Content uploaded by Annalisa Levante
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Annalisa Levante on Jun 21, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
COGNITIVE SCIENCE & NEUROSCIENCE | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Theory of Mind in deaf adults
Flavia Lecciso
1
*, Annalisa Levante
1
, Francesca Barualdi
2
and Serena Petrocchi
3
Abstract:Purpose: The present study analyzed the social-cognitive and social-perceptual
components of Theory of Mind (ToM) comparing three groups of deaf adults to three
matched hearing groups. The influence of verbal IQ was also investigated. Methods: The
participants were 15 native signers, 15 late signers, 17 oral deaf adults paired by gender,
age and mental age to 47 hearing adults. All participants completed the assessment
of the two components of ToM and of the verbal IQ. Results: Late signers and oral deaf
adults showed lower scores then hearing peers both in the social-perceptual and social-
cognitive components of ToM. Native signers showed lower scores then hearing peers
in the social-perceptual component. Verbal IQ was the predictor of the social-cognitive
component for late signers and oral deaf adults, while it was not significant for the social-
perceptual component. Conclusions: The findings yielded support for the two components
of TOM and contributed to the extent of the existing literature on ToM in deafness.
Subjects: Development Studies; Health & Development; Development Theory
Keywords: Theory of Mind; oral deaf adults; native signers; late signers; componential
model of ToM
1. Introduction
1.1. The componential model of Theory of Mind
Theory of Mind (ToM) involves individuals’ ability to infer cognitive and emotional states of others (i.e.
intentions, desires, beliefs, knowledge, emotions), as well as understanding that those states guide
their behaviors (Apperly, 2012; Hughes & Leekam, 2004; Marchetti et al., 2013; Wimmer & Perner, 1983).
*Corresponding author: Flavia Lecciso,
Department of History, Society and
Human Studies, Università del Salento,
Via Stampacchia 47, Lecce 73100, Italy
E-mail: flavia.lecciso@unisalento.it
Reviewing editor:
Peter Walla, University of Newcastle,
Australia
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The authors are involved in several research
activities within typical and atypical
developmental conditions, such as deafness,
autism, and learning disabilities. Dr Flavia Lecciso
and Dr Serena Petrocchi’s research interests are
focused on Theory of Mind in socio-cultural and
aective-relational perspective in developmental
ages and life-span approach. Dr Francesca
Barualdi’s research interests are focused on
clinical psychology and specifically on linguistic
and attention on deafness. She is also an expert
in using Italian Sign Language. Annalisa Levante’s
research interests are mainly focused on Theory of
Mind in Autism.
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Our research studies two psychosocial abilities,
which are very important for everyday interactions.
The first is the ability to understand that mental
states guide people’s behaviors (Luke thinks his
keys are on the table—actually they are not—and
he looks for them on the table) and the second
one is the ability to infer mental states through
facial expressions, vocal, and body language
(Luke’s face shows frustration when he did not
find his keys). We study those abilities on deaf
adults because little is known on them. We found
that deaf adults from hearing families showed
fewer abilities than hearing adults, while deaf
adults from deaf parents showed fewer ability
than hearing adults only on the understanding
of mental states through facial expressions. Our
results can help professionals who work with deaf
people to teach them these psychosocial abilities
from the early years of life.
Received: 24 August 2016
Accepted: 20 November 2016
Published: 07 December 2016
© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 1 of 14
Page 2 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
Tager-Flusberg and Sullivan (2000) developed a componential model of ToM which comprises a
social-cognitive component and a social-perceptual component. The social-cognitive component
refers to what authors have traditionally meant by ToM, that is the conceptual understanding of the
mind as a representational system (Grin, 1978; Tager-Flusberg, 2000). The social-cognitive compo-
nent of ToM is closely related to both the general and specific aspects of language development
(de Villiers & de Villiers, 2000). This component develops between the third and fourth year of life in
the form of first-order false belief reasoning and during late childhood with the understanding of
complex social situations (Tager-Flusberg, 2000). First-order false belief tasks (Wimmer & Perner,
1983) and Strange Stories (White, Hill, Happè, & Frith, 2009) are prototypical measures of the social-
cognitive component of ToM.
The social-perceptual component refers to the ability to infer other’s mental states through facial
expressions, vocal and body language (Tager-Flusberg, 2000). This component involves perceptual
information which is immediately available and observable and is less linked to other cognitive and
linguistic abilities. It develops during the first years of life, earlier than the social-cognitive compo-
nent, because one-year-old children already recognize and respond to their mother’s emotional fa-
cial expressions (Baron-Cohen, Tager-Flusberg, & Cohen, 1993). Facial Expression Recognition (Gao
& Maurer, 2009) and the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (henceforth Eyes test) (Baron-Cohen,
Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001) are prototypical measures of the social-perceptual compo-
nent of ToM.
Although in everyday life the two components are interconnected, in some clinical conditions they
may function in a dissociated way (Tager-Flusberg, 2000). For example, autistic individuals show a
delay in the social-perceptual component, (Baron-Cohen, Jollie, Mortimore, & Robertson, 1997)
while the social-cognitive component may be preserved when the language ability is well developed.
(Tager-Flusberg, 1997; Tager-Flusberg & Sullivan, 1994, 2000).
1.2. The componential model of Theory of Mind in deafness
Although research on ToM in deafness has been the focus of an intensive investigation, most studies
considered deaf children ToM development while few of them have analyzed deaf adults’ under-
standing of their own and others’ mind. Research on ToM on deafness focused especially on the so-
cial-cognitive component (i.e. first- and second-order false belief reasoning), while few studies have
analyzed the social-perceptual component.
As regards research on the social-perceptual component, Wang, Su, Fang, and Zhou (2011) found
that 2–3 year-old children with cochlear implants or hearing aids showed less ability to infer four
basic emotional expressions (happiness, sadness, angriness, fearfulness) than hearing peers. These
authors found no significant correlation between Facial Expression Recognition and verbal ability
which is a confirmation of Tager-Flusberg and Sullivan’s (2000) hypothesis.
Further studies (Hopyan-Misakyan, Gordon, Dennis, & Papsin, 2009; Most & Aviner, 2009) sup-
ported the idea of a progressive improvement of the social-perceptual component of ToM in deaf-
ness. Hopyan-Misakian et al. (2009) analyzed children with cochlear implants or hearing aids and
hearing children from 7 to 13 years of age; Most and Aviner (2009) studied the same two groups of
children from 10 to 17 years. Both studies did not find significant dierences between groups in the
recognition of basic emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fearfulness). It is worth pointing out that
the task used in the two studies assesses a simple aspect of the social-perceptual component of ToM
(i.e. four basic emotions) as administered for example to preschoolers (Wang et al., 2011). In this
vein, a recent study, (Lecciso, Petrocchi, & Marchetti, 2013) measuring the social-perceptual compo-
nent of ToM with an advanced task (i.e. eyes test), (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001) found that oral deaf
children from 5 to 14 years of age performed worse than their hearing peers. This study also found
a correlation between receptive language and the recognition of complex emotions through eye
gaze. Considered overall, these few studies on the social-perceptual component of ToM showed a
progressive improvement in oral deaf children in their recognition of basic emotions, while
Page 3 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
underlined a delay in the recognition of complex mental states through eye gaze. No studies on the
social-perceptual component of ToM were developed on deaf adults.
When research on the social-cognitive component of ToM is considered, three main topics need to
be faced: (1) the consideration of three groups of deaf individuals (i.e. native signers, late signers,
and oral deaf adults); (2) the progressive development of the social-cognitive component of ToM by
age; and (3) the role of language in the development of the social-cognitive component of ToM.
Research on the social-cognitive component of ToM considered three groups of deaf people de-
pending on the presence/absence of hearing loss in parents, the communicative mode mainly used
in the family (sign vs. verbal mode), and the rehabilitation approach chosen by the family (verbal vs.
sign training). According to these characteristics, it is possible to distinguish among: native signers,
namely deaf individuals of deaf parents who learn to communicate by sign language from birth; late
signers, that is, deaf individuals of hearing parents who learn to communicate by sign language
through training; oral deaf people, that is, deaf individuals of hearing parents who learn to commu-
nicate by spoken language through training.
Research on deaf children (Courtin & Melot, 1998; Peterson & Siegal, 1997, 1999; Peterson,
Wellman, & Liu, 2005; Woolfe, Want, & Siegal, 2002) showed that the performance of native signers
in first-order false belief reasoning was better that late signers and similar to that of hearing chil-
dren, while late signers, compared to hearing children and native signers, showed a delay in the
same tasks (Peterson & Siegal, 1995, 1999). Most studies (Courtin, 2000; Courtin & Melot, 1998;
de Villiers, 1997; de Villiers & de Villiers, 2000; Lecciso et al., 2013; Marchetti, Liverta-Sempio, &
Lecciso, 2006) showed a delay also of oral deaf children when compared to hearing peers both in
first- and second-order false belief reasoning (Courtin, 2000; Courtin & Melot, 1998; de Villiers, 1997;
de Villiers & de Villiers, 2000; Lecciso et al., 2013; Marchetti et al., 2006) and in advanced ToM (Lecciso
et al., 2013). Only one study (Peterson & Siegal, 1999) found similar performance comparing oral
deaf children, native signers and hearing children in first-order false belief reasoning. According to
these studies, the results found in late signers and oral deaf children are related to their communica-
tive ability and, in particular, on language complementation, (de Villiers & de Villiers, 2000; de Villiers
& Pyers, 2002; Villiers, 2005) general language ability including knowledge of vocabulary on mental
states (i.e. thinking, knowing, believing), (Remmel & Peters, 2009) and the conversational depriva-
tion in the family context (Peterson & Siegal, 1999).
While deaf children have been intensively studied, in literature there is a paucity of research on
deaf adults. Hao, Su, and Chan (2010) compared four groups of deaf adults (pre-lingually deaf who
are bilingual and came from hearing parents; post-lingually deaf who are bilingual and came from
hearing families; pre-lingually deaf signers who came from hearing parents; pre-lingually deaf adults
of deaf parents) administering both explicit (story recall task) (Rutherford, 2004) and implicit ToM
tasks (story comprehension task) (Happé, Brownell, & Winner, 1999; Langdon & Coltheart, 2004). All
four deaf groups showed worse performance compared to hearing peers when the explicit ToM was
considered, while in the understanding of implicit ToM only the two groups of pre-lingually deaf
adults who came from hearing families showed a delay. Sociolinguistic theory (Peterson & Siegal,
1995; Siegal, 1997) argues that early conversational deprivation in deaf children of hearing parents
is the main reason accounting for their delay in ToM understanding.
The second topic considered in research on the social-cognitive component of ToM is the progressive
development by age. Studies on ToM during early childhood (Courtin, 2000; Courtin & Melot, 1998;
Woolfe et al., 2002) did not find significant dierence by age up to 8 years. Other research (Gonzalez,
Quintana, Barajas, & Linero, 2007; Russell et al., 1998) considers the period of late childhood and ado-
lescence. Gonzalez et al. (2007), considering deaf individuals from 4 to 16 years of age, and Russell et al.
(1998), studying deaf children aged 6 to 19, found significant improvement on first-order false belief
reasoning after the age of 13–14. Both studies explain this development as depending on wider com-
municative experience within and outside the family.
Page 4 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
The third topic considered in this field of research is the association between language and the
social-cognitive component of ToM which is well established in typical developing children (Milligan,
Astington, & Dack, 2007). Recent studies (Hao et al., 2010; Pyers & Senghas, 2009; Russell et al.,
1998) analyzed the association between first-order false belief reasoning or advanced ToM and lan-
guage ability in deaf adolescents and adults. Russell et al. (1998), assessing performance on first-
order false belief tasks in deaf subjects aged between 6 and 19 years, underlined that it is the level
of oral lexical competence that is associated with ToM performance. Specifically, children with a
verbal/lexical age higher than four showed a better performance on ToM tasks independently of
their chronological age. Hao et al. (2010) analyzed the associations between language ability and
advanced ToM in deaf adults with a mean age of 21.5 years. They found a significant eect of lan-
guage ability on advanced ToM although the quality of interpersonal experience in the first years of
life also had an eect.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Areas investigated and hypotheses of the research
The aim of this research was to analyze the social-perceptual and social-cognitive components of
ToM as defined by Tager-Flusberg and Sullivan (2000) in deaf adults. The two components of the
theoretical model have never been jointly tested in a single research study and never in deafness
conditions. Other clinical conditions have been tested (i.e. Williams syndrome, Prader-Willi syn-
drome, Autism) (Baron-Cohen et al., 1997; Plesa Skwerer, Verbalis, Schofield, et al., 2006; Sullivan &
Tager-Flusberg, 1999; Tager-Flusberg, 2000) revealing dissociations between the social-perceptual
and social-cognitive component of ToM, which however were not jointly studied.
When the social-perceptual component is considered, research (Hopyan-Misakyan et al., 2009;
Lecciso et al., 2013; Most & Aviner, 2009) has investigated only oral deaf children and adolescents.
No studies involved either native or late signers or deaf adults. Furthermore, the social-perceptual
component was mainly evaluated with tasks which analyze the understanding of basic emotions
(FER) (Gao & Maurer, 2009). One study (Lecciso et al., 2013) measured the understanding of complex
emotions and other mental states through eye gaze, but considered deaf adolescents. No studies
analyzed the association between the social-perceptual component of ToM and language.
When the social-cognitive component is considered, research on deaf subjects is mainly based on
childhood and adolescents (Gonzalez et al., 2007; Russell et al., 1998) and only one study analyzed
deaf adults (Hao et al., 2010). The social-cognitive component of ToM was mainly studied through
basic tasks analyzing first- and second-order false belief reasoning, (Gonzalez et al., 2007; Russell et
al., 1998) while only two studies on deaf adults administered advanced ToM tasks (Hao et al., 2010;
Lecciso et al., 2013). Results (Hao et al., 2010; Russell et al., 1998) showed that language ability
seems to play a significant role on ToM performance together with other variables, such as age and
type of group (i.e. native signers, late signers, oral deaf adults).
The current study was designed to redress the limitations underlined above. First, an essential aim
of this study was to jointly analyze the two components of ToM, as proposed by Tager-Flusberg and
Sullivan (2000) in three groups of deaf adults, as defined by the literature: native signers, late sign-
ers, and oral deaf. Each of the three groups of deaf adults was compared to a paired group of hearing
adults. Second, the present study intended to administer both basic and advanced ToM tasks and to
analyze the role played by verbal ability, measured as verbal IQ, on the two ToM components.
Specifically, the aims of the study were:
• To compare each group of deaf adults (native signers, late signers, oral deaf adults) to its hearing
paired group on the two ToM components. In line with previous research on ToM in deaf children
and adults, it was hypothesized that late signers and oral deaf participants would perform worse
than hearing peers on the social-cognitive component of ToM. The lack of research on native
Page 5 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
signers on the social-cognitive component did not allow a specific hypothesis to be made on their
performance. Similarly the lack of studies in adulthood on the social-perceptual component in the
three groups of deaf people did not allow specific hypotheses to be made on their performance.
• To assess the association between verbal IQ and the two ToM components in deaf and hearing
participants.
2.2. Participants
Participants were 94 young adults with mean age 22 years 1 month (SD = 1 month) ranging from
15 years 9 months to 28 years 1 month. Forty-seven were profoundly deaf: 15 of them were native
signers, 15 late signers, and 17 oral deaf. Forty-seven were hearing adults paired one-by-one by
gender, chronological, and mental age with the 47 deaf participants. Each group of deaf adults (na-
tive signers, late signers, oral deaf) had a corresponding paired group to hearing adults to be com-
pared with. Mental age was measured by the Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 2008).
T-tests were performed to control the matching procedure: no dierences emerged between each
group of deaf people (native signers, late signers, and oral deaf adults) and the corresponding group of
hearing paired participants for both chronological, mental age, and years of education. No dierences
emerged between the three groups of hearing participants for chronological and mental age (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of participants
Native
signers
Hearing
paired
adults
Late
signers
Hearing
paired
adults
Oral deaf Hearing
paired
adults
No. of adults 15 15 15 15 17 17
Mean age (SD),
range
22.27 (4.03) 21.86 (4.08) 21.92 (3.4) 21.96 (3.26) 22.31 (2.7) 22.02 (2.62)
16.7–28.1 16.2–28.2 16.4–26.9 15.9–26.5 17.5–25.4 17.9–25.5
Mean mental
age (SD)
112.27 (4.91) 116.46 (8.35) 114.87 (7.81) 118.44
(10.14)
120.82 (7.4) 120.61 (8.02)
Ratio of
males:females
4:11 4:11 10:5 10:5 6:11 6:11
Mean years of
education (SD)
12.00 (2.07) 10.23 (3.26) 10.13 (2.87) 10.00 (2.82) 8.17 (2.62) 10.11 (3.47)
Communication
mode
Italian sign
language
Verbal
language
Italian sign
language and
verbal
language
Verbal
language
Verbal
language
Verbal
language
Type of deafness
Congenital
deafness
15 (100%) 10 (66.7%) 10 (58.8%)
Acquired
deafness
– 5 (33.3%) 7 (41.2%)
Deafness degree
Mild – 1 (6.7%) 1 (5.9%)
Severe 1 (6.7%) 5 (33.3%) 3 (17.6%)
Profound 14 (93.4%) 9 (60%) 13 (76.5%)
Hearing aids
External
hearing aids
– 6 (40%) 13 (76.5%)
Cochlear
implant
– – 4 (23.5%)
None 15 (100%) 9 (60%) –
Mean years of
speech therapy
(SD)
3.00 (1.32) 3.36 (0.81) 3.83 (0.57)
Page 6 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Verbal IQ
Five verbal subtests (information, vocabulary, comprehension, arithmetic, and similarities) of the
Wechsler intelligence scale–WAIS-R (verbal IQ-vIQ) (Orsini & Laicardi, 1997) were administered.
Because there are no existing standardized tests for LIS proficiency (Italian Sign Language), as done
in previous studies on deaf people (Schick, de Villiers, de Villiers, & Homeister, 2007) the five sub-
tests and their instructions were translated into LIS and thus administrated to native and late sign-
ers. Oral deaf and hearing participants received the original form of these subtests. Native and late
signers replied to those tests using LIS, while oral and hearing participants replied using oral lan-
guage. In the procedure section, the translation method followed is explained in greater detail.
For all participants, a final measure of the vIQ was obtained, following the standardized norms of
the WAIS-R (Orsini & Laicardi, 1997). The final vIQ obtained could be considered an approximation
of Italian verbal/spoken ability for oral deaf and hearing participants and an approximation of ver-
bal/LIS ability for native and late signers. For an easy reading, the terms of verbal IQ or verbal ability
were used in the following sections.
2.3.2. Social-cognitive component of ToM
The Look Prediction task (Astington, Pelletier, & Homer, 2002) and Strange Stories (White et al.,
2009) were administered to evaluate the social-cognitive component of ToM. The Look Prediction
task (Astington et al., 2002) involved the presentation of a story depicting one character having a
false belief about the second character’s belief (i.e. second-order false belief reasoning). Participants
judge what the first story character would expect the second story character to do. The story was
illustrated by four pictures.
The Look Prediction was translated into LIS and then administrated to native and late signers,
while oral deaf and hearing participants received the original form of this test. Native and late sign-
ers replied to questions using LIS; oral and hearing participants replied using oral language.
Participants were asked two control questions, one first-order false belief question, one second-or-
der false belief question, and one justification question. The answers for each type of question were
scored 1 (correct answer) or 0 (wrong or no answer). A total score was obtained by a scoring that
ranged from 0 (2 wrong control questions) to 3 (all 5 correct answers) adjusted for chance answering
(Naito & Seki, 2008), with higher scores denoting higher ability. Protocols were independently coded
by two authors of this paper; inter-rater reliability was rs > 0.98.
The Strange Stories (White et al., 2009) assess advanced ToM, that is the extent to which partici-
pant understands why a character says something that is not literally true. The task is composed of
eight stories involving double-blu, misunderstanding of intention, persuasion, and white lie (two
stories for each). The Strange Stories was translated into LIS and then administrated to native and
late signers, while oral deaf and hearing participants received the original form of this test. Native
and late signers replied to questions using LIS; oral and hearing participants replied using oral lan-
guage. After each story, the participants were required to reply to a control question (dierent for
each story) and to a test question (“Why did the character say that?”).
The answers to the Strange Stories were coded and scored as 0 (incorrect), 1 (answers containing
implicit attribution of mental states), or 2 (answers with full/explicit attribution of mental states).
Two raters independently scored the protocols. There were acceptable inter-rater correlations for all
the eight stories (rs > 0.95) and acceptable inter-item correlations (rs > 0.30). The scores for the
eight stories were summed to yield an advanced ToM measure (α = 0.74, range = 0.50–2.88) with
higher values denoting greater ability.
In the procedure section, the translation method followed is explained in greater detail.
Page 7 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
2.3.3. Social-perceptual component of ToM
The reading the mind in the eyes test-adult version (Baron-Cohen et al., 1997, 2001; Serafin & Surian,
2004; Vellante et al., 2012) was administered to evaluate the perceptual cognitive component of
ToM. The Eyes test has been used in samples of people expected to show impairment of social cogni-
tion, such as people with autism and schizophrenia (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001; Harrison, Tchanturia,
& Treasure, 2010; Kettle, O’Brien-Simpson, & Allen, 2008). The Eyes test-adult version (Baron-Cohen
et al., 1997, 2001; Serafin & Surian, 2004; Vellante et al., 2012) comprises 36 still pictures of the eye
region with four possible answers each regarding the mental state expressed through the eyes. This
task assesses the adult’s ability to read complex epistemic and emotional mental states from the
gazes. For example, an item shows a photo that presents the mental state “reflective” and the three
distractors are “aghast”, “irritated” and “impatient”. All four words are written around the photo
according to the Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) procedure. For native and late signers the four words
were translated into LIS; oral deaf and hearing participants received the original form of this test.
Participants had to choose one of the four labels by responding verbally (oral deaf and hearing par-
ticipants), using LIS (native and late signers) or pointing a finger (all groups) to the correct answer on
the paper.
Before testing, the glossary of all the mental state terms was used following the Baron-Cohen et
al. (2001) procedure. The glossary was used to prevent comprehension problems with the words
themselves from contributing to an individual’s score. Before testing, subjects were asked to read
through the glossary and indicate any word meanings of which they were unsure. Oral and hearing
participants were then encouraged to read these particular meanings. Native and late signers also
received the LIS translation of any word and any word meanings of which they were unsure. All
participants were told that they could return to this glossary at any point during the testing.
According to Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) procedure, preliminary analysis was conducted also on the
number of words in the Eyes-test about which each subject in the six groups was unsure, and then
checked in the glossary. The number of words checked never exceeded three.
According to the Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) procedure, one point was attributed for a correct reply
and 0 point for a wrong reply. Because the test comprises 36 items with four response options, the
chance to choose the right reply is p = 0.25, that means participants have to score 13 or above, out
of 36, to be performing significantly above chance (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). According to Baron-
Cohen et al. (2001) adults who had 13 or more correct answers were included in the analyses. No
subjects were excluded from the analyses. The correct replies were summed and averaged to yield
an advanced ToM measure, with higher values denoting greater ability. In the procedure section, we
explained the method followed to translate this ToM task (instruction, items, and glossary) for native
and late signers.
2.4. Procedures
The participants were all Italian. All participants were recruited in three big cities located on the
North (Verona, Padua) and South of Italy (Lecce). Deaf participants were recruited thanks the
collaborations with several national deaf societies; hearing participants were recruited within High
schools or Universities.
Inclusion criteria were: absence of diagnosis of physical illnesses/disabilities (other than deafness)
or mental disabilities. To be included in one of the three groups of deaf participants (native signers,
late signers, or oral deaf), deaf people had to show the intersection of the characteristics as defined
by the literature: presence vs. absence of hearing loss in parents; sign vs. verbal communication
mode mainly used in family; verbal vs. sign training approach vs. no training chosen by the family.
Deaf participants were included in the native signers group if they have deaf parents, learn to com-
municate by sign language from birth without any training. Deaf participants were included in the
late signers group if they have hearing parents and communicate by sign language through training.
Deaf participants were included in the oral deaf group if they have hearing parents and communi-
cate by spoken language through training. The three groups of hearing adults were paired to the
Page 8 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
three groups of deaf participants. So, to be included in one of the three hearing groups, each hearing
participant had to have the same gender, chronological, and mental age than the paired deaf
participant.
All the participants were tested by one female hearing psychologist who is an author of this study
and is a fluent Italian Sign Language user (5 years of experience issued by the ENS, which corre-
spond to the Italian National Deaf Society). Prior to the administration, all the tasks and the corre-
sponding instructions were translated into LIS for native and late signers. The following procedure
was used. All the tasks and their instructions were translated into LIS by the psychologist who was
responsible for the administration in collaboration with a LIS interpreter (registered with ANIOS -
Italian Sign Language Interpreters Association which is member of the European Forum of Sign
Language Interpreters). Independently, the same material was translated into LIS by a deaf native
signing professor who is a linguistics expert. The two translations were then compared and a final
common version was obtained. All the material was translated into sign through an approximation
of the meaning following the usual method when material is translated into LIS (Fontana, 2013;
Franchi & Maragna, 2013). Specifically, the translation was made following the LIS grammar charac-
teristics, from left-to-right order for nouns (i.e. persons-objects) as in the written form, without intro-
ducing any kind of spatial change. As a back-translation method, the experimenter and the linguistics
professor independently compared the final LIS version with the original spoken Italian version of
the tasks concluding that the two versions were truly comparable.
Each participants received written information describing the aims of the research and provided
informed consent. The participants received the tasks in two separate sessions in a quiet room. In
the first session, the participants individually completed the five verbal subtests of the WAIS-R scale
and the Standard Progressive Matrices. One week later in the second session, the participants indi-
vidually completed the Look Prediction, the Strange stories and the Eyes test.
The study followed APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and the principles
of the Declaration of Helsinki.
3. Results
3.1. Social cognitive and perceptual component of ToM in deaf and hearing participants
All the data were subjected to t-test analysis to compare each group of deaf adults (native signers,
late signers, oral deaf adults) and its hearing paired group on the social-cognitive and perceptual
component of ToM. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Means and SD (between brackets) of the three groups of deaf participants and hearing
paired participants
Native
signers
Hearing
paired
adults
Late
signers
Hearing
paired
adults
Oral deaf Hearing
paired
adults
Look
prediction
2.33 2.54 1.40 2.38 2.35 2.72
(SD = 0.61) (SD = 0.52) (SD = 1.1) (SD = 0.62) (SD = 0.60) (SD = 0.57)
Strange stories 1.8 2.2 1.21 2.2 2.06 2.35
(SD = 0.45) (SD = 0.40) (SD = 0.50) (SD = 0.48) (SD = 0.58) (SD = 0.35)
Eyes test 0.60 0.69 0.51 0.66 0.62 0.74
(SD = 0.11) (SD = 0.11) (SD = 0.07) (SD = 0.07) (SD = 0.12) (SD = 0.07)
Page 9 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
Late signers and oral deaf participants showed significant dierences both in the social-cognitive
and social-perceptual component of ToM, compared to hearing peers. Late signers showed lower
scores in Look Prediction, t(22.09) = −3.01, p = 0.006, in Strange Stories, t(28) = −5.54, p < 0.0001,
and in the Eyes-test, t(27) = −6.26, p < 0.0001, than hearing peers. Oral deaf participants showed
lower scores in Look Prediction, t(32) = −2.05, p = 0.048, in Strange Stories, t(23.87) = −2.13, p = 0.043,
and in the Eyes-test, t(32) = −3.41, p = 0.002, than hearing peers.
Native signers showed a significant dierence in the social-perceptual component of ToM (Eyes-
test) compared to hearing peers, t(29) = −2.23, p = 0.049.
3.2. Verbal IQ and ToM
Hierarchical regression analyses (HRAs) were carried out to examine whether the significant dier-
ences found between deaf and hearing participants in ToM depended on vIQ. ToM measures served as
dependent variables, vIQ (which was centered) and hearing status (which was dummy coded) served
as independent variables. In a given HRA, the predictors were: (Step 1) vIQ, (Step 2) hearing status.
The role of vIQ was considered for the comparison between native signers and hearing peers for
both components of ToM. The results indicated that the models were not significant.
When late signers and hearing peers were compared, the results indicated that vIQ was the only
significant predictor for the social-cognitive component of ToM, while hearing status was the only
significant predictor for the social-perceptual component of ToM. The results from the model are
reported in Table 3.
Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses for late signers and hearing peers
*p<0.05.
**p<0.01.
***p<0.001.
Look prediction Strange stories Eyes test
∆R2B∆R2B∆R2B
Step 1 0.18* 0.68*** 0.51***
vIQ 0.43* 0.85*** 0.71***
Step 2 0.06 0.00 0.09*
vIQ −0.01 0.80** 0.70
Group 0.51 0.03 0.62*
Total R
2
0.18* 0.68*** 0.60***
n29 29 28
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses for oral deaf and hearing peers
*p<0.05.
**p<0.01.
***p<0.001.
Look prediction Strange stories Eyes test
∆R2B∆R2B∆R2B
Step 1 0.35*** 0.39*** 0.31**
vIQ 0.59*** 0.62*** 0.56**
Step 2 0.03 0.03 0.13*
vIQ 0.54** 0.57*** 0.40
Group 0.17 0.17 0.39*
Total R
2
0.35*** 0.39*** 0.34**
n33 33 33
Page 10 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
When oral deaf adults and hearing peers were compared, the results indicated that vIQ was the
only significant predictor for the social-cognitive component of ToM, while hearing status was the
only significant predictor for the social-perceptual component of ToM. Results from the model are
shown in Table 4.
4. Discussion
As regards the first aim, when each deaf group and its hearing group were compared, the results
underlined some specificities both among the three deaf groups and the two ToM components (so-
cial-cognitive and social-perceptual components). (Tager-Flusberg, 2000) When the social-cognitive
component was considered, the results underlined that late signers and oral deaf participants had
lower scores in Look Prediction and Strange Stories than the hearing peers. Native signers’ perfor-
mance did not significantly dier from that of hearing peers.
These results expanded the evidence available on deaf children (Courtin, 2000; Courtin & Melot,
1998; de Villiers, 1997; de Villiers & de Villiers, 2000; Lecciso et al., 2013; Marchetti et al., 2006) and
confirmed results from the single study on deaf adults (Hao et al., 2010). Mainly, our results showed
that the diculties of oral deaf adults and late signers in the social-cognitive component of ToM
persist also during adulthood and pertain both standard/basic and advanced ToM level. By contrast,
native signers showed a performance similar to hearing peers to this component of ToM both in
childhood (Courtin & Melot, 1998; Peterson & Siegal, 1997, 1999; Peterson et al., 2005; Woolfe et al.,
2002) and adulthood (Hao et al., 2010).
When the social-perceptual component was analyzed, present results showed lower performance
in all of the three groups of deaf adults compared to their hearing peers in recognition of mental
states through the eyes (Eyes Test-adult version). Although research on the social-perceptual com-
ponent in deaf children and adolescents showed a progressive improvement in the recognition of
basic emotions through the eyes, (Hopyan-Misakyan et al., 2009; Most & Aviner, 2009) our results
confirmed the study (Lecciso et al., 2013) which found that diculties remained stable during adult-
hood in the recognition of complex emotion through the eyes.
A complex picture seems to emerge from our results. While late signers and oral deaf participants
performed worse than hearing peers in both components of ToM, native signers showed similar ToM
abilities to hearing peers in the social-cognitive component, but they scored lower than hearing peers
in the social-perceptual component. It seems that for native signers the two ToM components are
dissociated as previously found in autistic children (Baron-Cohen et al., 1997) who preserved the so-
cial-cognitive component but not the social-perceptual component. These specific diculties of na-
tive signers in the social-perceptual component could depend on the fact that they needed to focus
on the whole face and body gestures when interacting with other people. As demonstrated by Vinson,
Cormier, Denmark, Schembri, and Vigliocco (2008) for deaf signers emotional information must be
conveyed through visual cues like movement and position of the hands, face, eyes, torso, and shoul-
ders. Also Morgan and Wool (2007) and Roberts and Hindley (1999) stated that the hands and whole
face are the most important cues for emotional understanding for deaf signers. It follows that, com-
pared to hearing peers, they show a delay in that mentalistic comprehension based only on the visual
channel (i.e. social-perception component). The native signers’ performance in the social-cognitive
component of ToM may be due to the fact that it may require dierent ways of accessing reality,
rather than the visual-body channel. Further studies should analyze this hypothesis in greater depth.
The second aim of this research was to assess the association between verbal ability, measured as
Verbal IQ, and the two components of ToM in deaf and hearing participants. When the social-cognitive
component was analyzed, the regressions showed a significant eect of verbal ability on both second-
order false belief reasoning and understanding of implicit mental states (i.e. Strange Stories) for late
signers and for oral deaf adults. On the one hand, this finding confirmed the association between verbal
ability and ToM found in the literature on deaf children and adults (Hao et al., 2010; Russell et al., 1998).
On the other hand, this result confirmed on deaf adults Tager-Flusberg and Sullivan’s hypothesis (2000)
Page 11 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
of the association between language and the social-cognitive component. When the social-perceptual
component was analyzed, the regressions did not find significant eect of verbal ability on ToM for all
of the three groups of deaf. Specifically, for late signers and the oral deaf adults the analyses pointed
out that the only significant predictor was hearing status. Our results confirmed Wang et al’s findings
(2011) who found an association between the facial recognition of basic emotions and verbal ability in
oral deaf children. However, they did not confirm Lecciso, Petrocchi and Marchetti’s results (2013) who
found that verbal ability had an eect on Eyes Test performance of deaf children and adolescents.
It is possible that in deaf subjects there is a developmental continuum in the association between
the social-perceptual component and language in advanced ToM performance (Eyes-test adult ver-
sion). While verbal ability in childhood seems to be involved in the recognition of mental states
through the eyes, it is no more necessary in young deaf adults. These results confirm Tager-Flusberg
and Sullivan’s (2000) speculative hypothesis which states that the social-perceptual component is
not linked to verbal ability. Our findings highlighted also that deafness is the most important variable
in determining the performance of late signers and oral deaf participants and showed that the pres-
ence/absence of deafness plays a causal role for this component of ToM.
5. Conclusions
The comparisons between deaf and hearing adults underlined mentalistic diculties in both compo-
nents of ToM for late signers and oral deaf and in social-perceptual component of ToM also for native
signers. The diculties of late signers and oral deaf adults in the social-cognitive component were
not linked to their deafness status, but to their verbal IQ. It is well known that language develop-
ment is the most problematic aspect linked to deafness (Marcelli, 1989) and that it is associated with
ToM understanding (Milligan et al., 2007). Our results confirmed the evidence and showed that the
delay in this ToM component depends on language diculties and not on deafness per se.
Our results are in line with the socio-conversational hypothesis by Peterson and Siegal (1995,
1999) stating that the main factor explaining the deaf adults’ delay in mentalistic ability is the con-
versational deprivation in daily interactions with hearing caregivers from the first years of childhood.
The good performance of native signers in ToM tasks is a confirmation of this trend. Because they
share a conversational channel to communicate with parents (i.e. signs) they develop the social-
cognitive component of ToM as their hearing peers do. In that vein, an early intervention to develop
verbal ability or to reduce conversational deprivation could enhance social-cognitive ToM abilities in
late signers and oral deaf adults.
The diculties in the understanding the social-perceptual component in all three deaf groups of
deaf adults underlined that this component is the most challenging for them because it is not linked
to their verbal ability, but to deafness per se. The visual channel, the most important one for the
social-perceptual component, may be used by deaf adults in a dierent manner than hearing adults.
While for hearing people it is a preferential channel for ToM understanding, for deaf adults, espe-
cially for signers, emotional information must be conveyed through the hands and whole face
(Morgan & Woll, 2007; Roberts & Hindley, 1999).
The present study has several limitations. First, the narrowness of the three groups of deaf partici-
pants (native, signers, late signers, oral deaf) which reflects the diculty to reach large community
of deaf people as found also in other research with deaf adults (Remmel & Peters, 2009; Siegal,
1997). This is an important limitation to the generalization of the data that could be overcome with
repeated research on the same topic. Second, our study considered the vIQ as a concurrent variable
in determining the ToM performance of deaf and hearing participants. Further research are needed
on this field to analyze other variables that emerged in literature as associated with ToM, such as
interpersonal trust (Lecciso, Petrocchi, Sempio, & Marchetti, 2011; Rotenberg, Petrocchi, Lecciso, &
Marchetti, 2015) and attachment (Lecciso et al., 2013). Third, our research administered three tasks
to measure ToM: future research should analyze this ability with a wider range of instruments, for
example, to better understand the role played by the visual channel on ToM understanding.
Page 12 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interest.
Author details
Flavia Lecciso
1
E-mail: flavia.lecciso@unisalento.it
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-7402
Annalisa Levante
1
E-mail: annalisa.levante@unisalento.it
Francesca Barualdi
2
E-mail: dott.francesca.barualdi@gmail.com
Serena Petrocchi
3
E-mail: serena.petrocchi@usi.ch
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7223-8240
1
Department of History, Society and Human Studies,
Università del Salento, Via Stampacchia 47, Lecce 73100,
Italy.
2
National Association for Deaf, Trento Section, Via San
Bernardino 4, Trento 38122, Italy; CIMeC - Center for Mind/
Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Italy.
3
Institute of Communication and Health, University of
Lugano, Via Bu 13, Lugano 6900, Switzerland.
Citation information
Cite this article as: Theory of Mind in deaf adults, Flavia
Lecciso, Annalisa Levante, Francesca Barualdi & Serena
Petrocchi, Cogent Psychology(2016), 3: 1264127.
References
Apperly, I. (2012). What is “Theory of Mind”? Concepts,
cognitive processes and individual dierences. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 825–
839. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.676055
Astington, J. W., Pelletier, J., & Homer, B. (2002). Theory of Mind
and epistemological development: The relation between
children’s second-order false-belief understanding and
their ability to reason about evidence. New Ideas in
Psychology, 20, 131–144.
doi:10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00005-3
Baron-Cohen, S., Jollie, T., Mortimore, C., & Robertson, M.
(1997). Another advanced test of Theory of Mind:
Evidence from very high functioning adults with autism or
asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 38, 813–822. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.
tb01599.x
Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. (1993).
Underst anding othe r minds: Per spectives from autism .
Oxford: Oxford Press.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I.
(2001). The "reading the mind in the eyes" test revised
version: A study with normal adults, and adults with
asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251.
doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00715
Courti n, C. (2000). The impact of sign language on the
cognitive development of deaf children: The case of
theories of mind. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Educat ion, 5, 266–276. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.3.266
Courti n, C., & Melot, A. M. (1998). Development of Theory of
Mind in deaf children. In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.),
Psychological perspectives on deafness (pp. 79–102).
Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Villiers, J. G. (1997). Language, Theory of Mind and reading:
A study of oral deaf children. Paper Presented at: Society
for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.
de Villiers, P. A. (2005). The role of language in Theory of Mind
development: What deaf children tell us. In J. Astington &
J. Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for Theory of Mind
(pp. 266–297). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780195159912.001.0001
de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2000). Linguistic
determinism and the understanding of false beliefs. In P.
Mitchell & K. Riggs (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the
mind (pp. 191–228). Hove: Psychology Press.
de Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. (2002). Complements to cognition:
A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex
syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive
Development, 17, 1037–1060. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014
Fonta na, S. (2013). Tradurre lingue dei segni. Un’analisi
multidimensionale [Translating sign language. A
multidimensional analysis]. Modena: Mucchi Editore.
Franc hi, M . L., & Mara gna, S. (2013). Manuale dell’interprete
della lingua dei segni italiana. Un percorso formativo con
strumenti multimediali per l’apprendimento [Manual for
Italian sign language. Educational training path with
multimedia tools for learning]. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Gao, X., & Maurer, D. (2009). Influence of intensity on children’s
sensitivity to happy, sad, and fearful facial expressions.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 503–521.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.11.002
Gonzalez, A., Quintana, I., Barajas, C., & Linero, M. J. (2007). The
role of age and oral lexical competence in false belief
understanding by children and adolescents with hearing
loss. Vol ta R evie w, 107, 123–139.
Grin, D. R. (1978). Experimental cognitive ethology.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 555–629.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X00076548
Hao, J., Su, Y., & Chan, R. C. K. (2010). Do deaf adults with
limited language have advanced Theory of Mind?
Resear ch in Dev elopmenta l Disabil ities, 31, 1491–1501.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.06.008
Happé, F., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (1999). Acquired “Theory
of Mind” impairments following stroke. Cognition, 70,
211–240. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00005-0
Harrison, A., Tchanturia, K., & Treasure, J. (2010). Attentional
bias, emotion recognition, and emotion regulation in
anorexia: State or trait? Biological Psychiatry, 68, 755–761.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.04.037
Hopyan-Misakyan, T. M., Gordon, K. A., Dennis, M., & Papsin, B.
C. (2009). Recognition of aective speech prosody and
facial aect in deaf children with unilateral right cochlear
implants. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 136–146.
doi:10.1080/09297040802403682
Hughes, C., & Leekam, S. (2004). What are the links between
Theory of Mind and social relations? Review, reflections
and new directions for studies of typical and atypical
development. Social Development, 13, 590–619.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00285.x
Kettle , J. W., O’B rien-Sim pson, L., & Allen , N. B. ( 2008).
Impaired Theory of Mind in first-episode schizophrenia:
Comparison with community, university and depressed
controls. Schizophrenia Research, 99, 96–102.
doi:10.1016/J.Schres.2007.11.011
Lang don, R., & Colth eart, M. (2004). Recognition of metaphor
and irony in young adults: The impact of schizotypal
personality traits. Psychiatry Research, 125, 9–20.
doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2003.10.005
Lecc iso, F., Pe trocc hi, S ., & March etti, A. ( 2013). Hearing mothers
and oral deaf children: An atypical relational context for
Theory of Mind. European Journal of Psychology of
Educat ion, 28, 903–922. doi:10.1007/s10212-012-01546-1
Lecciso, F., Petrocchi, S., Savazzi, F., Marchetti, A., Nobile, M.,
& Molteni, M. (2013). The association between maternal
resolution of the diagnosis of autism, maternal mental
representations of the relationship with the child, and
children’s attachment. Life Span and Disability, 16,
21–38.
Page 13 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
Lecc iso, F., Pe trocch i, S. , Sem pio, O. L. , & M archet ti, A . (2011). A
contribution to a new tool of the relationship between
aects and mentalization: The trust story. Psicologia
Clinica Dello Sviluppo, 15, 63–93. doi:10.1449/34598
Marcelli, D. (1989). Psicopatologia del bambino [Child
psychopathology]. Parigi: Masson.
Marchetti, A., Castelli, I., Cavalli, G., Di Terlizzi, E., Lecciso, F.,
Lucc hini, B., … Vall e, A. (2013). Theory of Mind in typical
and atypical developmental settings: Some
considerations from a contextual perspective. In A.
Antonietti, E. Confalonieri, & A. Marchetti (Eds.), Reflective
thinking in educational settings (pp. 102–136). Cambridge:
Cambri dge Univer sity Press .
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139198745
Marchetti, A., Liverta-Sempio, O., & Lecciso, F. (2006). The silent
understanding of the mind: The deaf child. In A.
Antonietti, O. Liverta-Sempio, & A. Marchetti (Eds.), Theory
of Mind and language in developmental contexts (pp.
121–147). New York, NY: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b106493
Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and
Theory of Mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between
language ability and false-belief understanding. Child
Development, 78, 622–646.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x
Morgan, G., & Woll, B. (2007). Understanding sign language
classifiers through a polycomponential approach. Lingua,
117, 1159–1168. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.006
Most, T., & Aviner, C. (2009). Auditory, visual, and auditory-
visual perception of emotions by individuals with cochlear
implants, hearing aids, and normal hearing. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 449–464.
doi:10.1093/deafed/enp007
Naito, M., & Seki, Y. (2008). The relationship second-order false
belief and display rules reasoning: The integration of
cognitive and aective social understanding.
Developmental Science, 12, 150–164.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00748.x
Orsini, A., & Laicardi, C. (1997). WAIS-R. Cont ributo all a taratura
italiana [WAIS-R. Contribution for the Italian
standardization]. Firenze: Giunti OS.
Peters on, C., & Siegal, M. (1995). Deafness, conversation and
Theory of Mind. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
36, 459–474. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01303.x
Peters on, C., & Siegal, M. (1997). Domain specificity and
everyday biological, physical and psychological thinking in
normal, autistic and deaf children. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 1997, 55–70.
doi:10.1002/cd.23219977505
Peters on, C., & Siegal, M. (1999). Representing inner worlds:
Theory of Mind in autistic, deaf, and normal hearing
children. Psychological Science, 10, 126–129.
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00119
Peters on, C., Well man, H. M ., & Liu, D. (2005). Steps in theory-
of-mind development for children with deafness or
autism. Child Development, 76, 502–517.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00859.x
Plesa Skwerer, D. P., Verbalis, A., Schofield, C., & Tager-Flusberg,
H. (2006). Social perceptual abilities in adolescents and
adults with Williams syndrome. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 23, 338–349.
doi:10.1080/02643290542000076
Pyers, J. E., & Senghas, A. (2009). Language promotes false-
belief understanding: Evidence from learners of a new
sign language. Psychological Science, 20, 805–812.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02377.x
Raven, J. C. (2008). Standard progressive matrices. Firenze:
Giunti OS.
Remmel, E., & Peters, K. (2009). Theory of Mind and language
in children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 14, 218–236. doi:10.1093/deafed/
enn036
Roberts , C., & Hin dley, P. (1999). Practitioner review: The
assessment and treatment of deaf children with
psychiatric disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40, 151–167. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00430
Rotenbe rg, K. J., Pe trocchi, S., Lecciso, F., & Marchetti , A. (2015).
The relation between children’s trust beliefs and Theory of
Mind abilities. Infant and Child Development, 24, 206–214.
doi:10.1002/icd.1891
Russell, P. A., Hosie, J. A., Gray, C. D., Scott, C., Hunter, N., Banks,
J. S., & Macaulay, M. C. (1998). The development of Theory
of Mind in deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 39, 903–910. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00390
Rutherford, M. D. (2004). The eect of social role on Theory of
Mind reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 91–103.
doi:10.1348/000712604322779488
Schick, B., de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J., & Homeister, R. (2007).
Lang uage and Th eory of Mi nd: A stud y of deaf childr en.
Child Development, 78, 376–396.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01004.x
Serafin, M., & Surian, L. (2004). Il test degli occhi: Uno
strumento per valutare la Teoria della Mente [The eyes-
test: A tool for Theory of Mind evaluation]. Giornale
Itali ano Di Psicolo gia, 4, 839–862. doi:10.1421/18849
Siegal, M. (1997). Knowing children: Experiments in
conversation and cognition. Hove: Psychology Press.
Sullivan, K., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (1999). Second-order belief
attribution in williams syndrome: Intact or impaired?
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104, 523–532.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(1999)104<0523:SBA
IWS>2.0.CO;2
Tag er -F lus be rg , H . (1997). Research on communication and
language disorders: Contribution to theories of language
development. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Tag er -F lus be rg , H . (2000). Language and understanding minds:
connections in autism. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-
Flusberg, & J. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds:
Perspec tives from developmental cog nitive neurosc ience
(pp. 1–45). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Tag er -F lus be rg , H ., & S ull iv an , K . (1994). Predicting and
explaining behavior: A comparison of autistic, mentally
retarded and normal chi ldren. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 35, 1059–1075.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01809.x
Tag er -F lus be rg , H ., & S ull iv an , K . (2000). A componential view
of Theory of Mind: Evidence from Williams syndrome.
Cognition., 76, 59–90.
doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00069-X
Vellante, M., Baron-Cohen, S., Melis, M., Marrone, M., Petretto, D.
R., Masala, C., & Preti, A. (2012). The “reading the mind in the
eyes” test: Systematic review of psychometric properties
and validation study in Italy. Cogniti ve Ne urops ychia try, 18,
326–354. doi:10.1080/13546805.2012.721728
Vinson, D. P., Cormier, K., Denmark, T., Schembri, A., & Vigliocco,
G. (2008). The British sign language (BSL) norms for age of
acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research
Methods, 40, 1079–1087. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1079
Wang , Y., S u, Y., Fang, P., & Zhou, Q. ( 2011). Facial expression
recognition: Can preschoolers with cochlear implants and
hearing aids catch it? Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 32, 2583–2588. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.06.019
White, S., Hill, E., Happè, F., & Frith, U. (2009). Revisiting the
strange stories: Revealing mentalizing impairments in
autism. Child Development, 80, 1097–1117.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01319.x
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs:
Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs
in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition,
13, 103–128. doi:10.1016/0010-0277
Wool fe, T., Want, S. C. , & S iegal , M. (2002). Signposts to
development: Theory of Mind in deaf children. Child
Development, 73, 768–778.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00437
Page 14 of 14
Lecciso et al., Cogent Psychology (2016),
3: 1264127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264127
© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Cogent Psychology (ISSN: 2331-1908) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
