Measuring Individual Differences in Cognitive, Affective, and Spontaneous Theory of Mind Among School-Aged Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
The present study examined individual differences in theory of mind (ToM) among a group of 60 children (7–11 years-old) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and average intelligence. Using open-ended and structured tasks to measure affective ToM, cognitive ToM, and spontaneous social attribution, we explored the nature of ToM and assessed whether ToM predicts the phenotypic heterogeneity in ASD through structural equation modeling. Affective ToM uniquely predicted social symptom severity, whereas no ToM types predicted parent reported social functioning. Our findings suggest that differentiating among theoretical components is crucial for future ToM research in ASD, and ToM challenges related to reasoning about others’ emotions may be particularly useful in distinguishing children with worse social symptoms of ASD.
KeywordsTheory of mind Affective functioning Social cognition Autism spectrum disorder Symptom severity
Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K99/R00HD071966. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to thank Dr. Ami Klin for helping us learn the SAT coding scheme, Dr. Kate White for her comments and advice on previous drafts of the manuscript, the staff and students who assisted with collecting and scoring these measures, and to particularly thank the children and families who participated in this study. This work represents the honors thesis of the first author, which was conducted at Bates College and supported by the Bates Student Research Fund, Summer Research Fellowship, and Hoffman Research Support Grant. Preliminary results were first presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research in San Francisco, CA in May 2017.
MA contributed to the design of the study, contributed to the analyses and interpretation of results, participated in the acquisition and coding of the data, helped to develop the SAT coding manual, and drafted the manuscript; GS conducted the analyses and contributed to interpretation of results; SK and MW participated in the acquisition and coding of the data; RG participated in the design and coordination of the study and acquisition of the data; DC and RB helped to develop the SAT coding manual and provided consultation to clarify coding issues; SF conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, contributed to data acquisition and analysis, helped to develop the SAT coding manual, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read, reviewed, and approved the final manuscript.
This study was funded by K99/R00HD071966, Bates Student Research Fund, Bates Summer Research Fellowship, and Bates Hoffman Research Support Grant.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from parents of all individual participants included in the study and all children provided their assent.
- American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
- Baribeau, D. A., Doyle-Thomas, K. A. R., Dupuis, A., Iaboni, A., Crosbie, J., McGinn, H., et al. (2015). Examining and comparing social perception abilities across childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(6), 479–486.Google Scholar
- Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (2000). Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bentler, P. M. (2007). Covariance structure models for maximal reliability of unit-weighted composites. In S. Lee (Ed.), Handbook of computing and statistics with applications: Handbook of latent variable and related models (Vol. 1). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259.Google Scholar
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
- Joreskog, K. (1973). A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
- Klin, A., Jones, W., Schultz, R., & Volkmar, F. (2003). The enactive mind, or from actions to cognition: Lessons from autism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358(1430), 345–360.Google Scholar
- Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. C., Risi, S., Gotham, K., & Bishop, S. (2012). Autism diagnostic observation schedule-2nd edition. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
- MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.Google Scholar
- Muris, P., Steerneman, P., Meesters, C., Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., van den Hogen, T., et al. (1999). The TOM test: A new instrument for assessing theory of mind in normal children and children with pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29(1), 67–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
- Perner, J., Leekam, S. R., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 125–137.Google Scholar
- Perner, J., & Wimmer, H. (1985). “John thinks that Mary thinks that… attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39(3), 437–471.Google Scholar
- Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.Google Scholar
- Rutter, M., Le Couteur, A., & Lord, C. (2003). Autism diagnostic interview-revised. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
- Saxe, R. (2009). How we read each other’s minds. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.
- Shimoni, H. N., Weizman, A., Yoran, R. H., & Raviv, A. (2012). Theory of mind, severity of autistic symptoms and parental correlates in children and adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Psychiatry Research, 197(1), 85–89.Google Scholar
- Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scales: Second edition (Vineland II), survey interview form/caregiver rating form. Livonia: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
- Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society in Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
- Tager-Flusberg, H. (2007). Evaluating the theory-of-mind hypothesis of autism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 311–315.Google Scholar
- Trevisan, D. A., & Birmingham, E. (2016). Are emotion recognition abilities related to everyday social functioning in ASD? A meta-analysis. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 32, 24–42.Google Scholar
- Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence-2nd edition. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar