Running Head : ANTICIPATORY CONCERN : A STUDY IN AUTISM Anticipatory concern : A study in autism
J. Hobson,Ruth Harris,Rosa M. García-Pérez,R. Hobson
Abstract:There has been substantial research on children’s empathic responsiveness towards distressed people, and on the limited responsiveness of children with autism. To date, however, there have not been experimental studies to test how far children show concern towards someone who might be expected to feel badly, when that person has not (yet) expressed any negative feelings. We tested matched groups of children with autism and learning disability, and typically developing children of similar verbal mental age (approximately six years), with a novel procedure in which participants witnessed one person (E1) tearing the drawing of another (E2). In a comparison condition, a blank card was torn. In the torn-drawing condition, as predicted, fewer participants with autism orientated towards E2 with an immediate look, and as a group, they were rated as showing less concern for, and fewer concerned looks towards, E2. We discuss possible implications for theoretical perspectives on the early development of empathy in typically as well as atypically developing children. Anticipatory Concern, page 3 Anticipatory concern: A study in autism There is a rich tradition of research into young children’s emerging capacities to show empathy and concern towards other people (see, for example, contributions to Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987a; also Barrett, Zahn-Waxler, & Cole, 1993; Cole, Barrett, & Zahn-Waxler, 1992; Zahn-Waxler & Robinson, 1995). Although there have been a variety of theoretical perspectives concerning the nature and origins of empathy (well reviewed from an historical perspective by Wispé, 1987, and more recently expressed in peer commentaries on Preston & de Waal, 2002), as well as dispute over the criteria appropriate for judging when ‘true’ empathy or sympathy is observed among young children (Hoffman, 2007; Thompson, 1987), there has been little empirical research to evaluate children’s manifest affective responsiveness to the plight of someone else whose (potential) distress is not perceptible in the person’s bodily expressions of emotion. For the present set of studies, we devised a novel method to explore this specific aspect of empathic concern from the perspective of developmental psychopathology. Through an investigation of anticipatory concern among children with autism and matched individuals without autism – one group with mental retardation and another typically developing – our aim was to assess the plausibility of the hypothesis that human fellowfeeling is structured by the propensity to identify with the attitudes of other people. There are several themes that characterize contemporary theorizing about the nature and early development of empathy among children. In part, the debates reflect longstanding controversies about the role of cognitive appraisals in the genesis of emotions (as expressed, for example, in the exchanges between Zajonc,1984, and Lazarus, 1984), and more specifically about the cognitive abilities that need to have Anticipatory Concern, page 4 developed in order for young children to have specific kinds of feeling. In the case of empathy and sympathy, there is a case for arguing that, as Sroufe (1995, p 127) expresses it, ‘In many ways true empathy/altruism and hostile aggression draw on the same cognitive advances – namely, the child’s understanding of the feelings of the other person’. In particular, it appears that the newfound ability to think about oneself and others as individual selves around the middle of the second year of life is critical for the new forms of sympathetic role-taking that are observed at this time (Barresi & Moore, 1996; Hobson, 1993a; Hoffman, 1982; Kagan, 1982; Lewis, 2003, 2004; Moore, 2007). Among other cognitive accomplishments that have been highlighted as important for empathy and concern are the ability to take the role of someone else (Feshbach & Roe, 1968), the exercise of the imagination (Harris, 1989), hypothetical thinking and the availability and use of mental models of alternative psychological stances (Perner, 1990), and theory of mind or mentalizing abilities (Frith, 2003). The question arises whether the development of these understandings of self and other is founded upon earlier forms of affective responsiveness to the feelings of another person in which infants register the otherness of the other (Hobson, 1993a, b; Hobson, Chidambi, Lee, & Meyer, 2006; Hoffman, 2007; Strayer, 1987). As Thompson (1987) has discussed, the dominance of cognitive-developmental perspectives on emotional awareness and responsiveness, coupled with an emphasis on relatively detached and intellectually demanding methods to assess empathy, may have underestimated infants’ capacities for feeling towards others who are apprehended, but not conceptualized, as separate beings. Here it is relevant to note a distinction emphasized by Eisenberg Anticipatory Concern, page 5 (Eisenberg, 2002; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987b) concerning empathy, sympathy, and personal distress. Eisenberg and Strayer (1987b, pp. 5-7) state: In our view, empathy involves sharing the perceived emotion of another – “feeling with” another. This vicarious affective reaction may occur as a response to overt perceptible cues indicative of another’s affective state (e.g., a person’s facial expressions), or as the consequence of inferring another’s state on the basis of indirect cues (e.g., the nature of the other’s situation)...Sympathy is “feeling for” someone, and refers to feelings of sorrow, or feeling sorry, for another. That is to say, sympathy often involves feelings of concern, although the conscious cognitive realization that one is concerned about another’s welfare is an outcome, rather than a part, of sympathizing. Often sympathy is the consequence of empathizing, although it may be possible for sympathy (as well as empathy) to result from processes such as cognitive perspective taking. Whether or not empathy always mediates sympathizing is an open question. As this quotation makes clear, the distinction between empathy and sympathy may be important for some purposes, yet there might be an intimate developmental relation between the two. If we are to explore this issue, as well as to reconcile differences in emphasis concerning the relative primacy of emotional and cognitive factors in the genesis and elaboration of empathy in early development, it will be important to specify what is already inherent in the structure of basic forms of human social-emotional experience, and what are the processes through which cognitively articulated understandings of, as well as responsiveness to, other persons are achieved. The present Anticipatory Concern, page 6 study of sympathetic concern from the perspective of developmental psychopathology is intended to contribute to this domain of research. The Case of Autism One approach to uncovering the grounding and developmental implications of young children’s propensity to empathize with others, is to study conditions in which there appears to be a diminished capacity for such responsiveness to other people’s feelings. Early childhood autism represents the most celebrated case in point. When Kanner (1943) first identified the syndrome, he characterized his cohort of 11 children as having ‘inborn autistic disturbances of affective contact’ with other people (p. 250). Kanner attempted to capture the children’s stance in relation to others by writing of their ‘profound aloneness’, and conveyed how ‘people, so long as they left the child alone, figured in about the same manner as did the desk, the bookshelf, or the filing cabinet’ (p. 246). Such descriptions have been amplified by other clinical accounts such as that of Bosch (1970), who concluded that in autism, a “delay occurs in the constituting of the other person in whose place I can put myself” (Bosch, 1970, p. 89). These observations highlight how empathic human relatedness towards others – a pervasive feature of interpersonal engagement, not reducible to the more specific potential to show concern toward people in distress – appears to be striking for its relative lack among many children with autism. In the last two decades, there has been substantial empirical and theoretical progress in tracing how impairments in intersubjective person-with-person co-ordination and communication might be pivotal for a range of the children’s intellectual as well as social difficulties. Anticipatory Concern, page 7 The sources of empirical evidence are several. Parental reports (e.g. Dahlgren and Gillberg, 1989; Hobson et al., 2006; Lord, Storoschuk, Rutter, & Pickles, 1993; Stone & Lemanek, 1990; Vostanis et al., 1998; Wimpory, Hobson, Williams, & Nash, 2000; Wing, 1969) reveal that young children with autism are relatively unresponsive to other people’s non-verbal as well as verbal communication, and that such abnormalities occur in one-to-one affective engagement as well as in joint attention and other forms of co-reference towards a shared world. In a study by Wimpory and colleagues (2000), for example, where parents of matched young children with and without autism were asked to describe their offspring in the first two years of life, not one of the infants with autism were reported to have shown frequent and intense eye contact or engaged in turn-taking with adults, and there were also fewer infants with autism who greeted or waved to their parents, or who directed feelings of anger and distress towards people. When interviewed in a recent study by Hobson et al. (2006), parents described how their children with autism showed jealousy towards others and were affected by others’ moods, but far fewer were reported to show concern or guilt towards other people than were matched children without autism. As one parent responded when asked if her son showed concern if she were upset: “He might be worried but he doesn’t have that empathy sort of concern – he doesn’t show that at all... Empathetic sadness isn’t there” (Hobso