Autism and Theory of Mind

This was another interesting video on the theory of mind and how it affects children with autism.  Children with autism have difficulties in cognitive, behavioral and social areas and the social areas are becoming more and more seen with children.  Social reciprocity is an important part for children to learn because it has such a big impact on peoples’ lives and understandings of the environments around them.  Uta Frith does point out that the theory of mind is not a real theory because of difficulty in investigating the concept.  There are many concepts that might be hard to teach a child with autism when relating to social communication, but the video points out that there are many concepts that have the ability to be taught to children.

It was interesting that she went over the differences by developmental milestones between children with autism and typically developing peers and how they may be different in the development of mental states and social behavior.  After watching the video, I was able to see the observable aspects of the mental states that children with autism are usually lacking and I can see measuring and observing it as a behavior as well.  She brought up many good and interesting points that made me think about the theory of mind in different ways.  The images of the brain in children with autism and typically developing brains were quite interesting in the differences in relation to the mental states. 

A social interaction among children with autism is a much needed area to function in the environment and more research needs to be done on how we might need to help these children.  I think, along with assessments also need to look at what the child does and how they may interpret social cues and integrate that into their services and plans through the schools.  The theory of mind, I think, should be explained and made known within the public to help these children succeed. 

Theory of Mind 2

According to the presenter, “theory” of the mind is not a theory, but an automatic ability to attribute mental states to ones self and others to predict and explain behavior. Uta Frith described “theory” of mind as a social behavior that can be observed and taught. This ability to mentalize (TOM) can be seen in human socialization:

·       Recognizing mental states of others

·       Communicating them to others

·       Manipulate them in others

·       Reflect on mental states

Firth discussed the developmental stages of “theory” of mind (prerequisites of mentalizing, joint attention, implicit mentalizing and explicit mentalizing) and how deficits in these areas by the age of 18 months puts a child at a higher risk of Autism. When we first discussed Theory of mind I was a bit skeptical at first because as behaviorist we are taught to observe, measure and manipulate behavior based off of things we actually see within the environment. Anything considered “mental” like “thoughts” or “feelings” are not considered behavior because they cannot be seen. I feel like Firth was able to describe the attributes of “theory” of mind in a way that it could be observed and measured like a behavior. For example she described joint attention as a developmental step of mentalizing, many of the children I work with have joint attention as a program along with teaching various play skills and social scripts. The presenter was able to present “theory” of mind in a way that could be understood from a behavioral standpoint. 

Theory of Mind

Uta Frith gave a very interesting and in-depth talk about Theory of Mind and how it relates to autism.  She got me thinking of areas of theory of mind that I have never thought of before.  She asked and answered several questions.  Some of these questions were:  “Why do we need Theory of Mind?, What consequences does theory of mind failure have?,  and How does it explain social impairment in autism?”  I think that these questions are very important to consider when working with a child or an adult with autism.  I believe that all professionals must consider the lack of theory of mind when working with people with autism. 

Social impairments seem to be directly linked to a lack of theory of mind.  People with autism lack the ability to interpret mental states to themselves as well as others.  This lack of understanding will have a serious impact on the ability to socialize with others, and understand the world in general.  If you can’t understand how you feel, it would be impossible to understand how others may feel about anything, especially when it comes to understanding how your actions may affect someone else.

A lack of theory of mind is a critical aspect of the explanation of the social behavior of individuals with autism.  What may appear to be a lack of empathy may in fact be a lack of understanding feeling altogether.  As professionals we should make more of an effort to educate the public about theory of mind.  I feel that if people had a better understanding of the way a person with autism’s brain works, the more room there will be for compassion and patience when working with individuals with autism.  I feel that we all need a better understanding of theory of mind.

Theory of Mind Revisited

Uta Frith gave an interesting and informative presentation on Theory of Mind.  In the beginning of her presentation she listed six questions that were answered throughout her presentation that I found interesting, and a few of them are listed below:

          Why do we need theory of mind?
We need Theory of Mind to teach others; tease others; trade with others; deceive others; communicate ostensively;  show complex emotions; manipulating beliefs; reading other minds; reading own mind; being self-conscious; showing unique emotions.

What consequences does ToM failure have?

Theory of mind failure may indicate that a child is at risk for autism (failure to show joint attention, proto-declarative pointing, pretend play).

How does it explain social Impairment in autism?

With regards to individuals with autism, “explicit mentalizing” can be taught, but “intuitive mentalizing” cannot.  This means that you can teach someone to come to a conclusion regarding the feelings of others but the automaticity of reaching said conclusions cannot. 

Is it sufficient to explain social impairment in autism?

While it helps to explain a lot of the social issues in individuals with autism, I don’t think this accounts for all of the social skill deficits in individuals with autism.

Is it unique and/or universal to autism spectrum?

The way she was speaking in the video makes me think that there is a lack of Theory of Mind in other individuals, so I do not think it is unique to autism spectrum disorders. 

In conclusion, Theory of mind is demonstrated in the ability to

·         Recognize mental states in others

      ·         Communicate them to others

·         Manipulate them in others

·         Reflect on own mental states

I strongly feel that Theory of Mind is important to consider when conducting an assessment on an individual with ASD.  You need to be aware of all of the individuals strengths and weaknesses in order to build skills that are adaptive to help with their future.

Theory of Mind

After watching the presentation by Uta Frith, there is more detail involved with Theory of Mind then I originally thought. Uta Frith explains the challenges that are faced by ASD individuals who may not understand the concept of “mentalizing”. I believe there is a strong connection in understanding theory of mind and the impairments of social communication in ASD individuals. If a child does not understand why an individual is sad, joyful, or angry, then they are going to have difficulty expressing their own emotions or feelings.

For example, I remember a child I worked with would cry every time she saw another child cry or show any emotions of being upset. You can just imagine working in an early childhood center, how many times toddlers and preschoolers cry throughout the day! This was very challenging for me as a teacher, because I did not have the background knowledge on ASD and what the concept of Theory of Mind was. Now with the knowledge I have learned in class, I have a better perspective on why emotions from other children were upsetting for her.

 
 I did not know until watching the video that Theory of Mind can actually be taught and learned. This can explain why some people try to debunk the Theory of Mind idea. However, we have to remember, just because children can learn what Theory of Mind is, does not necessary mean they understand it. With that being said, this can clarify why some ASD individuals may pass Theory of Mind tests.

I also found it very helpful when Uta Frith discussed different false belief tests. One example she used was sabotage and deception. From my understanding of the example she used, when a typical child is placed in a situation where he/she needs to deceive someone in order to gain or protect something ( such as the candy example), the child can recognize the situation and make a decision. On the other hand, a child with ASD does not have the state of mind to make the distinction between using deception and the actual reality of the situation. This is just one example how theory of mind can impact a child’s development.

We already know a common trait of autistic individuals is having difficulty interpreting the emotions of others, but this is also true when expressing their own emotions. This is vital to consider when giving an assessment because one can explain why an individual may have difficulty in a certain area. I strongly believe Theory of Mind is important to consider when making an assessment, however it is not the only thing educators should rely on. Being aware of the child’s challenges and finding the right skills and tools to strengthen the child’s needs are essential for his/her future.

Revisiting theory of mind

In this presentation, Uta Frith gave a much more in-depth description of the theory of mind.  She gave examples of various stages of life in which one could assess an individual for theory of mind.  This including identifying joint attention during infancy, a school-age child's understanding of "sabotage" and "deception", and she also used the example of a person's ability to attribute agencies to animated shapes, which I found very interesting.

She described many characteristics that are both consistent with autism as well as being consistent with a lack of a "theory of mind".  These characteristics include in inability or difficulty in articulated one's own thoughts or emotions, deficient pretend-play skills, and delays in joint attention.  As Frith discussed, many of these skills can be taught.  That is, "explicit mentalizing" can be taught.  "Intuitive mentalizing" cannot be taught.  In other words, compensationary methods can be learned in order to come to the appropriate conclusions regarding the thoughts and feelings of others.  But the automaticity of reaching those conclusions cannot be taught. 

The results of the various experiments discussed by Frith does seem to show evidence that there is a lack of awareness of the consciousness of other individuals.  As I mentioned earlier, characteristics that are consistent with lacking a "theory of mind" are also consistent with having Autism.  In that event, I do think it's appropriate to assess individuals in order to determine if they have the characteristics that are typical of "having a theory of mind"- should it be defined that way.  However, for those who are determined not to have a theory of mind, it's inconclusive has to how to correct it.  While one can learn "explicit mentalizing via compensation", it's unclear if these individuals will really understand what it is they're supposed to understand.  In other words, an individual can observe the narrative situation in which one character leaves a room and the other character hides that character's ball in a basket, the individual observing this narrative could be asked where the character who had left the room thinks the ball is and can be trained to give the correct answer.  But are they giving the correct response by rote or do they truly understand why that is the correct answer?

Revisiting Theory of Mind

I found this video and much of what we have learned in this class to be interesting and thought provoking, but my original viewpoint on theory of mind remains the same. 

Ute Frith discusses in this video that theory of mind is not a theory at all, but an automatic ability to attribute mental states.  That being said, it is risky to presume that anything occurs “automatically.”  Virtually everything we do is learned.  Take eating for example.  Food is a primary reinforcer, meaning that it functions as a reinforcer without any prior pairing.  This being said when a baby is born, he/she still needs to learn to eat, and some learn to eat more quickly than others.  What maintains this behavior in the future is its consequence (reinforcer), food.  This is the case with every behavior humans (and other organisms) engage in; everything we do is a result of our learning history of reinforcement.

Ute Frith also discusses in this video the differences between human behavior and the behavior of other animals.  These differences in behavior are not a result of different brain make-ups, so to speak, but again they are the result of different histories of reinforcement which likely come down to the one key difference between humans and other animals – a complex form of communication.  It is also likely that this is the key difference between individuals with autism and typically developing individuals.  As discussed in the video some of the “hallmarks” of autism are poor emotion processing, face processing, eye gaze control, imitation, use of gesture and language, and recognition of thoughts and feelings.  Ute Frith suggests that a lack of theory of mind might explain these deficits, but it may be more parsimonious to suggest that these deficits are due to individual histories of reinforcement, which would explain why there are differing levels of deficiencies in different individuals with autism, and also why these skills can be taught.

In assessing individuals with autism, I still think it is very important to look only at individual skills and then to teach and reinforce those found to be acquisition deficits.  Some of these skills, such as identifying internal emotions and/or the emotions of others can be very difficult to teach, but they can be taught provided the child has the prerequisite skills necessary to acquire them.  This is one of the reasons appropriate assessment is so important, by looking at an ABLLs assessment, for example, I can determine if the child can select pictures depicting emotions, attend to the reactions of others and whether he or she has the language ability to support identifying the emotion of a peer.  By teaching and reinforcing each skill individually a practitioner can further develop the necessary prerequisites for higher level social skills.

On a quest to find a behavioral explanation for theory of mind earlier in the semester I came across this article by Yvonne Barnes-Holmes, Louise McHugh, & Dermot Barnes-Holmes (2004) from The Behavior Analyst Today:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6884/is_1_5/ai_n28246892/

One thing that I liked about this article is that it breaks down Theory of Mind into 5 levels:

1.       People can see different things.

2.       People can see the same things differently.

3.       Seeing leads to knowing.

4.       Actions can be predicted on the basis of knowledge.

5.       People can have false beliefs.

Now, although the terms “knowledge” and “beliefs” are hypothetical constructs that are just as mentalistic as a theory of mind and many behavior analysts may get hung up on these constructs, by objectively defining them in context, behavior analytic literature may one day get us closer to developing an assessment that can be appropriately used in measuring progress and developing appropriate programming to teach individuals with autism to effectively take the perspective of another individual.