
AU rights reserved. 0009-3920/92/6304-0010$01.00]

in combination with attentional behaviors,
such as while looking at their mothers and
teachers, than mentally retarded and normal
controls (Dawson et al., 1990; Snow, Hert-
zig, & Shapiro, 1987). Moreover, in contrast
to normal children who combine positive af-
Fect with attention to adults when engaged
in joint attention or protodeclarative ges-
tures (Bruner & Sherwood, 1983; Jones, Gol-
lins, & Hong, 1991; Mundy, Kasari, & Sig-
man, in press), autistic children not only
look less at adults in response to toys or ex-
periences that appear interesting to them
but, when they do, they show less positive
aFFect than normal or mentally retarded chil-
dren (Kasari et al, 1990).
The responses oF young autistic chil-
dren to the negative emotions oF others have
not been investigated. Young normal chil-
dren appear very interested in the distress
oF others, and some children show aFfective
and prosocial responses as early as the sec-
ond year oF life (Rheingold, Hay, & West,
1976; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990;
Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, &
Ghapman, in press). Moreover, normal chil-
dren will look to the Face oFan adult simulat-
ing Fear or disgust in response to a novel
person or toy by the end oF the first year oF
liFe (Gamras & Sachs, 1991; Hornik, Ris-
enhoover, & Gunnar, 1987; Klinnert, 1984;
Klinnert, Emde, Rutterfield, & Gampos,
1986). Thus, the negative emotions oFothers
are oF great interest to young normal chil-
dren and may infiuence their emotional re-
actions and behaviors.
The aim of the present study was to in-
vestigate the responses oF young autistic
children to negative emotion shown by oth-
ers and to contrast these reactions with those
shown by normal children oF the same de-
velopmental level and with those shown by
mentally retarded children oF the same de-
velopmental and chronological age. Because
most autistic children are also mentally re-
tarded, their responses need to be compared
with those oF nonautistic, mentally retarded
children. One hypothesis was that the autis-
tic children would show less aFFect and be-
havioral or empathetic response to the nega-
tive affect of the adults. Given that autistic
children are reported to return their moth-
ers' smiles less than normal controls (Daw-
son et al., 1990), it seemed likely that they
would also show less negative afFect and be-
havioral response to the negative emotions
oF others.
The Formulation oF a hypothesis regard-
Sigman et al. 797
ing attention was diFficult. As mentioned
above, previous research has already shown
that autistic children inFrequently use proto-
declarative gestures oF showing and pointing
either with Familiar caregivers (Sigman,
Mundy, Sherman, & Ungerer, 1986) or with
experimenters' (Baron-Gohen, 1989; Love-
land & Landry, 1986; Mundy, Sigman, Un-
gerer, & Sherman, 1986). While they look as
much as controls during dyadic interactions
with caregivers or experimenters and during
protoimperative gestures, they look less at
the Faces oF adults showing neutral aFFect in
triadic interaction situations when an inter-
esting toy is involved. However, negative af-
fect may be so salient for the young child
that these group difFerences in attention may
be diminished or eliminated. One oFthe pur-
poses oFthis study, then, was to determine
iF autistic children would show the same
amount oF attention to the negative affect of
others as normal and mentally retarded
children.
Three diFferent aFFects and situations
were used with the same sample. To sim-
plify the presentation, the methods and re-
sults are given separately For each situation.
Responses to the Distress of Others
METHOD
Subjects
Three groups oF children participated in
all phases oFthis study. The first group con-
sisted oF 30 children diagnosed with autism
who were reFerred by clinicians associated
with the UGLA School oF Medicine or pri-
vate practitioners. Diagnoses oFautism were
made iF the child met two oF three difFerent
criteria: (1) a reFerring clinician's diagnosis
made according to DSM III-R guidelines
(DSM III-R; APA, 1987); (2) a score oF 32
or above on an abbreviated version oF the
Ghildhood Autism Rating Scale (GARS;
Schopler, Reichler, & Renner, 1986), which
was filled out From videotaped observations
oFthe child by an experimenter who was un-
aware oF the clinician's diagnosis oF the
child; and (3) a score oF 70 or above on the
Autism Behavior Ghecklist (ABG; Krug, Ar-
ick, & Almond, 1978), which was filled out
during an interview with the parent by an-
other experimenter.
The second group consisted oF30 devel-
opmentally delayed children who did not
meet any oFthe criteria listed above and who
were matched with the autistic children on
chronological and mental age. Thirteen chil-
dren in this group were diagnosed with
798 Child Development
TABLE 1
SAMPLE CHARAGTEKISTICS; AUTISTIG, MENTALLY RETARDED, AND NORMALLY
DEVELOPING CHILDREN

Autistic MR Normal
Characteristics (n = 30) (n = 30) (n = 30)
Chronological age (months):
M 42.40 41.67 19.83
SD 11.22 10.71 8.21
Mental age" (months):
M 22.90 24.00 23.27
SD 10.39 9.39 10.68
Developmental quotient:
M 52.53 55.73 113.53
SD 16.14 13.83 8.73
Language age'' (months):
Expressive:
M 17.63 20.63 21.43
SD 6.68 9.58 12.07
Receptive:
M 17.37 19.90 22.50
SD 9.25 9.71 11.22
SES:=
M 3.48 3.73 4.21
SD 1.02 .87 .74
Sex: male/female 27/3 18/12 27/3
Language: English/other 29/1 26/4 30/0
Race: white/other 24/6 24/6 28/2

' As determined by a Cattell or Stanford-Binet score.

^ As determined by Reynell Language Scales scores.
" As determined by a Hollingshead score (1 = lowest to 5 = highest SES).

Down syndrome, one child had Prader-
Willie syndrome, and 16 were mentally re-
tarded with an unknown etiology. The nor-
mal group of 30 children was selected to
match the autistic children on mental age
and gender; there were 27 males and three
Females in botb tbe autistic and normal
groups. There were no significant diFfer-
ences in mean receptive or expressive lan-
guage age among the groups. Other charac-
teristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.
Each child was seen in two sessions
spaced over a 1—2-week interval. Besides
the procedures described, children were
also evaluated with either the Gattell Devel-
opmental Scales of the StanFord-Binet Intel-
ligence Test as well as the Reynell Lan-
guage Scales.
Procedure
The parent and experimenter distress
situations were administered in difFerent
testing sessions, and the order was counter-
balanced across children. The individual
was seated at 90 degrees to the leFt of the
child at a small table and showed the child
how to use a wooden pounding toy and ham-
mer. During this demonstration, the individ-
ual pretended to hurt herself by hitting her
finger with the hammer. For 30 sec, the indi-
vidual displayed Facial and vocal expres-
sions oF distress without using words. After
a 10-sec period of neutral aFfect, the individ-
ual showed the child that her finger did not
hurt anymore. Parents were trained by the
experimenter to display a peak emotional ex-
pression of distress. The episodes were vid-
eotaped with a split-screen video recorder
so that the upper front half oF the child was
in view on one screen and the whole scene
including the adult was in view on the other
screen. A date-time generator displayed the
time to the tenth oF a second in the lower
corner oF the screen. The responses of one
autistic and one normal child to parental dis-
tress were not recorded and therefore not
included in analyses.
Three categories of behavior were
coded From the videotaped observations of
each session: attention, behaviors directed
to the toy and adult, and facial affect. Goding
of each category was done independently by
two raters.

Attention.—The child's attention was
coded every half second and categorized
into Four mutually exclusive categories. The
categories consisted oF: (1) looks at the adult,
(2) looks at adult's hand, (3) looks at the toy,
and (4) looks away or unFocused (e.g., scans
the room or stares into space). Total duration
oF looks in each oF these categories was re-
corded. In addition, the latency to first look
at the experimenter or parent was recorded.
Reliability oF attention calculated by count-
ing agreements in eacb halF second unit For
10 subjects was good, kappa = .86.
Play behaviors.—The child's play be-
haviors with the toy were coded second by
second and categorized into three mutually
exclusive categories: no play, passive play
(holding, brieF touching), and active play.
Agreement between two raters For each play
category in each period calculated on 10
tapes was good, kappa = .95. Latency to first
touching the toy and durations oF active play
behaviors were recorded.
Behaviors toward the distressed adult.—
The child's behaviors toward the distressed
adult were coded in two ways. First, the
child's degree oF concern was coded using a
six-point rating scale: (1) shows no interest,
(2) shows a hint oF interest, (3) shows some
apparent interest but no clear concern, (4)
shows one clear sign oF concern, (5) shows
more than one clear sign oF concern, and (6)
shows intense aFFective involvement and/or
comForting bebavior. Interrater reliability on
10 tapes was 87%, kappa = .76. Second, be-
havioral responses to the adult's emotional
display oF distress were recorded. These in-
cluded physical withdrawal, comForting be-
haviors, soliciting comFort From parent, imi-
tating, tbrowing the toy, giving the toy to the
distressed person, and selF-stimulation. In-
terrater agreement on these behaviors on 10
tapes was good, kappa = .74.
Facial affect.—The child's Facial ex-
pressions were coded second by second us-
ing the Following scale: (1) very negative, (2)
negative, (3) neutral, (4) positive, and (5)
very positive. To minimize subjective bias
io judging Facial aFFect, coders were first
trained on the MAX coding system, a highly
reliable method developed by Izard and his
colleagues to categorize expressions oF aFfect
based on observations of facial movement
pattems (Izard, 1979). After coders became
highly reliable on all categories of MAX fa-
cial expression, they were then trained on
the current rating system. All coding was
conducted without sound in order to code
Sigman et al. 799
facial aFFect independently From vocaliza-
tion. Percent agreement calculated on a sub-
set (n = 10) oF the subjects was 77%, kappa
= .63. Total durations oF positive, neutral,
and negative afFects were recorded.
RESULTS
The data were analyzed with three-
group (autistic, mentally retarded, and nor-
mal) MANOVAs and Follow-up ANOVAs.
Post hoc tests were computed using BonFer-
roni (Dunn) tests. Preliminary analyses led
to several decisions about treatment oF the
data. First, eFfects related to gender were not
noteworthy, so the data For males and Fe-
males were combined. Second, For both the
distress and Fear situations, the intensity oF
emotion showed by the adult posing the
emotion was rated as low, mild, or high.
Both parent and experimenter behaviors
were rated For tbe distress situations (kappa
= .84 on 10 tapes) and For the Fear situation
(kappa = .70 on 15 tapes). Since there were
no significant diFFerences in the intensity oF
the experimenter's or parent's demonstrated
aFFects across the three groups, intensity of
demonstrated afFect was not included in the
subsequent analyses as an independent vari-
able. Lastly, because oF variability in the du-
ration oF sessions, only the first 30 sec oF
each session were included in analyses.
Data for four measures of attention (to
adult, to adult's hand, to toy, and away) and
two measures of behavior (concern rating
and time involved in active play) were com-
pared across groups with a MANOVA for
parent distress and a MANOVA For experi-
menter distress. The group eFFect was sig-
nificant in both MANOVAs, Wilks's lambda
F(12,160) = 4.41, p < .0001 and F(12,164)
= 7.64, p < .0001.
Attention to Emotional Displays
A significant main eFFect oF group was
obtained in the duration oF attention to the
adult in both situations, F(2,85) = 11.78, p
< .0001 For the parent and F(2,87) = 25.04, p
< .0001 For the experimenter. Post hoc tests
indicated that autistic children looked at the
adult significantly less than did mentally re-
tarded and normal children (see Table 2).
All the children in the normal and mentally
retarded group looked at each adult at least
once. Six autistic children never looked at
their parents and eight autistic children
never looked at the experimenter during the
demonstration oF distress.
In both situations, the autistic children
looked to the toy much more than the other
 800 Child Development
TABLE 2
MEANS FOR ATTENTION VARIABLES IN THE DISTRESS CONDITIONS

Variables Autistic MR Normal

Parent distress: (N = 29) (N = 30) (N = 29)

Number who look 23 30 29
Duration of attention:
To parent:
M 5.07** 11.10 14.05
SD (7.13) (7.89) (6.44)
To toy:
M 17.72** 9.38 11.71
SD (10.32) (8.20) (7.27)
Experimenter distress: (N = 30) (N = 30) (N = 29)
Number who look 22 30 29
Duration of attention:
To experimenter:
M 6.63** 15.88 18.57
SD (7.32) (7.34) (5.78)
To toy:
M 17.60** 7.03 5.10
SD (9.26) (6.50) (5.02)

NOTE.—Means and standard deviations in the table are given in seconds.

** Means for the autistic group are significantly different from the means for the other two
groups, p < .05.

children. There was a significant group ef- nificant demonstrator effect, with all the
fect in both parent distress, F(2,85) = 7.21, children attending more when an unfamiliar
p < .001 and experimenter distress, F(2,87) individual demonstrated distress than when
= 26.60, p < .0001. As can be seen in Table the parent demonstrated distress, F(l,85) =
2, the autistic children looked at the toy far 17.43, p < .0001 and no interaction effect.
more than the other children, particularly
when the experimenter manifested distress. Behavioral Responses:
The mean fixation time that the toy was at- Active Play and Concern
tended to was also significantly greater for Just as the autistic children looked at the
the autistic children than the other children toy more than the other children, so they
in both parent distress situations, F(2,82) = also played with the toy more. There were
8.49, p < .0004, and experimenter distress, significant group effects for toy play in both
F(2,84) = 9.46, p < .0002. There were no distress situations, F(2,85) = 4.68, p < .01
group difFerences in the amount that the for parent distress and F(2,87) = 31.77, p <
children looked away. .0001 for experimenter distress. As can be
seen in Table 3, the autistic children played
Because oF the diFFerences in attention with the toy much more than the children
to adults, latency oF initial look was com- in the other groups, particularly when the
pared across groups and individuals For experimenter showed distress. The autistic
those children who looked to the adult at children were also rated as less concerned
least once. Results indicated that tbere was in both situations, F(2,85) = 18.61, p < .0001
a significant group effect in botb conditions, for parent distress and F(2,87) = 25.01, p <
F(2,83) = 11.10, p < .0001 For parent condi- .0001 For experimenter distress.
tion, and F(2,81) = 4.73, p < .05 For experi-
menter condition. Post hoc tests revealed While the normal and mentally retarded
that autistic children looked to the adults children appeared more concerned than the
significantly later than did normal and men- autistic children, not many children in any
tally retarded children. group engaged in much comForting behav-
ior. Only three normal, seven mentally re-
In order to determine whether the chil- tarded, and six autistic children comForted
dren attended differentially depending on their parent, while no normal, six mentally
who appeared to be distressed, a 3 (group) retarded, and two autistic children com-
X 2 (demonstrator) repeated-measures Forted the experimenter. The autistic chil-
ANOVA was calculated. There was a sig- dren were somewhat more likely than the
 Sigman et al. 801
TABLE 3
MEANS FOR THE BEHAVIORAL VARIABLES FOR THE DISTRESS CONDITIONS

Variables Autistic MR Normal

Parent distress:
Duration of active play:
M 13.45* 5.87 7.34
SD (12.49) (8.75) (8.47)
Empathy rating:
M 2.41** 4.23 4.14
SD (1.48) (1.30) (1.03)
Experimenter distress:
Duration of active play:
M 15.57** 2.40 1.03
SD (11.72) (5.78) (3.42)
Empathy rating:.
M 2.87** 4.73 4.73
SD (1.59) (1.08) (.69)
NOTE.—Means and standard deviations for durations are given in seconds.
* Means for autistic group are signiflcantly different from means for the mentally retarded
group, p < .05.
** Means for autistic group are significantly different from means for the other two groups,
p < .05.

children in the other groups to withdraw
physically From the situation and were less
likely to seek the parent during the experi-
menter distress situation. Ten normal, six
mentally retarded, and only two autistic chil-
dren approached their parent when the ex-
perimenter pretended to have hurt herselF
Facial Affect
Data For three affect codes (positive,
negative, and neutral) were compared in
three-group MANOVAs For the parent and
experimenter distress situations. There were
no significant group effects in either analy-
sis. In both situations, the children showed
mostly neutral affect (20-25 sec), just a little
positive affect (3-6 sec), and only about 1-2
sec oF negative affect.
Responses to the Fear of Others
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were the same as in the
previous study except that the data oF one
autistic child in each session were not re-
corded because oF equipment Failure.
Procedure
The children's responses to Fear ex-
pressed by others were measured with a par-"
adigm developed For studying social reFer-
encing in normal children (Hornik &
Gunnar, 1988; Hornik et al., 1987; Klinnert,
1984; Klinnert et al., 1983, 1986). The child
was seated in a child-sized chair with the
experimenter seated slighdy in Front and to
the child's right and the parent seated
slightly ahead and to the child's leFt. The
parent and experimenter Faced each other
and were seated perpendicularly to the
child. A small (approximately 11 x 8 cm)
electronic robot (a "chatbox" toy manufac-
tured by Tomy) that was positioned inside a
curtained box at one end oF the room was
activated by remote control. The robot
moved Forward toward the child For 5 to 10
sec, stopping approximately 50 inches From
the child and in direct view oF the child.
Upon seeing the robot, both individuals
modeled expressions oF Fear For 30 sec us-
ing Facial expressions, gestures, and vocal-
izations that were not words. The period
concluded with 10 sec in which both indi-
viduals displayed neutral aFFect. In this pro-
cedure, the experimenter displayed expres-
sions along with the parent in order to
maximize the likelihood that peak emotional
expressions would be accurately displayed
and maintained For the entire test trial.
Given that our principal interest was in
the children's responses to the negative
emotional expressions oFothers, the first pre-
sentation oF the robot was combined with
negative emotional messages From parent
and experimenter. The impact oF the par-
ent's display oF negative emotion has been
shown to be mitigated by a previous expo-
802 Child Development
sure oF the robot accompanied by a positive
display oF emotion by the parent (Hornik et
al., 1987; Walden & Ogan, 1988). Nonethe-
less, in this study the robot was presented to
the child again, during the second session
and with the adults showing positive emo-
tions, in order to dissipate any Fear that
might have developed in the first session.
The behavioral coding system was simi-
lar to that used with the distress situations.
Total duration and latency oF attention to ex-
perimenter, parent, robot, and away were re-
corded. Latency to first touching the robot
and duration oFpassive and active play were
coded in the same way as described above.
In addition, a rating oF besitancy was made
using a five-point scale: (1) no hesitation, ap-
proaches the robot quickly to (5) shows ex-
treme hesitation, no approach. Agreement
between two observers on these behaviors
and rating scale with a subset oF 15 subjects
was good; kappas ranged From .81 to .95. Fa-
cial expressions were coded second by sec-
ond with the same scales described above.
For 15 tapes, percent agreement between
two raters was 83% for Facial affect, kappa =
.75.
RESULTS
A three-group MANOVA was calculated
on the data From Four measures oF attention
(to experimenter, parent, robot, and away)
and two behavioral measures (active play
with toy and hesitancy rating). The group
eFFect was significant. Wilks's lambda
F(12,162) = 3.98, p < .0001, as were the
group effects in all the Follow-up ANOVAs.
Attention to Emotional Displays
In terms oF looking at the adults, the re-
sults were similar to those shown in the dis-
tress situation. The autistic children looked
at botb adults Far less than the normal and
mentally retarded children (see Table 4). All
oF the normal children, 28 oFthe 30 mentally
retarded children, and only 13 oF the 29 au-
tistic children looked at the adult at some
point during this situation.
There was a significant group x demon-
strator eFFect in a 3 (group) X 2 (demonstra-
tor) repeated-measures ANOVA calculated
to determine whether the children attended
more to one individual than the other,
F(2,86) = 3.55, p < .03. Both the normal and
mentally retarded children looked at the ex-
perimenter's Face more than the mother's
Face, while the autistic children hardly
looked at either.
The mentally retarded children differed
From the normal children in that they looked
away more; this was the only significant diF-
Ference in attention or behavior between the

TABLE 4
MEANS FOR ATTENTION AND BEHAVIORAL VARIABLES IN THE FEAR CONDITION

Autistic MR Normal
Variables (iV = 29) (N = 30) (N = 30)
Number who look to adult 13 28 30
Duration of attention:
To experimenter:
M 62** 5.90 4.62
SD (1.57) (5.85) (4.90)
To parent:
M 60** 2.42 3.45
SD (1.40) (2.69) (3.52)
To toy:
M 20.81* 14.45 17.33
SD (8.01) (7.85) (6.85)
Hesitancy rating:
M 3.03* 4.30 3.40
SD (1.64) (1.29) (1.64)
Duration of active play:
M 5.97* 1.53 2.90
SD (8.89) (4.22) (5.41)
NOTE.—Means and standard deviations for durations are given in seconds.
* Means for autistic group are signiflcantly different from means for the mentally retarded
group, p < .05.
** Means for autistic group are signiflcantly different from means for the other two groups,
p < .05.

normal and mentally retarded groups. The
mentally retarded children looked at the toy
less than the autistic children. There was no
significant difference between the autistic
and normal children in how much attention
was devoted to the toy.
Behavioral Responses: Hesitancy and
Active Play
A significant main effect of group was
obtained For the hesitancy rating, F(2,86) =
5.40, p < .006, and the total duration oF ac-
tive play with the toy, F(2,86) = 3.64, p <
.03. Autistic children were rated as signifi-
cantly less hesitant than the mentally re-
tarded children. They played actively with
the robot For about 6 sec, as contrasted with
about 3 sec For the normal children and 1.5
sec For the mentally retarded children, \vith
the contrast between the autistic and men-
tally retarded children being significant.
The number oF children who ap-
proached the toy was 17 (59%), 8 (27%), and
15 (50%) For the autistic, mentally retarded,
and normal groups, respectively. Although
the autistic children were somewhat slower
to touch the toy, the differences did not
reach significance. Ten normal children,
three autistic children, and none oFthe men-
tally retarded children approached their par-
ents during this Fear situation.
Facial Affect
As in the distress situation, the children
in all three groups showed predominantly
neutral affect, and there were no significant
group diFFerences. The mean duration oF
neutral affect was 17.6 sec For the autistic
children, 19.7 sec For the mentally retarded
children, and 16.5 sec For the normal chil-
dren. The means For positive aFFect ranged
From 4.5 sec For the autistic children to 7 sec
For the normal children.
Effects of Visual Referencing on Behavior
One oF the interesting issues is the ex-
tent to which the children's looks to the
adult's emotional display infiuenced their
behavior. It is notable that halFoF the normal
children approached the toy even when the
parents modeled Fear, so it seems that the
parent's emotional expression did not have
an over^vhelming effect on the children's
readiness to handle the robot. There was a
significant negative correlation between the
duration oF looking at the adult and the dura-
tion oF active play with the robot For all three
groups, r's ranged From —.37 to —.44, sug-
gesting that the more the child attended to
the adult's Fear expression, the less the child
played with the robot.
Sigman et al. 803
A total oF 13 autistic children looked to
the adult in the Fear situation. Among those
13 children, 10 looked to the adult during
the first 13 sec (the mean latency to touching
the toy), and only two oF these children ap-
proached the toy. Thus, autistic children
who did not look to the adult were more
likely to approach the robot than autistic
children who did look to the adult.
Responses to Experimenter's and Parent's
Expressions of Pleasure
Given that the autistic children showed
so much less attention to the distress. Fear,
and discomFort oF adults than the other chil-
dren, the question arises whether they also
attend less to the adult showing pleasure.
When the robot situation was readminis-
tered during tbe second session witb tbe
parent and experimenter modeling pleasure,
the same group diFFerences were apparent in
this condition as in the Fear condition. Autis-
tic children looked at the experimenter less
than the children in either oF the other
groups and looked at the parent less than the
mentally retarded children. The normal and
mentally retarded children may have looked
more in this session because oF carry-over
effects From the first session, so group differ-
ences in attention to adults' pleasure expres-
sion may have been infiated.
Responses to the Discomfort
of Others
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were the same as dis-
cussed above except that the experimenter
discomFort situation was not administered to
one autistic and one normal child.
Procedure
In order to determine whether the chil-
dren would respond to milder Forms oF nega-
tive emotion, the adult who had been play-
ing with the child pretended to be sligbtly
ill. In one session, aFter 3 min oF interactive
play with toys, the parent lay down on a
couch, closed her eyes, and pretended to
Feel some discomFort For 1 min. In the sec-
ond session, after 3 min oF interactive play,
the experimenter pretended to be ill For 1
min. The parent and experimenter were in-
structed to respond to the child but to re-
main lying on the couch For the entire 1-min
period unless the child became upset (which
did not occur).
The child's responses were coded For
the occurrence oF looking at the adult, touch-
804 Child Development
ing the adult, or imitating the adult. In addi- mal children imitated parental behavior,
tion, the child's overall affect was coded as mostly by lying down near the parent. Five
(1) positive, (2) neutral, (3) negative, or (4) autistic, six mentally retarded, and 10 nor-
interest. Interest was Included because we mal children showed negative affect to pa-
expected that this might be a Frequent re- rental discomfort, and far fewer showed neg-
sponse. Ghildren's vocalizations regarding ative afFect to experimenter discomFort. Very
the situation were also recorded. On a sam- Few children commented either to their par-
ple oF nine children, there was 100% agree- ent or the experimenter about their be-
ment between two raters on noticing and havior.
touching the adult lying on the couch.
Agreement on imitating the adult was 94%, Diseussion
kappa = .77, and on aFFect rating was 94%,
kappa = .91. The results oF this study are compelling
in that in every situation autistic children
Failed to look very much at an adult showing
RESULTS some Form oF negative emotion. In contrast,
A series oF chi-squares were calculated the normal and mentally retarded children
to determine whether there were group diF- were very attentive to adults showing dis-
Ferences in the number oF children who no- tress. Fear, and discomFort. Furthermore, in
ticed, touched, or imitated the adult who the distress situation, the play oFthe normal
pretended to Feel slightly ill. There were sig- and mentally retarded children with a toy
nificant group diFFerences in the number oF seemed to be inhibited when the adult ap-
cbildren who attended to the adult. HalFthe peared hurt. Not only did the autistic chil-
autistic children did not appear to notice dren ignore or not notice the distressed
their parent's discomFort, which was true for adult, but they also played witb the toy more
only six mentally retarded and four normal and appeared less concerned than the other
children, x^(2) = 11.41, p < .003. While the children. In the Fear and discomFort situa-
group difference was also significant for at- tions, while the autistic children were less
tention to the experimenter's discomfort, the attentive to the adult than the other children,
major difference was between the mentally diFferences in behavior between the groups
reteirded and autistic children, x^(l) — 6.13, were less pronounced. During the fear situa-
p < .01, with the mentally retarded children tion, the autistic children were less hesitant
looking at the experimenter more than the and played with the robot more than the
autistic children. Twenty-two mentally re- mentally retarded children, but neither
tarded children, 12 normal children, and group was significantly difFerent From the
only 11 autistic children looked at the exper- normal children. The fact that the autistic
imenter. Fewer normal children looked at children were as hesitant in approaching
the experimenter than the parent; this differ- and playing with the robot as the normal
entiation was less clear for the mentally re- children raises the possibility that their be-
tarded and autistic children. havior may have been infiuenced by the
demonstrations of fear even if they did not
More normal children (25) touched their attend visually to these demonstrations.
parent than autistic children (11), x^(l) =
11.74, p < .001 or mentally retarded children The hypothesis that there would be
(17), x^(l) = 3.89, p < .05. On the other group differences in emotional reactions was
hand, it should be pointed out that not all not confirmed mostly because the test situa-
the autistic children were oblivious to their tions generally elicited neutral aFFect. For
parent's feigned discomfort: half looked at these young children, someone else's dis-
their parents and one-third touched their tress appeared to be interesting and, oc-
parents. The normal children were much casionally, disconcerting, but not strongly
more likely to touch their parent than the upsetting. Parental withdrawal during the
experimenter, x^(l) = 25.82, p < .001. Many discomFort situation may have been the most
fewer normal children touched the experi- disturbing oF these situations For the normal
menter than touched their parent, but the children, one-third oF whom showed some
children in the other two groups did not dif- negative affect.
ferentiate between tbe parent and the exper- With regard to the lack of attention of
imenter. the autistic children to adults showing dis-
There were no significant group effects tress, fear, and discomfort, many questions
in imitation, affect, or vocalization. Four au- remain to be answered. First, we do not
tistic, nine mentally retarded, and eight nor- know whether young autistic children also

Fail to look at individuals showing positive
emotions, although there is preliminary evi-
dence From both this study and previous re-
search that they are similarly inattentive.
Autistic children have been reported to
smile less Frequently in response to their
mother's smiles than normal children (Daw-
son et al., 1990). Moreover, autistic children
smiled less and turned less to their caregiv-
ers when their caregivers praised them For
successFul completion oF a puzzle than con-
trol children despite showing the same
amount oF pleasure at mastering the puzzle
beFore they were praised (Kasari, Sigman,
Baumgartner, & Stipek, in press). In Fact,
some oF the autistic children turned away or
physically withdrew when praised, behav-
iors almost never shown by the control sub-
jects. Thus, strong positive affect does not
appear to attract the attention oF young autis-
tic children any more than strong negative
affect.
The question can be asked whether au-
tistic children simply look less at all objects,
as suggested by Hermelin and O'Gonnor
(1970). The evidence does not seem to sup-
port this conclusion. In the distress situa-
tions in this study, the autistic children
looked longer at the toys than the other chil-
dren. In our previous study oF social inter-
action with an experimenter, the autistic
children looked at toys For an equivalent du-
ration oF time as the other children (Kasari
et al., 1990). While there are times when au-
tistic children appear to show less sustained
attention to objects, this is clearly not true
in all situations.
Another hypothesis is that autistic chil-
dren look less at Faces regardless oF emo-
tional expression. However, in two diFFerent
interactions with their caregivers in our pre-
vious study, autistic children looked as Fre-
quently and For equal lengths oF time at the
caregiver's Face as the other children (Sig-
man & Mundy, 1989; Sigman et al., 1986).
The mentally retarded children did show
more Face-to-Face interaction with their care-
givers than the autistic children, but the au-
tistic children did not differ From the nor-
mals. Moreover, when the parent was asked
to play a social game, the amount oF Face-to-
Face interaction increased in all three
groups, and there were no group differences.
Similarly, Dawson and her collaborators vid-
eotaped children and their mothers during a
free-play period, a more structured period,
and a Face-to-Face interaction. In all three
situations, autistic and normal children
matched on receptive language ability did
Sigman et al. 805
not differ in the Frequency or duration oF
gaze at their mother's Face (Dawson et al.,
1990). Thus, autistic children do not look
less at others' Faces in all settings, and the
differences in attention seem greatest when
emotion is involved.
Two possible explanations For the lack
oF attention to the emotions oF others can be
suggested. First, autistic children may be in-
nately less emotionally responsive to others
as originally suggested by Kanner (1943).
However, autistic children warmly share
positive affect with others in dyadic social
games (Mundy et al., 1986; Sigman et al.,
1986). Moreover, they show some level oF
attachment to ceiregivers in that they demon-
strate responses to separation and increased
proximity seeking upon reunion (Rogers,
Ozonoff, & Maslin-Gole, 1991; Shapiro,
Sherman, Galamari, & Koch, 1987; Sigman
& Mundy, 1989; Sigman & Ungerer, 1984).
Finally, they show nearly equivalent de-
grees oF emotional expressiveness in some
social interactions as mentally retarded and
normal children (Yirmiya et al., 1989). Thus,
they do not seem as emotionally detached as
originally described.
The second explanation For the inFre-
quency oF social reFerencing is that autistic
children may lack the cognitive/affective un-
derpinnings For interpreting the emotions
shown by others. This lack oF concern with
others' attention and aFFect could originate
From the same source as the deficit in theory
oF mind demonstrated in many studies oF
older autistic children (Baron-Cohen, Les-
lie, & Frith, 1985; Perner, Frith, Leslie, &
Leekman, 1989). Presumably, the normal
child uses others' Facial expressions to learn
about the social and inanimate world be-
cause the child is aware that others have in-
Formation diFFerent From their own and that
this inFormation can be accessed. IF the au-
tistic child does not understand that other
people have knowledge. Feelings, or belieFs
that can be shared, there may be little moti-
vation For checking their faces. Moreover,
the emotions of others may be so confusing
that the autistic child learns to ignore or
withdraw from emotional signals.
Because we do not understand the basis
for social referencing and joint attention in
normal development, it is diFficult to choose
between these two explanations. Social reF-
erencing may involve some capacity to con-
trast the emotional reactions oF oneselF with
those oF others. If this is so, the infant may
have some basic awareness of his or her own
806 Child Development
emotional responses and some recognition
oF the tie between the emotional reactions
and expressions oF others. In 1967, Stechler
and Garpenter proposed that inFants develop
sensory-aFFective intelligence, which uses
internal representations that are mediated
not by sensorimotor Feedback but rather by
aFFective experience. The evidence that
even young inFants use the prosodic con-
trasts presented in "motherese" to gain ac-
cess to the Feelings and intentions of the
caregiver supports this suggestion (Femald,
in press).
The final issue concerns the possible
consequences of limited attention to the af-
fect of others. A great deal of early learning
about the self and others in inFancy must de-
pend on observations oFthe aFFect and atten-
tion oF others in a variety oF situations
(Mundy etal., in press; Sigman, 1989). Autis-
tic individuals are severely handicapped in
social interactions at all ages. Not all of'these
limitations may be attributable to precursors
in inFancy. However, the Failure to attend to
the aFFect and attention oF others must limit
the development oF autistic children in
many ways and must contribute to their so-
cial deficiencies. A general question that
needs to be addressed is whether variations
in attention to others' aFFect among normal
inFants has consequences For normal social
development.
References
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis-
orders (DSM III-R). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychiatric Association.
Baren-Cohen, S. (1989). Perceptual role-taking
and protodeclarative pointing in autism. Brit-
ish Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7,
113-127.
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985).
Does the autistic child have a "theory of
mind"? Cognition, 21, 37-46.
Braverman, M., Fein, D., Lucci, D., & Water-
house, L. (1989). Affect comprehension in
children with pervasive developmental disor-
ders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 19, 301-316.
Bruner, J., & Sherwood, V. (1983). Thought, lan-
guage, and interaction in infancy. In J. D.
Call, E. Calenson, & R. L. Tyson (Eds.), Fron-
tiers of infant psychiatry (pp. 38-52). New
York: Basic.
Campos, J. J., & Stenberg, C. R. (1981). Percep-
tion, appraisal, and emotion: The onset of so-
cial referencing. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sher-
rod (Eds.), Infant social cognition (pp.
273-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Camras, L. A., & Sachs, V. B. (1991). Social refer-
encing and caretaker expressive behavior in a
day care setting. Infant Behavior and Devel-
opment, 14, 27-36.
Dawson, G., Hill, D., Spencer, A., Calpert, L., &
Watson, L. (1990). Affective exchanges be-
tween young autistic children and their moth-
ers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
18, 335-345.
Feinman, S. (1982). Social referencing in infancy.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 445-470.
Fernald, A. (in press). Meaningful melodies in
mothers' speech to infants. In H. Papousek,
U. Jurgens, & M. Papousek (Eds.), Origins
and development of nonverbal vocal commu-
nication: Evolutionary, comparative, and
methodological aspects. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Gunnar, M. R., & Stone, C. (1984). The effects of
positive maternal affect on infant responses to
pleasant, ambiguous, and fear-provoking toys.
Child Development, 55, 1231-1236.
Hermelin, B., & O'Connor, N. (1970). Psychologi-
cal experiments with autistic children. New
York: Pergamon.
Hobson, R. P. (1986). The autistic child's appraisal
of expressions of emotion. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 321-342.
Hornik, R., & Gnnnar, M. R. (1988). A descriptive
analysis of infant social referencing. Child
Development, 59, 626-634.
Hornik, R., Risenhoover, N., & Gunnar, M. (1987).
Effects of maternal positive, neutral, and neg-
ative affective communications on infant re-
sponses to new toys. Child Development, 58,
937-944.
Izard, G. E. (1979). The maximally discrim,inative
facial m-ovement coding system (MAX). New-
ark: University of Delaware.
Jones, S. S., Gollins, K., & Hong, H. W. (1991). An
audience effect on smile production in 10-
month-old infants. Psychological Science, 2,
45-49.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of af-
fective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217-250.
Kasari, C , Sigman, M., Baumgartner, P., & Stipek,
D. J. (in press). Pride and mastery in children
with autism./o«rnaZ of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry.
Kasari, C , Sigman, M., Mundy, P., & Yirmiya, N.
(1990). Affective sharing in the context ofjoint
attention interactions of normal, autistic, and
mentally retarded children. Autism and De-
velopmental Disorders, 20, 87-100.
Klinnert, M. D. (1984). The regulation of infant
behavior by maternal facial expression. In-
fant Behavior and Development, 7, 447-465.
 Sigman et al. 807
Klinnert, M. D., Gampos, J. J., Sorce, J. F., Emde, havior in young children with autism or other
R.N., & Svedja, M. (1983). Emotions as behav- psychiatric disorders. Joumal of the Ameri-
ior regulators: Soeial referencing in infancy. can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-
In R. Plutchnik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), The chiatry, 30, 483-488.
emotions (Vol. 2, pp. 57-86). New York: Aca- Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R.
demic Press. (1986). The childhood autism rating scale.
Klinnert, M. D., Emde, R. N., Butterfield, P., & New York: Irvington.
Campos, J. J. (1986). Social referencing: The Shapiro, T., Sherman, M., Galamari, G., & Koch,
infant's use of emotional signals from a D. (1987). Attachment in autism and other de-
friendly adult with mother present. Develop- velopmental disorders. Journal of the Am,eri-
mental Psychology, 22, 427-432. can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-
Krug, D. A., Arick, J. R., & Almond, P. J. (1978). chiatry, 26, 485-590.
Autism Screening Instrument for Educa- Sigman, M. (1989). The application of develop-
tional Planning. Portland, OR: ASIEP Educa- mental knowledge to a clinical problem: The
tional Co. study of childhood autism. In D. Gicchetti
Loveland, K. A., & Landry, S. H. (1986). Joint at- (Ed.), The emergence of a discipline: Roches-
tention and language in autism and develop- ter symposium on developmental psychopa-
mental language delay./ournaZ ofAutism and thology (Vol. 1, pp. 165-189). Hillsdale, NJ:
Developmental Disorders, 16, 335-349. Erlbaum.
MacDonald, H., Rutter, M., Howlin, P., Rios, P., Sigman, M., Mundy, P., Sherman, T., & Ungerer,
Le Conteur, A., Evered, C , & Folstein, S. J. A. (1986). Social interactions of autistic,
(1989). Recognition and expression of emo- mentally retarded and normal children with
tional cues by autistic and normal adults. their caregivers. Journa/ of Child Psychology
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Psychiatry, 27, 647-656.
30, 865-877. Sigman, M., & Ungerer, J. A. (1984). Attachment
Mundy, P., Kasari, G., & Sigman, M. (in press). behaviors in autistic children./ournai of Au-
Nonverbal communication, affective sharing tism and Developm,ental Disorders, 14,
and intersubjectivity. Infant Behavior and 231-244.
Development. Snow, M. E., Hertzig, M. E., & Shapiro, T. (1987).
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., Ungerer, J. A., & Sher- Expression of emotion in young autistic chil-
man, T. (1986). Defining the social deficits in dren. Journal of the American Academy of
autism: The contribution of non-verbal com- Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26,
munication measures. Journal of Child Psy- 836-838.
chology and Psychiatry, 27, 657-669. Stechler, G., & Garpenter, G. (1967). A viewpoint
Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B., & Rogers, S. (1989). on early affective development. In J. Hell-
Are there emotion perception deficits in your muth (Ed.), The exceptional infant (Vol. 1, pp.
autistic children? Journal of Child Psychol- 163-189). Seattle: Special Ghild Publica-
ogy and Psychiatry, 51, 343-361. tions.
Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B., & Rogers, S. (in Walden, T. A., & Ogan, T. A. (1988). The develop-
press). Executive function deficits in high- ment of social referencing. Child Develop-
functioning autistic children: Relationship to ment, 59, 1230-1240.
theory of mind. Journal of Child Psychology Yirmiya, N., Kasari, G., Sigman, M., & Mundy, P.
and Psychiatry. (1989). Facial expressions of affect in autistic,
Perner, J., Frith, U., Leslie, A. M., & Leekman, mentally retarded and normal children. Jour-
S. R. (1989). Exploration of the autistic nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30,
child's theory of mind: Knowledge, belief 725-735.
and communication. Child Development, 60, Yirmiya, N., Sigman, M., Kasari, G., & Mundy, P.
689-700. (in press). Empathy and cognition in high-
Prior, M., Dahlstrom, B., & Squires, T. (1990). Au- functioning children with autism. Child De-
tistic children's knowledge of thinking and velopment.
feeling states in other people. Journal of Zahn-Waxler, G., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, origins of empathic concern. Motivation and
587-601. Emotion, 14, 107-130.
Rheingold, H. R., Hay, D. F., & West, M. T. Zahn-Waxler, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, G.,
(1976). Sharing in the second year of life. & Ghapman, M. (in press). Development
Child Development, 47, 1148-1158. of concern for others. Developmental
Rogers, S. J., Ozonoff, S., & Maslin-Gole, G. Psychology.
(1991). A comparative study of attachment be-