EYES TEST (BARON COHEN)

AIM

to test whether a group of adults with Asperger Syndrome (AS) or High-functioning Autism (HFA) would
be impaired on the revised version of the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ task.

Background

-Individuals with autism share Sample

difficulties in social functioning, Method
15 males formally diagnosed with either AS
communication and coping with or HFA
change, often alongside unusually - Lab experiment volunteers through UK national autistic society
narrow interests. - Quasi experiment magazines or support groups.
- suggested that people with - IV : type of the participant 122 normal adults recruited from adult
community and
autism lack or have an in each condition education classes in Exeter or public library in
underdeveloped TOM (a cognitive DV : the scores on the AQ Cambridge.
and the eyes task 103 normal adults (53 males, 50
ability enabling us to realise that females), undergraduates at Cambridge
others have different feelings, - Independant measures university (71
beliefs, knowledge and desires design in sciences, 32 in others) – high IQ.
4 random adults – matched IQ with 1st
from our own) group

Conclusion
- People with AS/HFA lack a
cognitive process which
allows them to properly
identify emotions : lack of
TOM
- There were some evidences
of sex difference affecting
AQ (with males showing more
autistic traits than female)
Results
Participants with AS/HFA (group 1)
identified fewer target words that the
other 3 groups
None of the participants checked the
glossary more than 2 times.
There was a negative correlation
between the scores of the AQ test and
the eyes test (-0.53), but no
correlation between the IQ and
revised eyes test scores (Higher AQ =
fewer target words correctly
identified)
Procedure
- Pilot study is conducted
Each participant completed the
eye test – individually in
a quiet room. (36 sets of eyes which
is balanced with the gender of 18
males and 18 females .There were 4
choices of emotions for every
photograph.)
Group 1 – judge the gender of
each image.
Group 1,3,4 – questionnaire to
measure their AQ.
All to read through glossary and
ask if they were unsure
– could revisit it at any time.

Evaluation
G - not representative as the sample is small - people with AS/HFA
R - high internal reliability, less confounding variables due to
controlled environment and standardised procedure
A - could help teachers to better understand autistic students and
tech them
V - Low ecological validity as it was conducted in a lab
E - no deception or harm was caused, but could have been stressed
over getting the answer right. More ethical than unethical

- No order effects : order of tasks were changed regularly

(happy, sad, bored, confused etc)
Collected quantitative data :
Quasi experiment : researcher did not have to put them in groups
as they would naturally fall under their respective groups
Ethnocentric : samples were all from london