COGNITIVE

APPROACH
Baron Cohen
BACKGROUND
 Theory of mind: The cognitive ability to
understand the needs and emotions of others
 In 1985, Baron Cohen wanted to test the theory
of mind of autistic children
 He did this through the Sally-Anne Test
 In 1997, he decided to test the theory of mind of
autistic adults
 He created a tool to measure theory of mind,
called the eyes test
 This was a test with a images of eyes, and
participants were required to judge the emotion
shown by the eyes
BACKGROUND
 Issues with the 1997 eyes test:
 Only 25 set of eyes with two options each
 The two options would often be opposites such as
sympathetic and unsympathetic
 For some, participants could simply guess the
emotion by looking at the direction in which the
eyes were gazing
 This made the test too easy which led to ceiling
effects – when everyone gets a high score because
the task is too easy
 There were more sets of female eyes than male eyes
 Some of the words in the options may not have been
understood by participants
PSYCHOLOGY BEING
INVESTIGATED
 Theory of mind is the cognitive ability to
understand the needs and emotions of others

 Autism is a disorder where the individual

lacks theory of mind and finds it difficult to
understand the needs an emotions of others

 Due to this they lack social and

communication skills
AIMS
 To test whether the revised version of the
eyes test would work on a group of autistic
adults

 To see whether normal non-autistic females

would score higher in the revised eyes test
than normal males

 To see whether there would be an inverse

correlation between the revised eyes test
and the AQ test
METHOD & DESIGN
 Experimental Method: Natural experiment as the IV was naturally
occurring. Self report through close ended questionnaires. The study
was conducted in a quiet room at Exeter and Cambridge University

 IV: The autistic condition and the control conditions (operationalized

by having one group of autistic participants, and 3 control groups
with non autistic participants)

 DV: Level of theory of mind (operationalized through the scores in

the eyes test and the AQ test)

 Experimental Design: Independent Measures Design. The participants

were not repeated in any group. Group 1 and Group 4 were a
matched pairs design as they were matched in terms of IQ scores
METHOD & DESIGN
 In 2001, Baron Cohen created a revised version
of the original 1997 eyes test and resolved the
issues of the original version

 A panel of eight judges were involved in the

development of the revised eyes test, with 5
out of the 8 having to agree on the target word
(correct option) and no more than 2 would
agree on the foils (incorrect options)
METHOD & DESIGN
 The following were the changes in the revised eyes
test:
 25 questions were increased to 40, and eventually the
final version had 36 (4 were deleted as the judges
would not agree on the target word)
 4 options rather than 2 (with one correct, and three
incorrect/foils)
 The words were no longer opposites
 Gaze direction pictures were deleted (the easy ones)
 Equal number of male and female eyes (18 each)
 A glossary was provided with the meanings of every
word option which the participants could refer to
during any moment of the test
APPARATUS
 Participants took the WAIS-R IQ test before the
procedure of the study

 The revised 2001 eyes test was used which had

36 set of eyes with 4 options (1 correct, and 3
foils)

 The Autism Quotient Test (AQ Test) – 50

statements with no right or wrong answer.
Participants had to select from a range of 4
options: Definitely Agree, Slightly Agree, Slightly
Disagree, Definitely Disagree
APPARATUS
 A high score in the eyes test indicated a high
level of theory of mind (which means the
individual would be able to understand
emotions of others)

 A high score in the AQ test indicated a low

level of theory of mind (which means the
individual would struggle to understand
emotions of others)
APPARATUS – EYES TEST
APPARATUS – AQ TEST
SAMPLE
 There were a total of four groups of
participants
 Group 1 (Autistic Group) – 15 male adults with
Asperger’s Syndrome(AS)/High-Functioning
Autism (HFA). They had a mean age of 29.
They were recruited through a UK National
Autistic Society Magazine or support group.
They had a mean IQ of 115. Volunteer Sampling
 Group 2 (Adult Control Group) – 122 normal
adults from public libraries at Cambridge and
Exeter with a mean age of 46 years.
Opportunity Sampling
SAMPLE
 Group 3 (Student Control Group) – 103 (53
males, 50 females) undergraduate students
from Cambridge. They had high intelligence.
Opportunity Sampling

 Group 4 (IQ Matched Control Group) – 14

randomly selected adults with a mean IQ of
116. Therefore their IQ level was matched to
that of Group 1. Opportunity Sampling
PROCEDURE
 All four groups took the eyes test

 Groups 1, 3, and 4 took the AQ Test (Group 2

did not take the AQ Test)

 Group 1 also took a gender test where they

had to determine the gender of the person in
each image

 Each participant took the test individually in a

quiet room at Exeter or Cambridge University
CONTROLS
 All participants took the same eyes test

 Groups 1, 3 and 4 all took the same AQ test

 IQ was tested using the same IQ Test (WAIS-R

IQ Test)

 All participants were scored on the same scale

(out of 36 for the eyes test, and out of 50 for
the AQ Test)
RESULTS
 Group 1 scored the lowest in the eyes test as
predicted with a mean score of 21/36
 Group 2 scored a mean of 26/36 in the eyes test
 Group 3 scored a mean of 28/36 in the eyes test
 Group 4 scored a mean of 30/36 in the eyes test
 Group 1 and Group 4 had the same IQ level, but
contrasting scores in the eyes test which suggests
that there is no relationship between intelligence
and ability to judge emotions
 Normal females scored higher than normal males
in the eyes test
 The mode was 24/36
RESULTS
 Group 1 scored the highest in the AQ test as
predicted with a mean of 34.4/50
 Group 2 did not take the AQ Test
 Group 3 scored a mean of 18.3/50 in the AQ Test
 Group 4 scored a mean of 18.9/50 in the AQ Test
 Normal males scored higher in the AQ Test than
normal females
 There was a negative correlation between the AQ
Test and the eyes test with a correlation
coefficient of -0.53
CONCLUSIONS
 The revised eyes test replicated the findings
of the original eyes test

 Normal females are able to judge emotions

better than normal males

 Males are more likely to develop autistic

tendencies than females

 The AQ Test and eyes test are

inversely/negatively correlated
EVALUATE THE STUDY BY BARON COHEN IN
TERMS OF 2 STRENGTHS AND 2 WEAKNESSES – 10
MARK SAMPLE ANSWER
The study by Baron Cohen aimed at testing whether the
revised version of the eyes test would work on a group of
autistic adults. One strength of the study was that it had high
levels of controls such as the same eyes test and AQ test that
was taken by the participants which made it standardized and
easy to replicate to test for reliability. Another strength is
that quantitative data was collected which allows for
comparison of results as it is accurate and objective, for
example the autistic group scored 21/36 on average in the
eyes test which was the lowest from the four groups which
suggested that autistic people have lower theory of mind.
One weakness of the study is that it cannot be generalized to
female autistic participants or even autistic children as they
were not represented in the sample. Another weakness is that
it is low in ecological validity, as in real life, people are likely
to judge emotions based on facial expressions, interactions,
and gestures of others, rather than through static images with
four options from which to pick, also making it low in
mundane realism. To conclude, the study did show that the
eyes test is an effective measure of theory of mind
 Other points that could have been considered for the evaluation:
 Strengths –
 Generalisability (large number of participants with both male and
females of various age ranges as well as different IQ levels)
 Self Report (questionnaires – close ended questionnaires were used
which allow for quantitative data to be collected and are also
standardized and easy to replicate)
 Ethics (participants were not deceived and had given consent to be
part of the study. Confidentiality was also upheld, and they knew the
purpose of the study)
 Validity (a panel of judges verified the set of eyes in the eyes test
before finalizing it. The revised version also overcame the issues of the
original test for example, a glossary was provided in case participants
did not understand a certain word option)
 Application to everyday life (the test can be used to assess or
determine at an early stage whether someone might develop autistic
tendencies and can be treated or taught to develop social and
communication skills)
 Ecological Validity (the IV of whether the participant was autistic or
not is a naturally occurring IV that cannot be manipulated and
therefore, is ecologically valid)
 Weaknesses –
 Validity (as the study lacks mundane realism, it can be argued if
the eyes test is an accurate measure of theory of mind.
Furthermore, even with the glossary, perhaps some words might
not have been understood)
 Self Report (questionnaires – participants can give socially
desirable or untruthful responses particularly in the AQ Test,
which would lower the validity of the results)
 Ethics (it can be argued that emotional harm may have been
caused as some of the autistic participants might have found the
test too difficult)
 Qualitative data (there was no qualitative data as close ended
questionnaires were used which does not allow the researcher to
understand the reasons behind the behaviours)
 Experimental Design (independent measures design – there might
be individual differences between participants other than their
IQ that could have influenced their responses in the tests which
may have lowered the validity)