Cited by 129Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentFace Recognition and PerceptionAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

The eyes test as a measure of individual differences: how much of the variance reflects verbal IQ?

Open access
Peterson, Eric, Miller, Stephanie F.·2012·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Developed by Baron-Cohen et al. (1997, 2001), the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test requires individuals to determine mental states from photos of pairs of eyes. Used in over 250 studies, it has been conceptualized as an advanced theory of mind test that is relatively free of general cognitive abilities. Given the sensitivity of the instrument, many studies with healthy adult samples have used this instrument as a measure of individual differences in social-perceptual processes that contribute to theory of mind and overall phenotype. We administered the two-subtest Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, a face-processing task (Cambridge Face Memory Test), and the Eyes Test to 42 college students. Surprisingly, verbal IQ contributed significantly to the variance in Eyes Test performance while the face perception measure did not. These findings have both practical and theoretical ramifications for interpreting Eyes Test results in normative adult samples.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00220

Cites

37 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This is the second study to identify such a strong relation between the Eyes Test and Vocabulary.

    “That this is the second study to identify such a strong relation between the Eyes Test and Vocabulary suggests that performance on the former may be heavily based on one's vocabulary knowledge.”

    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 Peterson and Miller, 2012

    The Results (page unavailable) report a strong correlation between Eyes Test scores and WASI Vocabulary scores (r = 0.49), supporting the finding attributed to this study. The cited passages do not establish that this was the second study to find such a relation. The Discussion (page unavailable) also distinguishes verbal IQ from vocabulary knowledge alone, whose contribution it says needs further testing. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In general, verbal abilities are associated with performance on the Eyes Test.

    “In general, verbal abilities are associated with performance on the Eyes Test (Golan et al., 2006; Ahmed and Miller, 2011; Peterson and Miller, 2012; cf. Ferguson and Austin, 2010 who found no relation).”
  • The latent correlation between the ACO Model and Vocabulary is similar in magnitude to the manifest correlation with Vocabulary found by Peterson and Miller (2012).

    “At the latent level, however, we found a strong correlation (0.49 in Study 1 and 0.62 in Study 2) between the ACO Model with Vocabulary, which is similar in magnitude to the manifest correlation with Vocabulary found by Peterson and Miller (2012).”
  • Previous research suggests that at the manifest level, the Eyes Test is moderately related to verbal IQ.

    “Previous research suggests that at the manifest level, the Eyes Test is weakly related to verbal fluency (Ahmed and Miller, 2011) and moderately related to verbal IQ (Golan et al., 2006; Peterson and Miller, 2012).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kaufmann A. S. (1994). Intelligence Testing with the WISC-III. New York: Wiley

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peterson, E., & Miller, S. F.
Affiliations
University of Northern Colorado (US)
Corresponding author
Peterson, Eric
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2012
Volume
3
Pages
220-220
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150119965
Cited by
129
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2
FWCI
12.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, theory of mind, verbal IQ, individual differences, face perception, Cambridge Face Memory Test, WASI, social cognition, general intelligence

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