Theory of Mind

 I’m going to tread lightly here because I think as a group we probably come from different perspectives/practices…

From a behavioral perspective, theory of mind is a hypothetical construct in that it is not directly observable.  For behavior analysts it would be risky to attribute behavior to internal or mentalistic processes because it implies that we cannot manipulate the environment to change and/or control behavior which is in practice, what we do. 

Take, for example, the child who pointed to the sweets when no communicative partner was present.  One might argue that he points to the sweets when no one else is looking because he does not have a developed theory of mind.  A behavior analyst would be more likely to say “it is said he does not have a developed theory of mind because he points to the sweets when no one is looking.”  This behavior is simply occurring under faulty stimulus control, the presence of the sweets is evoking the pointing response, as opposed to the presence of a communicative partner evoking the communicative/pointing response.  It is likely that at some point (or maybe several times) in the past, this behavior has been reinforced; possibly the parents entered the room while the child was pointing to the sweets and retrieved them for him.  If we were to teach him that in the presence of, and only in the presence of a communicative partner, pointing to the sweets would get him the sweets; and that when no communicative partner was present, pointing to sweets would get him no sweets, it is likely that pointing in the absence of another individual would stop.

In assessing individuals with ASD, I think it is very important to look at individual skills.  In the case of the sweets, for example, by identifying, “can the individual point to an item he or she wants?”  and, “does the individual get your attention prior to pointing to what he or she wants?” you are sure to evaluate the actual skill set of the individual and identify what skills need to be taught and/or modified. 

In  regards to social skills in general, examining joint attention, pretend play, sharing and even expressions of empathy in very small pieces (looks from an item to another person, engages in imaginary play with a peer, takes items from peers/offers items to peers, says “are you okay,” when a peer falls down) we get an objective, comprehensive evaluation.  Though it may be true that in individuals with ASD taking the perspective of another person can be a deficit, I think it is important that this (or any) prior awareness does not interfere with the assessment process itself.  If a skill is found to be deficient, it is our role to then teach and reinforce it, but, as Ute Firth stated, children with autism very often predicted Sally would look for the item in the second location, implying some children with autism already had the skill.  As assessors, we have to be careful not to assume a skill is deficient in one individual simply because it has been found to be deficient in most.  We always want to be sure to objectively assess and treat the individual, not the diagnosis.