Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:49:58.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of eye contact in goal detection: Evidence from normal infants and children with autism or mental handicap

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2008

Wendy Phillips ,
Simon Baron-Cohen  and
Michael Rutter
Wendy Phillips
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
Simon Baron-Cohen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
Michael Rutter
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One reason for looking at a person's eyes may be to diagnose their goal, because a person's eye direction reliably specifies what they are likely to act upon next. We report an experiment that investigates whether or not young normal infants use eye contact for this function. We placed them in situations in which the adult's action toward them was either ambiguous or unambiguous in its goal. Results showed that the majority of normal infants and young children with mental handicap made instant eye contact immediately following the ambiguous action but rarely after the unambiguous action. Young children with autism, in contrast, made eye contact equally (little) in both conditions. These results are discussed in relation to the function of eye contact, to our understanding of infant cognition, and to the theory of mind hypothesis of autism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 375 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (rev. 3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Argyle, M. (1972). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Astington, J., & Lee, E. (1991). What do children know about intentional causation? Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Conference,seattle, washington.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In Whiten, A. (Ed.), Natural theories of mind (pp. 233–252). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (in press). From attention-goal psychology to belief-desire psychology: The development of a theory of mind and its dysfunction. In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J., (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, B. (1968). The empty fortress. Chicago: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (1990). Perspectives on the interface between normal and atypical development. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 329–335.Google Scholar
Feinman, S. (1982). Social referencing in infancy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 445–470.Google Scholar
Hermelin, B., & O'Connor, N. (1970). Psychological experiments with autistic children. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbance of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250. (Reprinted in Childhood psychosis: Initial studies and new insights, 1973, New York: John Wiley and Sons)Google Scholar
Mandler, J. (1991). Prelinguistic primitives. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Conference,Seattle, Washington,April.Google Scholar
Mirenda, P., Donnellan, A., & Yoder, D. (1983). Gaze behaviour: A new look at an old problem. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 13, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., Ungerer, J., & Sherman, T. (1986). Defining the social deficits of autism: The contribution of non-verbal communication measures. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 657–670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Premack, D. (1990). Do infants have a theory of self-propelled objects? Cognition, 36, 1–16.Google Scholar
Reddy, V. (1991). Playing with other's expectations: Teasing and mucking about in the first year. In Whiten, A. (Ed.), Natural theories of mind (pp. 143–158). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Richer, J. (1978). The partial non-communication of culture to autistic children: An application of human ethology. In Rutter, M. & Schopler, E. (Eds.), Autism: A reappraisal of concepts and treatment (pp. 47–62). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition. In Rutter, M. & Schopler, E. (eds.), Autism: A reappraisal of concepts and treatment (pp. 1–26). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Rutter, D. (1984). Looking and seeing: The role of visual communication in social interaction. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Sigman, M., Mundy, P., Ungerer, J., & Sherman, T. (1986). Social interactions of autistic, mentally retarded, and normal children and their caregivers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 647–656.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N., & Tinbergen, E. (1983). Autistic children: New hope for a cure. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Volkmar, F., & Mayes, L. (1990). Gaze behaviour in autism. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 61–69.Google Scholar