Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith (1985)
Does the autistic child have a theory of mind?
Background
The term autism was originally
introduced by the psychiatrist
Kanner to describe a syndrome (a
collection of symptoms) he observed in some of his child patients.
Autistic children typically have
difficulties in social interaction and in language and non-verbal
communication, and have a restricted range of activities and
interests. Symptoms in all these areas appear before 36 months of age.
Some autistic children have additional
cognitive difficulties and many are intellectually impaired.
Some autistic children have exceptional
gifts, termed islets of ability, in one particular area, such as
music or art.
In most cases autism is a life-long
condition, although the patterns of difficulties may change or
become less severe as children grow up.
There have been many explanations for
the origins of autism and attempts have been made to identify a core
deficit which can account for the symptoms of autism.
According to Simon Baron-Cohen the core
deficit of autism is the autistic person’s inability to employ a
theory of mind.
It is argued that a child develops a
theory of mind between 4 and 6 years of age.
Although some evidence has demonstrated that children as
young as two have a theory of mind.
Having a theory of mind is the ability to understand that
other people have independent minds of their own.
Developing a theory of mind allows the
child to begin to understand other people, and to predict what other
people are likely to do and believe.
It is the ability to think about other peoples, or one's own
thoughts.
Baron-Cohen argues that autistic people
do not seem to develop a theory of mind.
Aim
The aim
of Baron-Cohen's experiment was to demonstrate that the central
deficit underlying autism is the autistic child's inability to
employ a theory of mind.
Method/Procedure
Three groups of children were used a
participants.:
20 autistic children with a mean
chronological age (CA) of 11;11 (11 years, 11 months) and a mean
verbal mental age (vMA) of 5;5;
14
Down's syndrome children with a mean
CA of 10;11 and a mean vMA 2;11;
27 'normal' children with a CA of 4;5
(who were assumed to have vMA's equivalent to their CA).
It is very important to note that the
mean mental ages of the autistic children (5;5) were higher than the
mean mental ages of the Down’s syndrome children (2:11) and
‘normal children’ (4;5).
This experiment is an example of a
quasi-experiment (also called a natural experiment) because the
three experimental conditions were characterised by the three groups
of children who participated. The
independent variable is therefore the type of children used and the
dependent variable was whether the child was successful on the
Sally-Anne test.
The 61 children were tested one at a
time.
The children were seated behind a desk
opposite the experimenter.
On the desk were two dolls, Sally and
Anne. Sally had a
basket in front of her, and Anne had a box.
The dolls were introduced to the
children (e.g. ‘this is Sally’)
After introducing the dolls, the
child's ability to name them was tested (the 'Naming Question').
Sally then takes a marble and hides it
in her basket. She then
leaves the room and 'goes for a walk'.
Whilst she is away, and therefore unknown to her, Anne takes
the marble out of Sally's basket and puts it in her own box.
Sally returns and the child is asked the key question 'Where
will Sally look for her marble?'
(the 'Belief Question').
The correct response is to point to or name Sally's basket;
that is, to indicate that the child knows that Sally believes the
marble to be somewhere where it is not.
The incorrect response is to point to Anne's box.
Two control questions are also asked:
'Where is the marble really?' ('Reality Question'), and
'Where was the marble in the beginning?' ('Memory Question').
Every child was tested twice. During the second time a new location (the experimenters
pocket) for the marble was introduced:
For the children to succeed in this task they have to attribute a belief to Sally. That is, the children have to be able to appreciate that Sally has beliefs about the world which can differ from their own beliefs, and which happen in this case not to be true.
Results/Findings
The percentage of correct responses to
each of the four 'Sally-Anne' questions is shown in the table below.
|
Autistic children |
Down's syndrome children |
'Normal' children |
Naming question |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Reality question |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Memory question |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Belief question |
20 |
86 |
85 |
The 'naming', 'reality', and 'memory'
questions were answered correctly by all the children.
However, whereas at least 85% of the
'normal' and Down's syndrome children gave the correct response to
the belief question, only 20 % (4 from 20) of the autistic children
were able to do so.
The 16 autistic children who gave the
wrong response on both trials pointed to where the marble really was
rather than to where Sally must believe it to be.
Explanation
The findings support Baron-Cohen's
argument that autistic children have under-developed 'theories of
mind'. According to Baron-Cohen, most of the autistic children
were unable to appreciate that another person has their own beliefs
which may not match up with how things really are. The results lend
support to the notion that autistic children may have
under-developed 'theories of mind'.
Evaluation of Procedure
A major strength of the experimental
method used by Baron-Cohen was the precise control of variables. For example, by ensuring that the autistic children were
the most intelligent of the three groups he was able to control for
levels of intelligence. He
therefore ensured that it was not lower levels of intelligence which
caused the autistic children to get the belief question incorrect
but rather it was something to do with being autistic.
A major weakness
of this method is its lack of
ecological
validity. For
example, it could be argued that autistic children do not attribute
beliefs to dolls because they have a more developed theory of mind
than the experimenter who seems to think that a lump of plastic can
think in the same way as a person?
The obvious way to improve the experiment would be to use
real people instead of dolls as was done by
Leslie and Frith (1988).
When this change was made similar results were gained.
Evaluation of Explanation
Baron-Cohen proposed that the core
problem in autism is the inability to think about other peoples, or
one's own thoughts.
It is thought that some type of
physical damage to the brain causes autism.
This assumes that the development of a theory of mind is a
maturational process and therefore an innate capability.
Baron-Cohen's theory is particularly
useful because it seems to provide plausible explanations for many
of the symptoms displayed by autistic children.
For example a major difficulty for autistic people is
language and non-verbal communication.
If a child lacks the ability to understand another person's
thoughts, difficulties in using language for conversation are to be
expected.
Autistic children also often have a
lack of pretend play. Baron-Cohen argues that this can be explained
as an inability to reflect on one's own (rather than another
person's) thoughts. Imagine a child playing at 'mothers and babies' with her
doll. To take the role
of mother and treat her doll as the baby, the child must be able to
hold simultaneously in her mind two conflicting sets of beliefs.
She knows that in reality she is a little girl, and her doll
is a toy. At the same
time she must 'think' the opposite - that she is a mother and her
doll is a baby. So she
must 'think about her thoughts'.
However there are problems with
Baron-Cohen's theory. Autistic
children have difficulty reflecting on their own thoughts which
would seem likely to affect complex skills like solving mathematical
problems. But some autistic children appear to excel at mathematics.
Overall it would seem that
Baron-Cohen's theory does go some way in explaining the many
difficulties faced by autistic children but that more work still
needs to be done.
Reference
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A.M., & Frith, U. (1985) Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’? Cognition, 21, 37-46
GROSS, R. (1999) Key Studies in Psychology, 3rd Edition. London: Hodder and Stoughton
BANYARD, P. AND GRAYSON, A. (2000) Introducing Psychological Research; Seventy Studies that Shape Psychology, 2nd Edition. London: Macmillan
More Stuff
More pages.- Cognitive Psychology
- Developmental Psychology
- Individual Differences
- Physiological Psychology
- Social Psychology
And A Bit More Stuff
Some more pages.
- About (just stuff about this site)
- Core Studies 2 (a quick link to stuff about this paper)
- Exam Questions (past exam questions of course)
- Shop (you know you want to buy something)
- Links (nearly as fab as books)
- Further reading (books are fab)
- PsychBlog (great blog dedicated to OCR psychology)
- A Level Psychology (that stuff you do in the 2nd year)
- LearnByIt (where you can buy stuff that I have written)
- Learn Psychology (great site for any students of psychology)
- ClickPsych.com (you can submit a psychology site here)
Autism is characterised by a triad of impairments. (i) difficulties with social interaction, (ii)
difficulties with verbal and non-verbal communication (iii) a lack of
imaginative play. Autistic children also often display a
restricted range of activities and interests and obsessive tendencies.
Diagram of the Sally Anne test.
And a cute cartoon of Sally and Anne.