Social Cognition

1. Social Cognition

2. What is Social Cognition? Our ability to predict, monitor and interpret the behaviours and mental states of other people • Babies Self Awareness • Theory of Mind (Psychological sense of self) • Selman’s Levels of Perspective Taking • Mirror Neuron Theory

3. Self Awareness in Babies Subjective Self Awareness • Some aspects of SA are present from birth Feeling full, warmth etc. • By 2 months infants recognise that they are responsible for the movement of their limbs ‘Personal agency’

4. Self Awareness Objective Self Awareness • Demonstrated by the Rouge test • Gallup (1970) did this with Monkeys • Amsterdam (1972) did this with infants • Pass at around 18 months • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtTC96rD4pI&feature=player_embedded • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5980976466387737630# • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkjBUq58Dqo&feature=PlayList&p=E9BFA5B5BF6F6126&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

5. Self Awareness and finally…. The realisation that other children and adults have beliefs, thoughts and emotions differing from his or her own This is called Theory of Mind and seems to occur at around 4 years old

6. Theory of Mind Not technically a theory it is a stage of development that there is a lot of research into. Most research is from Baron-Cohen (Simon)

7. Theory of Mind Assessed by False Belief Tasks Wimmer and Perner (1983) Maxi Test – develops around 4/5 Wellman et al (2001)Meta-analysis, taking into account different cultures – develops around 4/5 O’Neill (1996) – criticism of these tasks, ‘toy on the shelf task’ ToM present at age 2 False belief tasks could just be too complex in cognitive terms for those younger than 4/5 to pass. So the cognitive elements prevent us seeing how developed ToM is. Any other methodological problems?

8. How do we develop ToM? • Shared Attention Mechanism – Baron-Cohen (1995) • Combining info about your direction of gaze with that of someone else. I see that daddy sees the cat; daddy sees that I see the cat . • Allows the child to decide if they are looking at the same thing giving an insight into the mental state of another person – ‘mummy sees the toy’ • Baron-Cohen et al (2000)

9. How do we develop ToM? • Language - Astington & Jenkins (1999) Language development is central to children developing ToM • Lohmann et al (2005) • Astington & Jenkins (1999)

10. Autism • Characteristics….. • Autism can be explained by an undeveloped ToM (according to Baron-Cohen) • Baron-Cohen et al (1985) – Sally-Anne – false belief task with normal, downs syndrome and autistic children. Autistic children failed the task whereas all the others passed. This shows support for lack of ToM as an explanation for autism in particular as there is no link between Downs Syndrome children could complete it. • Positive application – cause of a common developmental disorder. • But can it explain all characteristics?

11. Summary of ToM • Psychological sense of self • Definition • Develops around age 4/5 • Research to support development at age 4/5 • Including cross cultural • Research to criticise development at age 4/5 • O’neil (toy on the shelf) • May depend on language development • May depend on SAM development • Provides an explanation for Autism – if ToM doesn’t develop Autism • Evidence to support this • Baron-Cohen – Sally-Anne task • Can it explain all characteristics????? Nature / nurture, ethics, culture

12. Selman’s Levels of Perspective Taking • Another theory into children’s understanding of others • Stage theory – determined by age - invariant • Stages were developed using Dilemmas • Good perspective taking skills enable children to negotiate more effectively • Performance on dilemmas / stage can predict behaviour in the real world • Importance of cognitive ability

13. Evidence for this theory…. • Gurucharri and Selman – longitudinal study – supports the idea that we all develop over time • Doesn’t show evidence for particular stages • Ethics • Selman – girls making puppets and putting on a show (working with others) then tested on dilemma’s – supports idea that how we perform on dilemmas (where we are in the levels) predicts our real world behaviour. • All girls, gender bias • Ethics

14. Criticisms…. • Theory is nature based only, cannot take acount of any outside factors: • Burack et al (2006) – mal treated children do not develop as well other children – cannot be explained by Selman. • How do children move from stage to stage? • Too rigid • Cannot explain developmental disorders

15. Mirror Neuron Theory Gallese et al (1996) discovered this by accident when looking at the firing of specific neurons. They found specific neurons in F5 area of Pre motor cortex fire when monkeys perform an action – grasping a cup. The same neurons fire when a monkey observes someone else performing the action. Lead to the question of whether this occurs in humans. Cannot insert electrodes in the same way – unethical – use of fMRI.

17. Mirror Neuron Theory Biological Theory of social cognition Mirror neuron system is how we understand the actions and emotions of others, how we learn via imitation (social learning theory) and how we determine the intentions of other people. Mirror neurons underlie development of ToM Autistic children have a deficient Mirror Neuron System which is why they cannot develop ToMand thus causes autism.

18. Do humans have a mirror neuron system? (Dinstein) Can a mirror neuron system explain how we understand the behaviour and emotional states of other people? Phillips (disgust) Does it underlie development of ToM and link to autism? How do we know if mirror neurons are involved in understanding actions and not just recognising them? Ulmita

19. Dinstein • Copied Gallese’s original trial but with humans • They observed and completed hand actions • Same brain areas were active • Support for idea that it is in humans too and is involved in recognising other peoples actions. • Only looks at a recognition action, nothing to say that they understand the action • Can only look at brain area not specific neurons as unethical with humans.

20. Ulmita et al (2001) Neurons fire as seeing action Condition 1 – Monkey see’s human completing an action Neurons fire showing they understand action is happening even though they can’t see it Condition 2 – Monkey see’s human start action but completion is behind screen Condition 3 – Monkey see’s human put hand behind screen (no action) No neurons fire as no action has taken place Extrapolation, ethics!!!!

21. Phillips • Participants (humans) were exposed to disgusting stimuli • They were also shown pictures of people with a disgusted look on their face. • The same brain areas were active. • Supporting the idea that the mirror neuron system is involved in understanding other peoples emotions - Only looked at brain area not specific neurons

22. Mirror Neuron Theory and Autism • MNT assumes the MN system plays a major role in ToM development • Do austistic children have a deficient MN system? • Ramachandran et al (2006) • Repeated Dinstein’s study but with normal and autistic children – autistic children’s brains didn’t activate in the same way supporting the idea that they do not have a developed Mirror Neuron System. - Can they generalise this small sample of autistic children to the whole autistic population?

23. Criticisms for explanation of autism…. • Dinstein – reiview of studies – 50% no link between autism and the mirror neuron system • Can it explain all the characteristics??? • However- it is a strong application for the theory.