I’ve recently run across two studies in which an ability to impute mental states and empathize with others was measured by having the research participants look at inanimate objects moving across a computer screen. Needless to say, I find this particular method rather questionable.
Here’s the rundown: A 2000 study by Abell, Happe, and Frith attempted to measure theory of mind by asking the participants to describe two moving triangles in computer animations. The researchers showed the animations to a group of adults, a group of eight-year-old autistic children, and a group of eight-year-old typically developing children. The animations were constructed by the authors to show random behavior, goal-directed behavior, and deceptive behavior. Most of the adults used intentional and emotional terms to describe the actions of the animations. The autistic children ascribed mental and intentional states to the triangles less often than the non-autistic children, and when they did ascribe mental states, the researchers described their answers as “inappropriate.”
A related 2006 study by Knickmeyer et al. attempted to measure whether fetal testosterone is inversely associated with empathy. To do so, the researchers analyzed the levels of fetal testosterone in the amniotic fluid of 38 typically developing children who had reached the age of four and, as in the 2000 study, showed the children cartoons with two moving triangles. The result was that more girls than boys used terms reflective of relationships, emotion, intention, and mental states to describe the triangles, and that levels of fetal testosterone were directly correlated with a lack of intentional thinking and the use of emotion-neutral propositions. The researchers reached the conclusion that the result shows a correlation between fetal testosterone and social development. Because a previous study had shown that autistic children score more poorly than typically developing children on the same task, the researchers also concluded that their findings support the extreme-male-brain theory of autism — that is, the theory that autistic people have male-gendered brains.
Before I continue, let me summarize the logic of both studies:
a) Autistic children do not impute mental states to inanimate objects as often as non-autistic children and adults,
and
b) Typically developing children who had higher levels of testosterone in their amniotic fluid do not impute mental states to inanimate objects as often as children with lower levels,
therefore,
c) Autistic people have extreme male brains.
You’ll note a few missing pieces in the logic here. This phenomenon arises from the fact that the researchers failed to pose a number of critical questions:
1) How does a failure to anthropomorphize inanimate objects indicate a problem with mentalizing, empathy, or pro-social behavior? An alternative explanation would be a bias in the autistic children toward seeing the world as it really is.
2) Given that triangles are inanimate objects and don’t have mental states, how could anyone possibly measure, scientifically or otherwise, whether the mental state one ascribes to a triangle is correct? Showing the participants a computer animation and telling they’ve gotten the answer wrong is like giving respondents a Rorschach test and telling them they’ve failed.
3) What, exactly, in a scientific paper, is the objective, quantitative definition of “inappropriate”? To my ears, the word translates as “You haven’t given the answers we had in mind when we set up the test.”
4) How exactly does a higher level of fetal testosterone make the culturally defined construct of “male” as “high systemizer/low empathizer” biologically determined in autistic brains?
Of course, the chief flaw in the study is the subjective nature of the ways in which the researchers view the cartoons. For instance, in the 2006 study, the researchers see the motions of two of the triangles as a mother coaxing her child to go outside, and they expect that their view will be shared by all of the participants. When the participants don’t see the shapes in the same way, the authors conclude that the participants are lacking in empathy and pro-social behavior. I can’t see any evidence that a failure to anthropomorphize inanimate objects indicates a problem with empathy or social relationships. An alternative explanation would be a bias toward simply calling a triangle a triangle, which is in no way opposed to empathic response.
Now, I know what you’re thinking, because the same thought occurred to me: “Autistic people tend to take things literally. Of course they just see triangles. Why does that have anything to do with empathy?” But you see, in the logic of autism research, the fact that autistic people take things literally is itself evidence of impaired empathy and theory of mind. Here’s the (very circular) logic:
a) Autistic people take things literally because they have impaired theory of mind
and
b) Autistic people don’t ascribe mental states to inanimate objects, but see them literally,
therefore
c) Autistic people have impaired theory of mind.
Sometimes, it just amazes me that scientific studies purporting to result in objective and quantitative measures are informed by so much subjective bias. But of course, given that such studies are constructed from inside the consciousness of one set of human beings in order to describe the consciousness of another set of human beings, they are, by definition, permeated by subjectivity. It’s not the subjectivity I mind; if the subjectivity of the researchers were fully factored into the research, as is the case in qualitative research, then the issues would be clear for all to see, and the questionable nature of the conclusions would be more readily apparent. It’s the pretense of objectivity that I find most objectionable, and that I consider one of the most serious issues in the research.
Sources
Abell, Frances, Frances Happe, and Uta Frith. “Do triangles play tricks? Attributions of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development.” Cognitive Development 15, no. 1 (January-March 2000): 1-16. doi: 10.1016/
Knickmeyer, Rebecca, Simon Baron-Cohen, Peter Raggatt, Kevin Taylor, and Gerald Hackett. “Fetal testosterone and empathy.” Hormones and Behavior 49, no. 3 (2006): 282-292. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.08.010.
© 2012 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg
Of course the headline would never have read “Low fetal testosterone correlated with making stuff up about others’ mental states for which there is no evidence.”
This reminds me of an activity we had to do in a 10th grade health and relationships class: two people sat facing away from each other so neither could see what the other had in front of them. One was given a drawing made up of geometric shapes, and described it to their partner, who had to try to recreate it from the spoken description. When my drawing didn’t match my partner’s, the teacher concluded, as directed in her lesson plan, that I was a poor listener. She looked taken aback, like she hadn’t even considered the possibility, when I suggested that it could just as well be the case that my partner did a poor job of describing what she saw.
It is inconceivable to the researchers that THEY did not provide sufficient information about the triangle beings to convey that they were characters with sentience or emotional experiences. Nope, we’re the defective ones for not empathizing with abstract geometrical shapes.
No, you wouldn’t get that headline in a story about autism. But you might see it in the Journal of Innate Sex Differences in Intangible Attributes.
The first thing to take into account is that anything having to do with Theory of Mind is suspect.
“The autistic children ascribed mental and intentional states to the triangles less often than the non-autistic children, and when they did ascribe mental states, the researchers described their answers as “inappropriate.””
What a load of BS. Seeing and responding to the world differently than NTs is not wrong, it’s just different. TOM is one of the most flawed theories I have ever come across.
Why would people who purport to help autistics work so hard to find their inadequacies?
Because it’s a hell of a lot easier to poke somebody in the eye than to see things from their perspective…jus’ sayin.
I remember the OT in preschool for my son who handed out 3 pages of things that were WRONG with autistic kids at the first parent meeting I attended. It took me a whole year to attend another after that bullsh*t.
LOVE second example. Nipped it in the bud, Miss Rachel.
P.S.–I never read those pages.
I can’t help but think back to high school English class and learning how Shakespeare wrote morality plays. I always saw Romeo and Juliet as being a tragedy brought on by their families’ inability to get along, and I suspect that’s the way most people would interpret it today. According to my English teacher, the intended message was that they suffered for stepping outside of their prescribed roles in life.
The thing about interpretation is that it’s subjective. Seeing something differently doesn’t make you wrong. It just makes you, well, different. (I love the comparison to the Rorschach test–which reminds me of Daria)
I kind of want to see the animations used in the testing so I can try to understand exactly how two animated triangles are supposed to represent a mother shooing her child outside to play.
Actually, if anyone can get a hold of the animations used in this “study”, that would be amazing.
Here’s the 2006 study:
http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/Knickmeyer,%20Baron-Cohen,%20et%20al%20%282006%29.%20Fetal%20testosterone%20and%20empathy.pdf
A picture of one set of triangles is on page 284.
Rachel: You should write a book about the flawed logic, poor experimental design and bias of supposedly objective scientists. It won’t be fun going through reams of studies that dehumanize austistics, but it would strike a blow for freedom from prejudice. It’s about time that NTs realize that we are just as human as they are, even if we’re wired differently. It’s appropriate that I’m reading this post on MLK Jr. weekend. I would like to say, as an Aspie, “Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty I’m free at last!”
Oh, yes, I plan to write a book that will included analyses of the methodologies. My graduate work over the next three years will form the basis for it. So stay tuned!
Here’s a video of the original stimuli developed by Heider and Simmel in 1944.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZBKer6PMtM
Not exactly the same as in these studies, but it gives you an idea.
Rachel. Have you thought about posting this on researchblogging.org ?
Wow, Jon, that video is intense. There is so much implied violence that if you’d shown it to me as a child, I’d have likely become so upset that I’d shut down. Even as an adult, I was cringing while I was watching it. I can see how a child might *not* assign intentionality to the geometric figures in this video just to protect himself or herself from the implications of anthropomorphizing them.
I will think about posting on researchblogging.org. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Since my blog isn’t just about research, though, I don’t know whether it would be appropriate. Is it possible to just link to individual posts? I have a few I’d like to put up there, including a long critique of the Empathy Quotient (EQ).
I am so late on this:
I’ve shown that video around to some friends, and had more than a few of them immediately jump to domestic violence as an explanation. One of them said she was even slightly triggered by it.
When I saw the video, all I saw were some shapes moving around. I never got a sense of intentions or social interactions, just shapes moving around and then the rectangle flew apart (I think, it’s been awhile since I watched it).
Rachel, I would love to hear more about your work on this subject. It sounds fascinating.
I think studies of animated shapes likely say a lot more about NTs than they do about autistics, and should be written up from that perspective. NT adults know the shapes don’t actually have intentions, but they can’t help seeing it that way anyway. Just like with visual illusions. Why do most people have this brain bug? How similar is this to the many other heuristics that overcome our rationality in specific situations? The intuitive answer is that even though it’s a “brain bug,” it reflects a tendency to view everything in mentalistic terms which supposedly promotes social skills. Of course, this doesn’t imply that autistic people can’t think in mentalistic terms in the appropriate situations (e.g., when dealing with other people), just that they don’t seem to have the brain bug of viewing everything automatically in those terms. Maybe we should understand how this brain bug works in NTs and what it means before we speculate on what the absence of it means for autistic people. Your thoughts?
I think it’s a great idea. And perhaps we should turn the tables a little more, and approach “normal” processes as though they are pathologies. That would illuminate just how arbitrary these distinctions are. Of course, I don’t think that “normal” processes are actually pathologies; in fact, unless we’re talking about people who bury bodies in their basements or something equally horrific, I’m not much for pathologizing human behavior. But I think that shining a different light on what we call “normal” would be an instructive exercise.
[...] Can One Assign the Wrong Intentions to Triangles? appears here by permission. [...]