What do these people have in common?  Hans Christian Anderson  Lewis Carroll  Jeffrey Dahmer  Charles Darwin  Albert Einstein  Adolf Hitler  Thomas Jefferson  James Joyce  Stanley Kubrick  Michaelangelo  Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart  Isaac Newton  George Orwell  They all showed signs of autism!

Baron-Cohen S., Wheelwright S., Hill J., Raste Y. & Plumb I. (2001) The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test Revised Version Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 42(2),

Introduction  Case Study – The Reading of the Mind in the Eyes Test (revised version)  Authors – Simon Baron – Cohen, Sally Wheelwright, Jacqueline Hill, Yogini Raste, and Ian Plumb  Baron et al.  Approach to Psychology – Cognitive Psychology  the study of mental processes including learning, memory, attention, perception, reasoning, language, conceptual development, and decision making.  Weddel’s “helpful” summary – The eyes test, paired with the AQ, are useful indicators (tools) for identifying people that have impairments related to Asperger's Syndrome (High – Functioning Autism)

What is autism (ASD)?  Autism (wide-)Spectrum Disorder  Signs/symptoms such as:  obsessions  repetitive behaviours  lack of social skills – ‘out of sync’, atypical or offensive language  difficulties with non-verbal communication  Difficulty with theory of mind (TOM) – The ability for somebody to understand what people are thinking and feeling.  No “mind reading”  Doesn’t develop normally in autistic children  Refer back to your article and background information!

Aims/Theories  To test a group of autistic adults to see if the revised version works.  To see if there is an inverse correlation between the eyes test and AQ for a sample of normal adults.  To see if females have superiority on the eyes test

5 Predictions (before we begin)  AS/HFA (group 1) will score lower on the eyes test than other groups.  AS/HFA (group 1) will score higher on the AQ test than other groups.  “Normal” females (groups 2 & 3) will score higher than males on the eyes test.  “Normal” (groups 2 & 3) males will score higher than females on the AQ.  Scores on the AQ and eyes test will be inversely correlated.

Problems with the Original Test  Two words to describe eyes sets  now four  25 eye sets  now 40 (36)  Ceiling effects (too many scores at the top end of the mark range)  more items, reduce ceiling effect  Eye sets were too easy to select emotion  fewer easy items  The original test had more female faces than male  equal numbers now  Original words were semantic opposites (serious vs. playful)  now three words that are not semantic opposites (serious, ashamed, alarmed, bewildered).  **Remember** The Eyes Test has become more complicated in order to detect autistic impairments.

Psychological Jargon  Theory of Mind (TOM)  Autism  Asperger’s Disorder  Revision  AQ – autism spectrum quotient  Natural experiment  Questionnaire  AS/HFA – Asperger syndrome/high – functioning autistic  Psychometric (tests)  Ceiling effect  Eyes Test  Foils (four words to describe eyes)  Semantic  Ecological validity  Determinism

Essential Vocabulary  Theory of Mind (TOM)  Definition: The ability for somebody to understand what people are thinking and feeling.  Application: Autistic people have difficult with TOM. In the case study, both original and revised version, TOM was tested through the ‘eyes test’. The eyes test was revised in numerous ways in the ‘revised’ case study, which we read.  Asperger’s Disorder  Definition: Autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior.; higher functioning in social situations, may be socially awkward and have an all – absorbing interest in special topics.  Application: 15 male adults the Asperger’s (AS/HFA) were recruited to take the eyes test and the AQ (autism spectrum quotient) test.  Autistic Disorder  Definition: neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non – verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior.  Application: Sample of people from group 1 had AS/HFA (15 males)

Essential Vocabulary  Ceiling Effect  Definition: The independent variable no longer has an effect on the dependent variable.  Application: In the original test, the participants scores were too high, which made results invalid. Therefore, questions were made more difficult and additional questions were added with more ‘foils’.  Semantic  Definition: the meaning of words or phrases.  Application: the semantic word in the eyes test, or the correct answer, in the original test just contained the semantic opposite, leading to ceiling effects. In the revised test, the foils were not semantic opposites, making the test more difficult and reducing ceiling effects.  Natural Experiment  Definition: A study of the effect of the independent variable, which has not been manipulated or planned by the researchers, on the dependent variable.  Application: Natural experiment because researchers are attempting to locate indicators of Autism which was passed to someone through genetics.

Essential Vocabulary  Psychometric (tests)  Definition: tests that are a measurement of the mind; assessment in the form of questionnaires and tests mainly with intelligence and personality.  Application: Psychometric tests that are used by Baron – Cohen are the eyes test and the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) test.  Determinism  Definition: All behaviors and mental acts (thoughts, judgments, and decisions) are determined by factors out of our control) [antonym, free will].  Biological determinism: our genetics or our hormones cause us to behave in certain ways  Application: This is a basic element of the nature vs. nurture debate. Baron – Cohen supports that TOM is determined by a gene, HSD17B2.  Cognitive Approach  Definition: Study of mental processes and cognitions such as memory, perception, thinking, and language.  Application: Baron – Cohen et al. are determining behaviors that are indicators for AS/HFA.

Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test  Looking at the eyes below, choose with emotion is displayed!

Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test  Looking at the eyes below, choose with emotion is displayed!

Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test  Looking at the eyes below, choose with emotion is displayed!

Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test  Looking at the eyes below, choose with emotion is displayed!

Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test  Looking at the eyes below, choose with emotion is displayed!

Methodology  Natural Experiment  Questionnaires  AQ (autism spectrum quotient) test  ‘Eyes Test’  Eyes Test:  The revised test first started with 40 sets of eyes, however 4 were taken out due to the lack of validity.  36 black and white photographs (18 males 18 female) taken from a magazine.  Same size (15 x 10 cm)  Four words to choose from that describe mental state  “Which word best describes what this person is feeling or thinking?”  Original semantic word with three foils that were not semantic opposites.  Total number is added to given an overall score after answering all 36.   AQ Test:  50 statements, choose one of four answers (definitely agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, & definitely disagree).  No difference in scoring between ‘definitely’ and ‘slightly’ answers.  Participants are forced to make a choice.  Score is added together after all 50 questions are answered.

Procedures  All four groups were given the eyes test to complete in a quiet room.  Participants in group 1, 3, and 4 were given the AQ Test.  Yup…it is actually that simple!

Participants & Data  Group 1 – 15 male AS/HFA, IQ of 115  Group 2 – 122 normal adults (control group) from Cambridge and Exeter  Group 3 – normal adult students (Cambridge undergraduates); 103 (53 male and 50 female) high IQ  Group 4 – 14 normal adults, IQ matched with group 1 (mean 116)

Ethical Guidelines  Baron – Cohen would argue that no ethical guidelines were crossed.  Yup, that simple!

Data Collection  Quantitative data was gathered  Both tests (eyes and AQ) gave numerical scores

Findings and Results  Eyes test score was lowest for AS/HFA participants (group 1), 21.9  Groups 2 – 4 had higher mean scores (26.2, 28, and 30.9)  People without autism score higher  Prediction 1 supported  AQ tests scores were higher for AS/HFA participants (group 1), 34.4  Group 3’s mean score was 18.3 and Group’s 4 mean score was  Prediction 2 supported  Females do score higher than males on the eyes test, as seen in groups 2 and 3.  Prediction 3 is supported.  Males do score higher than females on the AQ test, as seen in groups 2 and 3.  Prediction 4 is supported.  Inverse correlation between the AQ and eyes test  AQ  Eyes Test   Prediction 5 is supported.

Conclusions 1.This study replicates and affirms the original eyes test.  AS/HFA participants are significantly impaired compared to non – AS/HFA participants. 2.The modifications improved the test  “The same weaknesses were not observed.” 3.Validates that the eyes test is a useful tool for identifying impairments related to AS/HFA 4.All the initial aims were met and all the predictions were confirmed.

Methodological Issues  Low ecological validity  Static pictures (no animation), eyes are black and white  Experimental Validity  Measures an autistic trait, not a normal one  Question criteria  High control over extraneous variables  Reliability  Reliable and replicable  Pencil and paper test

Strengths and Limitations  Strengths:  Controls  Variables that were controlled intelligence, sex, and disorder.  Ensured that the differences between the groups must be related to autism.  High control over extraneous variables.  Generalization  Consideration and arguments can be made to generalize the results.  Limitations:  Low ecological validity  Eyes test pictures are in black and white  Eyes test pictures are static.  The eyes test is an advanced TOM task and the photographs are static which isn’t what it is like in a real – life situation which could have affected the results of the task.  Validity of the eyes test can be challenged because the test is much easier to understand than a real life situation.  Possibly does not test TOM.