1. Explanations of Autism Individual Differences

2. Cognitive Explanations Individual Differences

3. Cognitive Explanations There are three main cognitive explanations for autism: -  Lack of theory of mind.  Central coherence deficit.  Failure of executive functioning.

4. Lack of Theory of Mind Individual Differences

5. Lack of Theory of Mind A lack of an ability to understand another person’s point of view or intention. An apparent failure to understand that other people (or themselves) have a mental state (Frith, 1989). Frith suggested that autistics lack the ability to ‘mentalise’ or mind-read, to guess what people around them are thinking = mind-blindness. Baron-Cohen et al. (1993) proposed theory of mind.

6. Theory of Mind Theory of mind hypothesis accounted for the highly selective nature of problems of autistic children (severe difficulty with tasks requiring understanding of another person’s mind but largely unaffected to perform many cognitive tasks) (Baron-Cohen at al., 1993). Leslie (1987) extended the theory proposing an innate theory of mind mechanism (ToMM). Biological damage either pre or at birth to ToMM may lead to cognitive impairments seen in autistic children.

7. Theory of Mind Three key studies to support the theory: -  The Sally-Anne Experiment (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985).  The ‘Smartie tube’ Test (Perner et al., 1989).  Comic-strip Stories (Baron-Cohen et al., 1986). (you need to learn of each these studies in detail)

8. The Sally-Anne Experiment Baron-Cohen et al. (1985) One of the most well known studies in autism. Requires child to understand what another person has been thinking in order to answer a question correctly.

9. Task 1 – The Sally-Anne Experiment Copy the Sally-Anne experiment onto your handout under the headings aim,method, results and conclusion…

10. Sally-Anne Expt – Aim/Method 1 Aim Set out to demonstrate differences between children with autism, down-syndrome and ‘ordinary’ children. Method Sample involved 20 autistic children aged 6-16 with a mean verbal age of 5.5 years; 14 Down syndrome children same age but mean verbal age of 3. 27 ‘Ordinary’ children same age with mean verbal age of 4.5 years.

11. Sally-Anne Expt – Method 2 Children watched 2 puppet dolls, Sally and Anne. As the scenario developed Sally left her marble in a basket and went out. While Sally was out, Anne moved Sally’s marble from the basket to a box. Children were the questioned about where Sally would look for her marble when she returned. The correct answer, ‘Sally will look in the basket’, requires understanding of what Sally knows and what she does not know.

12. Sally-Anne Expt – Method 3 3 control questions were also asked: -  Naming (asking which doll is which);  Reality (‘Where is the marble really?);  Memory (‘Where was the marble in the beginning?’).

13. Sally-Anne Expt – Results No failures by any group in control questions. Group Number of Correct Answers (%) Autistic Children20 Down Syndrome Children86 ‘Ordinary’ Children85

14. Sally-Anne Expt – Conclusion Children with autism were much less able to put themselves in Sally’s place and understand the way she represented the situation in her mind. Supports the view that children with autism do not have a theory of mind.

15. Sally-Anne Expt – Evaluation Lacks ecological validity – used dolls and the autistic children may not have seen them as representing real people. However, later studies have found that autistic children behave the same in real life settings. The cognitive demands of the task may have confused the autistic children (i.e. Maybe they did not want to attribute a false belief to another person?). However, the ‘Smartie Tube’ test suggests this is not the case.

16. The ‘Smartie Tube’ Test Perner et al. (1989) Attempts to deal with the criticism of ‘Sally Anne’ that it was the type of task that led to incorrect answers rather than a lack of theory of mind.

17. ‘Smartie Tube’ Test – Aim/Method Aim To test whether autistic children can understand things from another’s point of view. Method Showed autistic child a ‘Smartie Tube’ (which would normally contain ‘Smarties’). Opened the tube and tipped out the contents. A pencil fell out (not expected) and child was disappointed. A new child (‘Tom’) enters the room and the autistic child is asked: ‘What does Tom think is in the tube?’

18. ‘Smartie Tube’ Test – Results Autistic children gave correct answer (smarties) only 20% of time (c.f. 3 year old ‘normal’ child tend to give incorrect answer (pencil) and 4 year old ‘normal’ child tend to give correct answer). During interview, autistic children did remember making the mistake themselves at the start but despite this they could still not give a correct answer when asked what the new child was thinking.

19. ‘Smartie Tube’ Test – Conclusion Children with autism cannot guess what other’s are thinking, even when they have experienced it themselves. Supports the theory of mind hypothesis.

20. ‘Smartie Tube’ Test – Evaluation Children may have had difficulty with wording of question. Lewis and Osbourne (1990) found that if they asked children what their friend would think was in the box before the lid was opened that autistic children as young as three could succeed on the task.

21. ‘Comic Strip Stories’ Baron-Cohen et al. (1986) Children were presented with stories in a set of picture cards which needed to be put in order.

22. Task 2 – ‘Comic Strip Stories’ Copy the ‘Comic Strip Stories’ experiment onto your handout under the headings aim, method, results and conclusion…

23. ‘Comic Strip Stories’ – Aim/Method 1 Aim To test children’s understanding of sequences of events (same Ppts as in Sally-Anne expt). Method Children has to arrange sequences of comic- strip pictures in the right order. They then had to explain what was happening in the story.

24. ‘Comic Strip Stories’ – Method 2 Three types of story: -  Mechanical – images depicted a series of physical events.  Behavioural – pictures show a series of actions.  Mentalistic (belief) – pictures could only be put into order if the child understood the thoughts of the characters in the story.

25. ‘Comic Strip Stories’ – Results Autistic children performed significantly worse than the normal or down syndrome children on the mentalistic stories, although they performed better than both these groups on the mechanical story. For the behavioural story, the autistic children performed about the same as normal children and better than the down syndrome children. The autistic children’s explanation of events in the stories lacked reference to the thoughts of the story characters.

26. ‘Comic Strip Stories’ – Conclusion Children with autism are unable to mentalise (lacking the ability to put themselves in the place of others). Supports theory of mind. Their competent performance on the first two types of stories suggest they have no problem with logical thinking in general, but with only one type of thinking. Frith (2003) suggests that ‘children with autism are better ‘physicists’, equally able ‘behaviourists’, but poor ‘psychologists’.

27. Lacks ecological validity – used pictures and the autistic children may not have seen them as representing real people. However, other studies (Smartie Tube) have found that autistic children behave the same in real life settings. ‘Comic Strip Stories’ – Evaluation

28. Task 3 – Evaluation Copy the following evaluative statements in a table of strengths and weaknesses…

29. ‘Theory of Mind’ – Evaluation Many supporting studies (e.g. Sally-Anne etc). Incomplete as it fails to explain exceptional abilities often seen in autistic people. Some autistic children succeed in theory of mind tasks (i.e. can ‘read minds’) and this lack of universality weakens the explanation. Helpful explanation as it allows us to make allowances for people who cannot read minds. Cause and Effect (is a lack of theory of mind the cause of autism or a symptom?).

30. Task 4 – Answer the following PPQ... Kate is a 5 year old autistic child at school with her friend the same age. Kate is shown a sponge in the shape of a duck and asked ‘What do you think this is?’ She answers, ‘A duck.’ The sponge is placed in water and Kate is shown that it really is a sponge. She is then asked, ‘What will your friend think this is?’ How is Kate likely to answer this question? Explain the theory of autism that this type of study is used to support. (6 marks)

31. Task 5 – Homework! Answer the following PPQ... ‘Discuss one cognitive explanation of autism. Refer to empirical evidence in your answer’. (10 marks)