Theory of mind

• Define Theory of Mind.

  our personal understanding of what others are thinking and feeling
• What method is used to measure theory of mind in toddlers?

  intentional reasoning
• Describe Meltzoff's study into Theory of mind.

  18 month olds watched adults place beads in a jar. In the experimental condition they struggled and dropped beads, the the control they were successful. Both groups placed beads in the jar equally well, imitating the adult's intentions. Means they have a simple theory of mind.
• What age group are false belief tasks used for?

  3-4 year olds
• Who came up with the Maxi scenario?

  Wimmer and Perner
• What colour cupboard did 3 year olds say Maxi would look in in the false belief task?

  green
• Who came up with Sally-Anne studies?

  Baron-Cohen et al
• Describe the research linking ASD and theory of mind.

  got 20 ASD children and a control of 14 Downs and 27 with no diagnosis. Assessed using Sally-Anne. 85% controls got it right compared to only 20% of the ASD group.
• Which group of people easily succeeded at false belief tasks?

  older children with Aspergers
• What did the eyes task entail?

  had to read complex emotions by looking at pictures of eyes
• Describe the 2 ways in which Bloom and German said false belief tasks have low validity.

  . require other cognitive abilities like memory. When visual aids provided ASD success rates increase suggesting it is not the task but memory causing the incorrect answers.

  . children who can't do false belief tasks can still pretend play which requires a theory of mind. Therefore false belief tasks may not be sensitive enough to measure theory of mind.
• Who said both perspective taking and theory of mind show differences between neurotypical and those with ASD?

  Renfeldt et al
• What did Tager-Flusberg say about theory of mind?

  not all people with ToM problems have ASD and vice versa so not as closely linked as Baron-Cohen said
• Give 1 characteristic of ASD that ToM cannot explain.

  superior visual attention/highly systematic reasoning
• Who took at Piagetian view of how ToM develops?

  Perner et al
• Who took a Vygotskian view of how ToM develops?

  Wilde Astington
• What does the eyes task lack?

  ecological validity/mundane realism
• What are the 2 instances in which mirror neurons fire?

  in response to personal action and the actions of others
• Theory of mind (ToM) – our personal understanding (‘a theory’) of what other people are thinking and feeling. It is sometimes called ‘mind reading’
• Autism – this is a broad term for a wide range of features. Autistic people face challenges with social interaction/communication and repetitive/restrictive behaviours. As a spectrum condition, autism affects people in different ways and co-occurs with learning disability in some way.
• Sally-Anne study – uses the Sally-Anne task to assess theory of mind. To understand the story participants have to identify that Sally will look for a marble in the wrong place because she does not know that Anne has moved it. Autistic children and very young non-autistic children find this challenging.
• ToM is the ability to mind read.

  ToM is a personal theory/ belief about what other people know, are feeling or thinking.

  It is tested via different methods depending on age/different points of development.

  •The emergence of simple ToM can be seen in toddlers by means of intentional reasoning research.•A more sophisticated level of ToM can be assessed in 3-4 year olds using false belief tasks.•In older children and adults, advanced ToM has been tested with the Eyes task, in which participants judge complex emotion with minimal information about facial expression.
• Intentional reasoning in toddlers

  Testing ToM in toddlers – beads in a jar.

  Meltzoff 1988 provided convincing evidence to show that toddlers (aged about 18 months) have an understanding of adult intentions when carrying out simple actions.

  They observed adults place beads into a jar.

  •Experimental condition – adults appeared to struggle with this and dropped the beads outside of the jar•Control condition – adults successfully placed the beads in the jar
• In both conditions toddlers successfully placed the beads in the jar, suggesting that they were imitating what the adult intended to do rather than what they actually did à demonstrating ToM in very young children.
• False belief tasks

  False belief tasks were developed in order to test whether children can understand that people can believe something that is not true.  
• Wimmer + Perner 1983, told 3-4 year olds a story in which:

  •Maxi left his chocolate in a blue cupboard in the kitchen• After Maxi’s mother had used some of the chocolate in her cooking she placed the remainder in a green cupboard

  The children had to say where Maxi would look for his chocolate – most 3 year olds said that Maxi would look in the green cupboard as they assumed Maxi knows what they know (i.e. Maxi’s mother moved the chocolte) whilst most 4 year olds correctly identified the blue cupboard à demonstrating ToM – it undergoes a shift and becomes more advanced around 4 years of age.
• Simon Baren-Cohen et al 1985 used a similar false belief task called the Sally-Anne task.

  Children were told a story involving two dolls, Sally and Anne.

  •Sally places a marble in her basket.•Sally leaves the room•Anne moves the marble to her box•Sally returns•The task is to work out - Where does sally look for her marble?

  Understanding that Sally does not know that Anne has moved the marble requires an understanding of Sally’s false belief about where it is.

  Baren-Cohen and colleagues have explored the links between ToM deficits and autism using false belief tasks.
• Much of the research had made use the Sally-Anne task

  For example the Bara-Cohen et al 1985 study à

  Procedure = the Sall-Anne task was given to 20 autistic children, 27 non-autistic children and 14 children with down syndrome (the control groups).

  Findings = 85% of children in the control groups correctly identified where Sally would look for her marble. However, only 4 of the autistic children 20% were able to answer this. Baron-Cohen et al argued that this difference showed that autism involves a ToM deficit and this may in fact be a complete explanation for autism
• Many autistic people who do not have learning disabilities have challenges with empathy, social communication and imagination but their language development may be relatively unaffected. (some severely autistic children struggle with language).

  Studies of older autistic children and adults without a learning disability showed that this group could succeed on false belief tasks. This was a blow to the idea that autism can be explained by theory of the mind deficits.
• However, Baron-Cohen and colleagues developed a more challenging task to assess ToM in adolescents and adults.

  The eyes task involves reading complex emotions in pictures of faces just showing a small area around the eyes. Baron-Cohen et al 1997 found that many autistic adults without a learning disability struggled with the eyes task. This supports the idea that ToM deficits might be a cause of autism
• One strength is the application to understanding ASD.

  ToM research has been useful in helping us understand the differing experiences of people with ASD. Baron-Cohen even suggests that ASD is a direct result of ToM. Tager-Flusberg 2007, reports that recent research does not support the idea that ToM problems are specific to ASD and that all people with ASD have ToM deficits. This means that ASD and ToM may not be as closely linked as was once believed and ToM is only a partial explanation.
• One -ve is the low validity of false belief tasks.

  Bloom + German 2000, suggest that false belief tasks require other cognitive abilities (e.g. memory) as well as ToM. Studies that provide visual aids to help with memory of false belief stories have found that younger children may succeed. A child can have a well developed ToM and still struggle with false belief tasks. And children who cannot perform well of false belief tasks still enjoy pretend play, which requires a ToM. These two arguments suggest that false belief tasks do not measure ToM, which challenges the validity of ToM research.
• Another limitation is its difficult to distinguish ToM from perspective taking.

  It is suggested that many of the methods used to study ToM (including the Sally-Anne task) could actually be measures of perspective-taking. In addition Rehfeldt et al 2007, suggest perspective taking tasks were also able to distinguish between ASD children and others. If ToM is basically the same thing as perspective-taking then the concept lacks any usefulness.
• • ve


  There is no clear understanding how Theory of Mind (ToM) develops
• Perner 2002


  • Adopted a Piagetian approach
  • Suggested that ToM develops with other cognitive abilities (domain general)
  • Suggests ToM is based on innate ability which develops with age
• Astington 1998


  • Takes a more Vygotskian approach
  • Focusing on the social influences that affect ToM
  • Suggesting we internalise our ToM during early interactions with adults
• A lack of understanding of the origins of ToM should not stop us using the idea
• It would be preferable to understand where difficulties come from as it may inform treatments for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
• Another limitation is that the validity of the Eyes task is questioned.

  The Eyes task is criticised because looking at a static pair of eyes is different from real-life experiences of seeing a face as part of a dynamic interaction. As such, conclusions about ToM that result from the use of the task lack validity. This suggests that the Eyes task is not a valid and realistic measure of ToM and questions the conclusions about ASD.