The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test Revised Version: A Study with Normal Adults, and Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High‐functioning Autism
Abstract
In 1997 in this Journal we published the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test, as a measure of adult “mentalising”. Whilst that test succeeded in discriminating a group of adults with Asperger syndrome (AS) or high‐functioning autism (HFA) from controls, it suffered from several psychometric problems. In this paper these limitations are rectified by revising the test. The Revised Eyes Test was administered to a group of adults with AS or HFA ( N = 15) and again discriminated these from a large number of normal controls ( N = 239) drawn from different samples. In both the clinical and control groups the Eyes Test was inversely correlated with the Autism Spectrum Quotient (the AQ), a measure of autistic traits in adults of normal intelligence. The Revised Eyes Test has improved power to detect subtle individual differences in social sensitivity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Likewise, scores in the RMET are similar to those seen in other publications with autistic participants [41, 71].”
From A 'choice', an 'addiction', a way 'out of the lost': Exploring self-injury in autistic people without intellectual disability (2019) · cites this paper as [41]
In the citing paper
“deficits in the popular ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ task (RMET) [41] were unrelated to the presence of self-injury, its range or frequency or its use for the functional purpose of communicating with others”
From A 'choice', an 'addiction', a way 'out of the lost': Exploring self-injury in autistic people without intellectual disability (2019) · cites this paper as [41]
In the citing paper
“Another study also reported that 8 weeks of cognitive-based compassion training could significantly enhance the accuracy in inferring others' mental states in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test [39] and increased the neural activation in the inferior frontal gyrus and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which are important for the theory of mind [40].”
From Potential therapeutic effects of meditation for treating affective dysregulation (2014) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“These ToM tasks measure the ability to employ mental states in explanations and predictions of behavior and as such can be distinguished from tasks that may only require emotion recognition (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al., 2001; Oakley et al., 2016), or only require empathic sharing of mental states (e.g., Quesque et al., 2024; Reniers et al., 2011).”
From Longitudinal development of theory of mind in adolescence and its associations with fiction reading experience. (2025) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“While the Eyes Test is proposed to measure a single construct (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001), as noted previously others have suggested that there might be subscales composed of those items that represent positive, negative, and neutral affect (Harkness et al., 2005; Maurage et al., 2011; Konrath et al., 2014).”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“The Eyes Test was designed to measure the first stage of ToM attribution, which is identifying the relevant mental state of the stimulus (as opposed to the second stage; inferring the content of that mental state; see Baron-Cohen et al., 2001).”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“Of note, this version of the Eyes Test is considered superior to earlier versions, largely on the grounds of reliability and validity evidence (see Baron-Cohen et al., 2001).”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test is a popular measure of individual differences in Theory of Mind capabilities (ToM; Baron-Cohen et al., 2001).”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“The test distinguishes many clinical populations (most often individuals on the autistic spectrum) from unimpaired control participants in their ToM capabilities.”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“With the exception of item 17, the most frequently chosen response option was the correct response option (see Table A1 in Supplementary Materials), which is supported by prior studies of normal populations (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al., 2001; Harkness et al., 2005).”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“First, Baron-Cohen and colleagues did not discuss purposely including items with different affects and they never proposed that the affect of the target word could be used to create subscales or should bias performance on the test, so in our analyses we operated under the assumption that there was no preference in terms of which items were the most appropriate for the measure of ToM.”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“First, Baron-Cohen and colleagues did not discuss purposely including items with different affects and they never proposed that the affect of the target word could be used to create subscales or should bias performance on the test, so in our analyses we operated under the assumption that there was no preference in terms of which items were the most appropriate for the measure of ToM.”
From A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings (2015) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“Based on the effect size (d = 1.27) between ASD and control participants on the RMET reported in Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, et al. (2001), we determined that a sample size of 19 participants per group would provide a power of 0.8 to detect group differences using an independent t test and α < .05.”
From ‘Theory of Mind’ is not Theory of Emotion: a cautionary note on the reading the Mind in the Eyes test (2016) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“Its validity is supported by the poor performance of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on the task (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, et al., 2001), a group that has known ToM impairments (Castelli, Frith, Happé, & Frith, 2002).”
From ‘Theory of Mind’ is not Theory of Emotion: a cautionary note on the reading the Mind in the Eyes test (2016) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“The alexithymic group also performed significantly worse than the control participants reported in Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, et al. (2001): N = 225, M = 27.02, SD = 3.67; independent samples t test: t(237) = 2.31, p = .021, d = 0.638, 95% CI for d [0.094, 1.180]”
From ‘Theory of Mind’ is not Theory of Emotion: a cautionary note on the reading the Mind in the Eyes test (2016) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“the original set of 36 items was split into two equally difficult halves (as in Samur et al., 2018, Experiment 3), based on the item accuracy reported for university students (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001)”
From The effects of reading narrative fiction on social and moral cognition (2021) · cites this paper as Baron-Cohen et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“The present score after placebo administration is also slightly higher than ASD norms for RMET performance (61%).49”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1193147 · Cited by 2,685
Fett, A.-K. J., Viechtbauer, W., Dominguez, M.-D.-G., Penn, D. L., van Os, J., & Krabbendam, L. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.001 · Cited by 1,833
“Theory of mind (reported by 5 studies) Hinting Task (Concoran et al., 1995) Number of correct identified hints Tom Picture Stories (Bruene, 2003) Number of correct sequenced cartoon story pictures, correct identified mental states Tom Vignettes (Concoran, 2001) Number of correct identified belief states Faux Pas Task…”
BackgroundThe Chicago face database: a free stimulus set of faces and norming data
Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5 · Cited by 1,788
Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements
Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100619832930 · Cited by 1,748
The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market*
Deming, D. J. (2017) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjx022 · Cited by 1,727
“Tests of emotional and social intelligence have been developed and validated by psychologists (Salovey and Mayer 1990; Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey 1999; Baron-Cohen et al. 2001; Goleman 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Baron‐Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 241-251
- ISSN
- 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7610
- OpenAlex
- W4294333904
- Cited by
- 4,555
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 223 · 2025: 261 · 2024: 273 · 2023: 268 · 2022: 303 · 2021: 350 · 2020: 381 · 2019: 320 · 2018: 299 · 2017: 292 · 2016: 230 · 2015: 262 · 2014: 193 · 2013: 211 · 2012: 143
- FWCI
- 5.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, mentalization, theory of mind, Asperger syndrome, high-functioning autism, autism spectrum disorder, test revision, psychometric properties, Autism Spectrum Quotient, autistic traits, social sensitivity, adults
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
