In matching these theories we will look to combine disabilities in ToM with WCC and DEF. We will look whether WCC and DEF can be combined and whether all three theories complement each other. Others have already tried to relate these theories. Leslie and Happé distinguish three possible relations between the
information handling and an executive dysfunction from a lack of expressing oneself. Luckily trials with numerosity often require both comprehension and production of numbers and number words. A focus on either comprehension or production will not put us off balance.
affective and cognitive disorders.134 Hill discussed three possible relations between EF and ToM.135
ToM and EF
Leslie and Happé distinguish three possible relations between the affective and cognitive disorders. The affective disorder causes cognitive impairments. Affective and cognitive disorders exists independently. The cognitive disorders cause the affective disorder or the affective disorder can be explained in terms of the cognitive. Hill discussed three similar possible relations between ToM and EF. Either EF allow us to develop a ToM, the ToM allows us to develop EF or ToM can be reduced to EF. In effect this leaves us with four options: 1) EF enables ToM, 2) ToM enables EF, 3) ToM = EF (one can be reduced to the other, no separate mental modules) and 4) EF and ToM exist separately.
Hill cites research by Hughes which seems in favour of option 1) EF determines the development of ToM. In one of her studies, Hughes establishes a correlation between inhibition, mental flexibility and deceit.136 A
second study by Hughes shows that this relation only works one way; performance on EF tests has predictive value over performance on ToM tests but not the other way round.137
Leslie and Happé believe 2), that our development depends upon our ability to understand the actions of others. They think that the ToM and especially our metarepresentation of others lies at the hart of our development. In autism something is wrong with this metarepresentation and that has its repercussions on our development. So they place ToM before EF or CC.
View 3) and 4) are less popular. Reducing ToM to EF, in other words our reasoning about others can be translated into the functions of our execution without leaving any parts specific to ToM. This would mean ToM would disappear at the same time as EF. This is however not the case. Individuals with severe lesions in the brain at the place where the EF is thought to reside, still have ToM. Seeing ToM and EF as two completely separate modules is not likely because relations between the two have been found to exist.
CC and EF or ToM
Frith and Happé never thought that a WCC was a cause for ToM deficits. They see no correlation between the two. They relate a WCC to social deficits independent of ToM.138 The coherence weakness generates a
preference for low-level bottom-up processing and social situations require high-level processing. According to Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen the theory of WCC is not in conflict with the ToM and executive dysfunction accounts. They think the three theories can shade into each others areas.
Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen explain WCC as a dysfunctioning strategy for contextual meaning, rather than a general lack of coherence. Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen see CC as the ability to integrate meaning to make inferences. When autists are asked to describe a scene, as in Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen's trials, they do give the most coherent description. This could be due to the autists not integrating meaning or correctly processing meaning.
The Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen approach of WCC can be combined with DEF or disabled ToM. A WCC is likely to exert some influence on to the operations involved in ToM and the development of ToM. Jolliffe and Baron- Cohen suppose for example that WCC could cause a delay in our mentalizing ability resulting in operational and developmental problems with ToM. Another example is that WCC could cause problems with the integration of information that normally enables us to recognize others as thinking entities.
Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen suppose that WCC could cause problems in EF and so change the DEF actually being due to WCC. If context is not interpreted right due to WCC then a default response is chosen. This learned default response can be incorrect when not applied in the context in which it was learned. A wrong application of responses is due to WCC rather than problems with EF. Difficulty with integrating information inhibits the making of plans.
ToM and EF and CC
The three theories have some overlap. Practical problems also prevent us from making a certain choice 134 A.M. Leslie and Happé F., Autism and ostensive communication: the relevance of metarepresentation,
Developmental and Psychopathology, vol.1 p.205-212, 1989.
135 E.L. Hill, Evaluating the theory of executive dysfunction in autism, Developmental Review, vol.24 p.189-233, 2004.
136 C. Hughes, Executive function in preschoolers: Links with theory of mind and verbal ability, The British
journal of developmental psychology, vol.16 no.2 p.233-254, 1998.
137 C. Hughes, Finding your marbles: Does preschoolers' strategic behavior predict later understanding of mind, Developmental Psychology, vol.34 no.6 p.1326-1339, 1998.
138 On p. 26 Jarrold and Russell interpret Frith and Happé.
C. Jarrold and Russell J., Counting Abilities in Autism: Possible Implications for Central Coherence Theory, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol.27 no.1 p.25-37, 1997.
between them. Tests used to determine the presence of theory of mind are very complex and do not single out the testing of theory of mind. These tests also involve executive functioning and memory functions and we would need at least some coherence to solve any problem. So according to Hill the studies she discusses do not lead to any straightforward conclusions about the relations between executive functioning and theory of mind. Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen also have some reservations about the WCC theory. They think the theory might suffer from over-extension.
Eventually each theory can be used to explain the other two. And no real contradiction between these theories results from their combination.