Empirical failures of the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind.

Abstract

The claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind-that they fail to understand that other people have a mind or that they themselves have a mind-pervades psychology. This article (a) reviews empirical evidence that fails to support the claim that autistic people are uniquely impaired, much less that all autistic people are universally impaired, on theory-of-mind tasks; (b) highlights original findings that have failed to replicate; (c) documents multiple instances in which the various theory-of-mind tasks fail to relate to each other and fail to account for autistic traits, social interaction, and empathy; (c) summarizes a large body of data, collected by researchers working outside the theory-of-mind rubric, that fails to support assertions made by researchers working inside the theory-of-mind rubric; and (d) concludes that the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind is empirically questionable and societally harmful.

Neurotype-Matching, but Not Being Autistic, Influences Self and Observer Ratings of Interpersonal Rapport

“…Thus, social difficulties for autistic people may be relational in nature, rather than an individual impairment as posited by accounts which adopt a deficit model. These findings are in line with a recent review which argues that there is growing evidence to suggest that a theory of mind explanation for social difficulties in autism is questionable (Gernsbacher and Yergeau, 2019), and echoes findings from other research using a range of methodologies to examine the bi-directional nature of social interaction, considering communication as a joint experience rather than at the individual level (De Jaegher and Di Paolo, 2007;Bottema-Beutel, 2017;Sterponi and De Kirby, 2017). If rapport is constructed from subtle verbal and non-verbal cues during social interactions, then autistic individuals must be sufficiently able to detect these to discriminate between the mixed neurotype and same neurotype groups.…”

“…Popular attempts to explain autism, such as accounts like theory of mind (Frith, 2001), executive functioning (Ozonoff et al, 1991), or social motivation (Chevallier et al, 2012) adopt a deficit-based model. For instance, theory of mind explanations propose that social difficulties arise from a cognitive deficit residing in the autistic person preventing them from being able to infer, understand, or predict the behavior and intentions of others (Baron-Cohen et al, 1985;Gernsbacher and Yergeau, 2019). Experimental research showing that autistic people are unable to attribute mental states to others is believed to underlie autistic difficulties in social communication (Frith, 2001).…”

Theory of mind and decision science: Towards a typology of tasks and computational models

“…However, as Premack & Woodruff (1978) noted, having ToM means positing others' motivations, intentions, goals and beliefs and does not necessarily entail having accurate ToM. As Gernsbacher & Yergeau (2019) show, there is no strong empirical evidence in favor of claims that children, adolescents, and adults with AS lack ToM. Studies making such claims generally point to the impaired accuracy rather than complete absence of ToM.…”

Knowing me, knowing you: Spontaneous use of mentalistic language for self and other in autism

“…Theory of Mind is defined as the capacity to understand and predict mental states such as beliefs, emotions, desires and intentions (Premack & Woodruff, 1978). The idea that autistic individuals struggle to represent and understand the mental states of others, an ability that is also known as mentalizing, is widely acknowledged and continues to receive much attention and support (Baron-Cohen, 1995;Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith, 1985;Happé, 2015;Senju, 2013;Senju, Southgate, White & Frith, 2009), yet its ability to serve as a universal explanation of the most characteristic social features and communicative impairments of autism remains contentious (Chevallier, Kohls, Troiani, Brodkin & Schultz, 2012;Gernsbacher & Yergeau, 2019;Leekam, 2016). One reason for this controversy is that many autistic individuals are able to pass explicit mentalizing tests (e.g.…”