Therefore genetics have a strong link between itself and the cause of autism.
The ‘cold parenting’ hypothesis was originally proposed by Kanner (1943), suggested that what might be an innate disorder in the child would be aggravated by the behaviour of a cold unresponsive mother or refrigerator mother. In 1967 Bettleheim was partially successfully I treating some cases of autism as the Orthogenic School of the University of Chicago. Since the treatment, which seemed to alleviate some of the problems in autistic children revolved around a programme of warm acceptance and reinforcement, it seemed possible that the mother’s cold behaviour might have been responsible for the autistic behaviour in the first place.
In some ways, particularly of their reluctance to engage in social interaction and communication, the behaviour of children with autism appear similar to those of emotionally neglected or abused children.
However why not denying that early socialisation probably does affect later social behaviour, there is ample evidence to suggest that ‘cold parenting’ is not a casual factor in the disorder. McAdoo and De Myer (1978) found no significant differences in the personality traits shown by parents of autistic children and parents of children suffering from other psychological problems then mothers who were being treated for different mental health difficulties. Cox (1975) showed that parents of autistic children are no less warm or less responsible than other parents.
The social and communication deficits observed in people with autism suggests that sufferers do not understand the world from the point of view of others. The apparent failure of people with autism to understand that other people, or indeed them selves have a mental state was proposed by Frith (1989), Frith proposed that people with autism seriously lack the ability to mind–read, in short they lack a theory of mind.
Baron-Cohen (1985) set out to demonstrate differences in mind reading ability between children with autism, Down’s syndrome children and ordinary children. Children observed a scenario involving two puppet dolls, Sally and Ann. As the scenario developed Sally left her ball in a basket and went out. Whilst Sally was out, Ann moved Sally’s ball from the basket to the box. Children were then questioned about where Sally would look for the ball when she returned. The correct answer ‘Sally will look in the basket’ requires an understanding if what Sally knows or more importantly what she doesn’t not know. The result was that the Down’s syndrome group and the ordinary children gave the correct answer 85% of the time whereas the children with autism gave the correct answer only 20% of the time. The conclusion drawn was that the autistic group’s understanding of the scenario was fundamentally different to that of other two groups of children. Specifically children with autism were much less able to put themselves in Sally’s place and understand the way she represented the situation in her mind, supporting the theory that children with autism do not have a theory of mind.
Frith (1989) also elaborated on the theory of mind hypothesis, proposing that both the deficits and exceptional skills shown in autism can be explained through a lack of central coherence. Central coherence is the tendency to process information for its general meaning rather that for the specific meaning if each element. Memory research indicates that people with autism do not use meaning in memory tasks in the same way that other people do. For example, Hermelin and O’Connor (1967) showed how autistic people could recall lists of unconnected words as well as they could whole sentences, whereas control groups fared much better with sentences then unconnected words. As Happe (1999) points out, this and findings from other verbal studies seem to indicate that reading a sentence may, for people with autism be like reading a list of unconnected words.
Happe also suggests that central coherence is best seen in terms of cognitive style or style of thought and as a continuum where some people are very strong on central coherence and others is very weak. She points out that all people vary in the degree to which they use central coherence to process information and that weak central coherence does not in itself determine autism. In her view it is more likely that weak central coherence coupled with a lack of theory of mind would result in autistic behaviours.
Therefore in conclusion the suggestion that autism has a genetic cause is consistent with findings showing a link between autistic symptoms and other genetic disorders. For example it has been found that approximately 10% of children with autism have a chromosomal abnormality known as Fragile-X syndrome.
Bettleheim’s theory that autism was a result of cold and unaffectionate behaviour on the part of the parents is not testable. A child who is emotionally withdrawn and has severely impaired communication would be a very difficult child to parent. Perhaps having such as unrewarding, difficult child to look after in itself causes a parent to be less affectionate. Thus it is very difficulty to demonstrate any cause and effect relationship between parental behaviour and behavioural outcomes for the child. Powell (1999) concludes that any coldness in the parents’ behaviour is more likely to be caused by the behaviour of the autistic child rather than the parents. While perhaps not intended, Bettleheim’s explanation for autism has profound negative effects on parents of autistic children who are made to feel responsible for their child’s condition.
What theory of mind does not explain was the exceptional ability often demonstrated to children with autism. Accounts of ‘autistic savants’ are often presented in literature and there are some fascinating cases of people with autism who can perform amazing mathematical feats or play any tune from the beginning to the end after hearing it only once. At a more general level, it is not unusual to see a child with autism complete a complex jigsaw at incredible speed, even with the puzzle upside down. Critics of the theory of mind hypothesis argue that it is an incomplete account of the cognitive processing in autistic people since it explains only the deficits and not the tendency to display exceptional abilities.
Cognitive explanations for autism are not really explanations of cause as they merely elaborate on the precise nature of the cognitive differences between people with autism and non-sufferers. Whilst knowing exactly what information processing deficits and special talents involved in autism is interesting. It remains for further research to determine the causes of these differences in processing.