Adult Mentalising

?
Mitchell et al (1996)
Kevin sees the juice in the jug, REbecca says there is milk in the jug, you might either believe that there is juice in the jug or milk in the jug, the majority would not believe Rebecca but would believe Kevin is right
1 of 46
What was a different group of participants told?
While Kevin was playing, Rebecca placed Milk in the jug, there was then 50/50 split on whether to believe Rebecca's milk statement
2 of 46
What does this show?
This is more leaning towards that they believe the boy would say there is milk in the jug. Infer the state of belief of the boy and unwittingly contaminating their knowledge of the true state
3 of 46
What might wonder?
If that kind of process is the same as we see in children aged 3 years and have difficulty knowing FB because they dont know existence of others minds
4 of 46
What don't they know?
Of others minds or they do but have biasness because the process of calculation they were based on their own knowledge
5 of 46
What did Apperly et al (2006) do?
Schematic event sequence for experimental video trials with belief/reality probes. Women looks in open boxes, woman laces marker to indicate location of object then leaves, the man swaps boxes then there is a probe sentence
6 of 46
What is condition 1?
Does it take longer that you are not calculating a belief automatically, belief could require more processes and so could take longer for that reason
7 of 46
What was conditions 1 results?
State of reality is quicker response than when calculating belief of someone
8 of 46
If you have not been told you will answer a question about belief, then what?
It will take longer to answer. People most of the time do not automatically go around the world, considering what is in someone elses mind, this could be biased process, default into thinking about reality
9 of 46
Baron Cohen 1997)
Giving participant eye pictures and having to tell the emotion from the images of the eyes. High functioning autistic adults are good at choosing the correct label that is underneath the photo. , if showing just eyes they are not so good.
10 of 46
Ekman faces, what was used?
Using standardised facial expression, 5 basic emotions: Happy, sad, digust, anger and suprise
11 of 46
What is the problem with Ekman faces?
Everyday situations you wont be looking at still expressions, instead everyday expressions are much quicker and harder to read
12 of 46
What would the actors be doing?
Posing an expression because they were told to pose that way not because they actually feel that way
13 of 46
If you're not particularly readable then you might what?
You might be perceived as unattractive which leads to excluding from society and more of a suicide risk
14 of 46
What is Pillaj et al (2012) method?
Perceivers task is to guess what happened. they are given 4 possibilities to pick from. These perceivers formed 2 groups (group with autism, ASD, and group without autism)
15 of 46
What does Data tell us?
Measure of accuracy in giving a correct answer, it statistically controls any biasness. Also takes into accounts False alarms
16 of 46
What happened in 4 scenarios?
They are way above 0 so they were reasonably good at infering what the target what was reacting too
17 of 46
What is found in most cases?
Neurotypical perceivers are more accurate than autistic group. so generally people are good at determining at what happened to them. But those without autism are even better and more accurate
18 of 46
Can people read the minds of those who have autism?
- People who aren’t autistic might have trouble reading the minds of autistic people, could be seen as unsociable and unattractive, more likely a risk of suicide
19 of 46
What were people with autism asked to manipulate?
the geometric figures to portray coaxing, mocking, seducing and surprising. Instead of just observing the figures moving about.
20 of 46
Edey et al (2016) method
- Can you guess what kind of psychological state they were trying to portray
21 of 46
What was found in pps without autism?
The perceivers are much more accurate when the target is a typically developing person than an autistic person.
22 of 46
When autistic people are trying to enact a psychological state, what do people find?
hard to figure it out and figure out what state they are doing. These researchers say autistic people have minds that are hard to read
23 of 46
What does this find out?
if they have readable minds, they need targets to be used to guess their inner states but how to you satisfy the truth condition.
24 of 46
What were people with autism asked to do?
manipulate the geometric figures to portray coaxing, mocking, seducing and surprising
25 of 46
Faso et al (2015)
Participants were instructed to pose facial expressions. Those with autism were just as expressive as typically developing people, though the quality and form of their expressions might be different
26 of 46
What does this mean?
- Does this effectively mean that people with autism have minds are less readable compared with typically developing people?
27 of 46
What were Ps instructed to pose?
pose a variety of facial expressions. If you instruct p’s to pose these expressions, how easy it is to guess what they had been instructed to do.
28 of 46
What is it hard to guess?
guess what the autistic targets where trying to impose. Maybe they were not expressive enough, so researchers asked judges to rate how expressive they are.
29 of 46
What was then measured?
The autistic targets were judged to be just as expressive as a typically growing person. Difficult to classify the expression as it was less interpretable, not that they were not expressive enough.
30 of 46
Asking to pose for expressions are what?
Difficult as they may find it hard to pose for expressions on demand but naturall they could do so in every day life
31 of 46
Can typical people guess what happened to those with autism from their reaction?
Story of compliment is not readable if they are autistic, typical targets are more readible than autistic targets
32 of 46
What can't be seen?
The difference by saying autistic people were less expressive. Although they were expressive the signal was difficult to interpret so their mind is not readable
33 of 46
Typical people are more expressive because?
They look bashful and embarrassed when they are given a compliment but are more expecting
34 of 46
Do perceivers infer the target's social context from their signalled mental state?
Targets looked at photos that caused them to feel a positive or negative emotion
35 of 46
What happened?
Video the facial expressions as they viewed the photos. They were videowed by a laptops webcam and looked at pictures on the laptop. Sometimes they were alone and sometimes they were observed. But always videoed
36 of 46
What were the perceivers able to do?
Discriminate whether the target is accompanied or alone with both positive and negative images. this was significant
37 of 46
How expressive were the targets?
More expressive if accompanied than alone if the image is positive
38 of 46
What happens if the images were negative?
More expressive if alone than if accompanied
39 of 46
Depending on how expressive, what happens?
The perceivers judge whether they are alone or being observed
40 of 46
What are mediterraneans better at?
Perceiving both med and british targets. British too could give accurate inferences but not as good as the med perceivers
41 of 46
Therefore what might someone say?
- One might say Mediterranean’s are more expressive and british people are more blank and less expressive. Therefore, their signal would be more understandable
42 of 46
What happens if someone is individualistic?
sees themselves as away from a group and on their own more than connected to people and in a group
43 of 46
What would Meds indicate?
stronger collectivism than compared to the English.
44 of 46
What might happen?
The degree to their collectivism explains their better report of mind reading. Better at mind reading if you are collectivist as you perceive yourself as belonging to a collective mind and not your own mind
45 of 46
What does this help?
This assists you to use your mind to model what others expressions would be. This is speculative though.
46 of 46

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What was a different group of participants told?

Back

While Kevin was playing, Rebecca placed Milk in the jug, there was then 50/50 split on whether to believe Rebecca's milk statement

Card 3

Front

What does this show?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What might wonder?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What don't they know?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Adult Mentalising resources »