Theory of Mind Performance in Broad Autism Phenotype Groups: Between-Group Differences and Predictor Variables.
Adults with broad autism traits show specific cognitive theory-of-mind gaps despite normal eye-reading skill, so test both areas before writing goals.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Camodeca (2019) compared adults with broad autism traits to typical adults. The team gave two theory-of-mind tests. One test asked people to read stories and guess hidden meanings. The other test asked people to name feelings from photos of eyes.
All adults also completed an emotion-recognition task. The goal was to see which skills predict theory-of-mind scores in each group.
What they found
The broad-autism group scored lower on the story test, but both groups scored the same on the eye test. Emotion-recognition skill helped the broad-autism group on the story test only. For typical adults, emotion skill made no difference.
The results show a split: cognitive theory-of-mind lags, but affective theory-of-mind stays intact when traits are mild.
How this fits with other research
Peñuelas-Calvo et al. (2019) pooled 18 studies and found that diagnosed autism groups do worse on the eye test. Amy’s broad-autism adults did not, showing the deficit appears only when full autism criteria are met.
Lanfranchi et al. (2021) scanned adults with autism and found brain shrinkage linked to theory-of-mind problems. Amy’s work hints that these brain changes may not yet show up in broad-autism carriers, explaining the milder profile.
Yap et al. (2018) saw that broad-autism traits can boost angry-voice detection. Taken together, the picture is mixed: some social tasks are harder, some are easier, and some stay the same.
Why it matters
Do not assume one poor score means global social blindness. Test both story-based and eye-reading tasks. If a client with mild traits fails stories but passes eyes, target cognitive perspective drills, not basic emotion lessons. Use their intact eye-reading skill as a strength to build from.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a quick story-based false-belief probe alongside your usual RMET eye test to see which type of ToM needs work.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Investigated between-group differences in cognitive/affective theory of mind (ToM) and predictors of cognitive ToM both within broad autism phenotype/non (BAP/Non-BAP) groups as well as across the sample. The BAP group (n = 45) performed worse than the Non-BAP group (n = 102) on the unexpected outcomes test (UOT), but groups were similar regarding reading the mind in the eyes test (RMET). Stepwise regression indicated RMET best predicted UOT for the BAP group; block design best predicted UOT in the Non-BAP group. BAP traits did not mediate the relation of RMET to UOT performance. While RMET and UOT appear similarly related in BAP/Non-BAP samples, use of emotion recognition abilities in a cognitive ToM task may reflect over-reliance on this skill in the BAP.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2019 · doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04126-6