Beauchamp 2020 Chapter-21---Social-cognition_2020_Handbook-of-Clinical-Neurology

Prévia do material em texto

<p>Chapter 21</p><p>Social cognition</p><p>CINDY BEAUDOIN AND MIRIAM H. BEAUCHAMP*</p><p>Research Centre, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, Department of Psychology, Universit�e de Montr�eal,</p><p>Montr�eal, QC, Canada</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Social cognition refers to a complex set of mental abilities underlying social stimulus perception, proces-</p><p>sing, interpretation, and response. Together, these abilities support the development of adequate social</p><p>competence and adaptation. Social cognition has a protracted development through infancy to adulthood.</p><p>Given the preponderance of social dysfunctions across neurologic conditions, social cognition is now</p><p>recognized as a core domain of functioning that warrants clinical attention. This chapter provides an over-</p><p>view of the construct of social cognition, defines some of the most clinically significant sociocognitive</p><p>abilities (face processing, facial expression processing, joint attention, theory of mind, empathy, andmoral</p><p>processing), and introduces the neural networks and frameworks associated with these abilities. Broad</p><p>principles for understanding the development of social cognition are presented, and a summary of norma-</p><p>tive developmental milestones of clinically relevant sociocognitive abilities is proposed. General guide-</p><p>lines for sound social cognition assessment in children and adolescents are summarized.</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>Most of human behavior involves social interaction, and</p><p>social behavior and communication begin as early as life</p><p>itself, through manifestations such as the first social</p><p>smile (Murray et al., 2016), imitation (Meltzoff and</p><p>Moore, 1989), parent–infant synchrony (Feldman,</p><p>2007), interactional turn-taking (Bourvis et al., 2018),</p><p>and joint attention (Kristen et al., 2011), to name a</p><p>few. Among all social animals, humans develop the most</p><p>intricate social abilities and, compared to most objects,</p><p>humans and social environments comprise stimuli that</p><p>are more complex to process. Social stimuli require</p><p>individuals to acquire and fine-tune a large range of abil-</p><p>ities over the course of development allowing them to</p><p>perceive, recognize, process, interpret, and respond to</p><p>often subtle, multiple, contradictory, and changing social</p><p>cues. Together, the refinement of these diverse abilities</p><p>contributes to an individual’s social competence across</p><p>the lifespan.</p><p>Smooth and adaptative social interactions depend on</p><p>the recruitment of virtually all core cognitive functions</p><p>(e.g., perception, attention, language, memory, executive</p><p>functions) as well as more specific mental abilities</p><p>referred to as “social cognition.”. Social cognition is</p><p>an umbrella term defined as “the ability to recognize,</p><p>manipulate and behave with respect to socially relevant</p><p>information (… and) requires neural systems that process</p><p>perception of social signals and that connect such percep-</p><p>tion to motivation, emotion, and adaptive behavior.”</p><p>(Adolphs, 2001, p. 231). Social cognition includes rela-</p><p>tively basic abilities, such as face processing and joint</p><p>attention, and more complex ones, such as theory of</p><p>mind, moral reasoning, and social decision-making</p><p>(Kilford et al., 2016). Some conceptualizations of social</p><p>cognition further distinguish between abilities involved</p><p>in affective (“hot”; e.g., facial expression processing)</p><p>vs cognitive (“cold”; e.g., understanding cognitive men-</p><p>tal states such as beliefs and intentions) processing</p><p>(Etchepare and Prouteau, 2017). Table 21.1 provides</p><p>*Correspondence to:MiriamH. Beauchamp, Department of Psychology, University ofMontreal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville,</p><p>Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada. Tel: +1-514-343-6111x35171, Fax: +1-514-343-2285, E-mail: miriam.beauchamp@umontreal.ca</p><p>Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Vol. 173 (3rd series)</p><p>Neurocognitive Development: Normative Development</p><p>A. Gallagher, C. Bulteau, D. Cohen and J.L. Michaud, Editors</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8</p><p>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8</p><p>definitions of some of the main sociocognitive abilities</p><p>referred to in this chapter, along with a selection of</p><p>relevant work that addresses their development. This list</p><p>is by no means exhaustive and represents only some</p><p>of the abilities most relevant to pediatric neurology.</p><p>Broader representations of sociocognitive constructs</p><p>can be found in the social neuroscience and social psy-</p><p>chology literature (Happ�e and Frith, 2014; Fiske and</p><p>Taylor, 2017).</p><p>The rise of the discipline of social neurosciences in the</p><p>early 1990s has contributed significantly to the establish-</p><p>ment of knowledge on the neural systems involved in</p><p>social cognition known jointly as the “social brain”</p><p>(Adolphs, 2009). Key regions of the social brain include</p><p>the amygdala, orbital frontal cortex, superior temporal</p><p>sulcus, temporoparietal junction, temporal pole, and</p><p>insula (see Fig. 21.1; Kennedy and Adolphs, 2012).</p><p>The social brain network can be subdivided into specific</p><p>subsystems that support distinct sociocognitive abilities</p><p>(Kennedy and Adolphs, 2012; Beauchamp, 2017; Peter,</p><p>2018). Table 21.2 presents some of these sociocognitive</p><p>functions and the main brain regions that underpin them</p><p>according to empirical literature. The makeup of these</p><p>social networks has been elucidated through neuro-</p><p>psychologic studies (Yovel and Kanwisher, 2004;</p><p>Rodrigues, 2018) and via structural (Rice et al., 2014;</p><p>Sato et al., 2016) and functional neuroimaging methods</p><p>(Tsao et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2018), including work</p><p>confirming strong functional connectivity between</p><p>social brain regions (McCormick et al., 2018). From a</p><p>clinical perspective, establishing knowledge on the</p><p>existence and functioning of these social brain networks</p><p>provides a sound basis for the study of brain–behavior</p><p>relations underlying the social manifestations of neuro-</p><p>logic conditions (discussed in section “Etiologies of</p><p>neurodevelopmental disorders” of this Handbook).</p><p>Table 21.1</p><p>Definitions of selected core sociocognitive abilities discussed in this chapter and relevant developmental literature</p><p>Socio-cognitive</p><p>abilities Proposed definitions</p><p>Selected literature addressing</p><p>development of</p><p>sociocognitive abilities</p><p>Face processing Ability to process visual facial stimuli. Can be divided into</p><p>subcomponents:</p><p>● Face detection (i.e., ability to distinguish faces from other stimuli)</p><p>● Face discrimination/recognition (i.e., ability to discriminate between</p><p>different people, including between individuals and group members,</p><p>such as by sex or by race)</p><p>● Eye and gaze processing (i.e., ability to process visual stimuli associated</p><p>with the eye region)</p><p>Itier and Batty (2009), Scherf</p><p>and Scott (2012), Simion</p><p>and Giorgio (2015),</p><p>Sugden and Marquis</p><p>(2017)</p><p>Facial expression</p><p>processing</p><p>Ability to detect, attend to, and recognize affect-relevant information</p><p>through face processing</p><p>Lepp€anen (2011), Somerville</p><p>et al. (2011), Garcia and</p><p>Scherf (2015)</p><p>Joint attention Coordination of one’s own attention with that of another, resulting in</p><p>sharing a common point of reference</p><p>Peter (2018)</p><p>Theory of mind Ability to understand another person’s perspective and to infer mental</p><p>states of self and others, including affective (e.g., desires, emotions) and</p><p>cognitive states (e.g., knowledge, beliefs). May be subdivided, for</p><p>example, into first order theory of mind (the ability to infer another</p><p>person’s mental state) and second order theory of mind (the ability to</p><p>infer one’s mental state about another’s mental state)</p><p>Carlson et al. (2013),</p><p>Slaughter (2015)</p><p>Empathy Process whereby individuals share a feeling state with another while being</p><p>aware that this feeling state is more appropriate to the other’s situation</p><p>than theirs. Precursors/components include affective contagion, the</p><p>process by which exposure to another’s emotion leads to a matching</p><p>state in the witness</p><p>Decety and Meyer (2008),</p><p>Decety (2010), Tousignant</p><p>et al. (2017), Hoffman</p><p>(2000)</p><p>Moral processing Ability to reason/make decisions about one’s own and other’s behaviors in</p><p>terms of right or wrong. Moral</p><p>processing includes moral judgment,</p><p>moral reasoning, and moral decision-making</p><p>Decety et al. (2011), Heiphetz</p><p>and Young (2014),</p><p>Garrigan et al. (2016)</p><p>256 C. BEAUDOIN AND M.H. BEAUCHAMP</p><p>DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL COGNITION</p><p>IN CHILDREN</p><p>The maturation of social cognition is a protracted</p><p>developmental process. A number of theoretical models</p><p>propose comprehensive approaches explaining how</p><p>various environmental, cognitive, and biologic factors</p><p>combine to support the development of social compe-</p><p>tence (Crick and Dodge, 1994; Ochsner, 2008;</p><p>Beauchamp and Anderson, 2010), and how social func-</p><p>tioning may be disrupted in the context of brain insults</p><p>(Yeates et al., 2007; Cassel et al., 2016). Despite some</p><p>Amygdala</p><p>Insula</p><p>TPJ</p><p>dMPFC</p><p>Anterior cingulate</p><p>STS/STG</p><p>Posterior cingulate</p><p>Retrosplenial cortex</p><p>FFA</p><p>Temporal pole</p><p>vMPFC/OFC</p><p>Extrastriate body area</p><p>Fig. 21.1. Representation of the key structures of the social brain, as proposed by Kennedy and Adolphs (2012). dMPFC, dor-</p><p>somedial prefrontal cortex; FFA, fusiform face area; STS/STG, superior temporal sulcus/gyrus; TPJ, temporoparietal junction;</p><p>vMPFC/OFC, ventromedial prefrontal cortex/orbitofrontal cortex. FromKennedy DP, Adolphs R (2012). The social brain in psy-</p><p>chiatric and neurological disorders. Trends Cogn Sci 16: 559–572. Copyright 2012 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.</p><p>Table 21.2</p><p>Summary of social brain networks, as described by Beauchamp (2017), Kennedy and Adolphs (2012), and Mundy (2018)</p><p>Social brain networks Sociocognitive functions Key brain regions involved</p><p>Amygdala Network Emotional evaluation and regulation, detecting</p><p>socially salient stimuli (e.g., threat detection),</p><p>social affiliative behaviors</p><p>Amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex</p><p>Mentalizing Network Theory of mind; thinking about the internal</p><p>states of others</p><p>Medial prefrontal cortex, superior temporal sulcus,</p><p>temporoparietal junction, temporal poles</p><p>Empathy Network Detecting and responding emotionally to</p><p>others’ distress</p><p>Anterior cingulate cortex, parts of the</p><p>somatosensory cortex, anterior insula</p><p>Mirror/Simulation/</p><p>Action–perception</p><p>Network</p><p>Observation of the actions of others, including</p><p>emotional expressions</p><p>Parietal and prefrontal regions containing neurons</p><p>that are responsive both to observed and</p><p>executed actions</p><p>Joint Attention</p><p>Network</p><p>Coordination of attention with that of another</p><p>person</p><p>Dorsal and medial frontal cortex, orbitofrontal</p><p>cortex, insula, anterior and posterior cingulate</p><p>cortex, superior temporal cortex, precuneus/</p><p>parietal cortex, amygdala, nodes of the basal</p><p>ganglia including the striatum</p><p>Moral Brain Moral processing Anterior cingulate, orbital, frontopolar and</p><p>ventromedial cortices, temporoparietal junction,</p><p>amygdala, posterior cingulate cortex</p><p>Note:The brain regions presented are generally those corresponding to amature brain. Inmany cases the developing social brain has been shown to</p><p>be less specialized and more diffuse (Peter, 2018). More research is needed to identify neural networks activated at different developmental stages.</p><p>SOCIAL COGNITION 257</p><p>conceptual differences, there is agreement across these</p><p>models that the development of social skills and mainte-</p><p>nance of adequate social competence across the lifespan</p><p>is an interactional biopsychosocial process subject to the</p><p>complex, dynamic interplay of brain development, social</p><p>cognition, as well as internal (e.g., temperament, demo-</p><p>graphics) and external (e.g., social environment, parent–</p><p>child interactions, culture) factors.</p><p>The development of social cognition itself has not</p><p>been subject to a single unified model. However, from</p><p>the body of empirical literature on social cognition</p><p>emerge a number of observations that provide broad</p><p>principles for understanding the development of social</p><p>cognition (see Table 21.1 for definitions of sociocogni-</p><p>tive abilities discussed herein).</p><p>Social cognition emerges as a result</p><p>of a developmental cascade</p><p>The acquisition of basic sociocognitive abilities encour-</p><p>ages the refinement ofmore complex ones. For example,</p><p>newborns present an attentional bias toward visual</p><p>facial stimuli, which predisposes them to developing</p><p>facial expression processing (e.g., ability to discrimi-</p><p>nate between basic facial expressions by 9–12 months</p><p>of age) and joint attention (e.g., responses to joint</p><p>attention demands appear and increase between 2 and</p><p>12 months of age) (Lepp€anen, 2011; Somerville et al.,</p><p>2011; Walle and Campos, 2012; Bayet et al., 2014;</p><p>Happ�e and Frith, 2014; Simion and Giorgio, 2015;</p><p>Peter, 2018). Similarly, stimulation of joint attention</p><p>in infancy is a prerequisite for the emergence of theory</p><p>of mind during the preschool years (Derksen et al.,</p><p>2018; Peter, 2018). In turn, emotion processing along</p><p>with theory of mind are both part of the social infor-</p><p>mation process that supports empathy (Bird and</p><p>Viding, 2014). These essential childhood sociocog-</p><p>nitive building blocks (facial expression processing,</p><p>theory of mind, empathy) then contribute to moral</p><p>processes, such as the ability to justify one’s actions</p><p>in conflictual social situations and to make socially</p><p>appropriate decisions (Garrigan et al., 2016).</p><p>Sociocognitive and global development</p><p>are mutually dependent</p><p>Sociocognitive abilities interact with other cognitive and</p><p>affective functions (e.g., executive functions, memory,</p><p>language, motivation, emotions) throughout develop-</p><p>ment (Beauchamp and Anderson, 2010; Happ�e and</p><p>Frith, 2014; Beauchamp, 2017). For example, the devel-</p><p>opment of executive functions and language promotes</p><p>elaboration of a theory of mind (Carlson et al., 2015;</p><p>Derksen et al., 2018), and motivational and emotional</p><p>responses play an important role in social cognition</p><p>and competence in adolescence (Kilford et al., 2016).</p><p>In addition, social cognition is also involved in the</p><p>progression of other cognitive functions. For example,</p><p>joint attention is crucial for language development</p><p>(Peter, 2018) and theory of mind is associated with social</p><p>communication skills (Matthews et al., 2018). This</p><p>connection between sociocognitive and more general</p><p>cognitive and affective maturation is also supported by</p><p>functional connectivity between the social brain and</p><p>other brain regions (McCormick et al., 2018).</p><p>Sociocognitive development is driven</p><p>by biologic processes</p><p>In addition to relying on neural bases within the social</p><p>brain, other neurobiologic phenomena drive social</p><p>processing and behavior. For example, in adolescence,</p><p>hormone surges and variations during puberty are</p><p>associated with intensified social behaviors (e.g., aggres-</p><p>sion, risk-taking; Peper and Dahl, 2013), socio-affective</p><p>reactivity (e.g., affective salience of social rejection,</p><p>motivational salience of social status; Crone and Dahl,</p><p>2012), and with sociocognitive abilities (e.g., inferring</p><p>complex mixed social emotions; Burnett et al., 2011).</p><p>Physiologic processes implicated in puberty also drive</p><p>increased functional connectivity in the mentalizing</p><p>network of the social brain (Klapwijk et al., 2013).</p><p>Sociocognitive development is subject</p><p>to environmental influence</p><p>Environmental processes further shape social cognition</p><p>and behavior (Crone and Dahl, 2012; Garrigan et al.,</p><p>2016). For example, adolescents who have more friends</p><p>exhibit less insula reactivity, which is generally associ-</p><p>ated with rejection-related distress, when exposed to</p><p>rejection (Masten et al., 2012). Likewise, the consolida-</p><p>tion of social rules through social experiences and social</p><p>participation contributes to the development of moral</p><p>processing (Garrigan et al., 2016).</p><p>Sociocognitive development is protracted</p><p>and continues across the lifespan</p><p>Most social cognition abilities continue to mature long</p><p>after their emergence, and so, can rarely be dichotomized</p><p>as fully acquired or not. For example, facial expression</p><p>processing is rudimentary, but present in newborns,</p><p>and then continues to mature well into adulthood</p><p>(Garcia and Scherf, 2015). The ability to imitate and pro-</p><p>duce facial expressions also emerges and improves</p><p>through childhood (Grossard</p><p>et al., 2018). Even when</p><p>a sociocognitive skill seems stable and mature, and even</p><p>though the functional organization of the social brain is in</p><p>place in late childhood (McCormick et al., 2018),</p><p>258 C. BEAUDOIN AND M.H. BEAUCHAMP</p><p>ongoing neurofunctional specialization can result in</p><p>further improvements such as shorter reaction times for</p><p>face processing and theory of mind (Brizio et al.,</p><p>2015; Nelson et al., 2016).</p><p>These observations have led theorists to conceptual-</p><p>ize the developmental trajectory of complex sociocog-</p><p>nitive abilities as dynamic and gradual rather than</p><p>following well-defined, incremental stages (Garrigan</p><p>et al., 2016). As such, defining precise milestones for</p><p>each sociocognitive skill constitutes a sizeable challenge.</p><p>Fig. 21.2 presents an attempt to provide clinicians with</p><p>some broad signposts for tracking the acquisition of</p><p>selected sociocognitive abilities. It also illustrates some</p><p>general observations highlighted in this chapter regard-</p><p>ing the development of social cognition. In particular,</p><p>the schematic outlines the presence of several basic</p><p>sociocognitive skills in infancy, the protracted develop-</p><p>ment and gradual refinement of these abilities across</p><p>childhood, and the concomitant development of multiple</p><p>skills. Again, only selected sociocognitive abilities are</p><p>presented, with other attempts to depict the breadth of</p><p>social cognition available elsewhere (Adolphs, 2010;</p><p>Happ�e and Frith, 2014). Readers are also invited to con-</p><p>sult targeted literature on the development of additional</p><p>sociocognitive abilities, such as trait attribution (e.g.,</p><p>Repacholi et al., 2016), voice processing (e.g., Gil</p><p>et al., 2016), body knowledge (e.g., Bhatt et al., 2016),</p><p>and social identity (e.g., Mahajan and Wynn, 2012).</p><p>SOCIAL COGNITION ASSESSMENT</p><p>IN CHILDREN</p><p>Given that social cognition relies on large-scale brain</p><p>networks and is determined by various biologic, cogni-</p><p>tive, and environmental processes, social functioning</p><p>may be disrupted in the context of many psychiatric</p><p>(e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder), neurodevelop-</p><p>mental (e.g., autism spectrum disorder), acquired (e.g.,</p><p>traumatic brain injury), and environmental (e.g., mal-</p><p>treatment) conditions (Benarous et al., 2015; Cotter</p><p>et al., 2018). Accordingly, social cognition is now</p><p>included as a core cognitive domain in the assessment</p><p>Moral</p><p>reasoning/</p><p>decision-</p><p>making</p><p>Theory of</p><p>mind (TOM)</p><p>Joint</p><p>attention</p><p>Empathy</p><p>Facial</p><p>expression</p><p>processing</p><p>Face</p><p>processing</p><p>Preference for</p><p>prosocial individuals</p><p>Implicit</p><p>TOM</p><p>Use of mental states terms,</p><p>attempts to manipulate others</p><p>First order TOM Second order</p><p>TOM</p><p>Pointing, showing</p><p>Joint attention</p><p>Sensitivity to</p><p>ostension</p><p>Affective resonance</p><p>and contagion</p><p>Attraction to smiling faces</p><p>Attentional biais toward</p><p>face-like stimuli</p><p>Neonatal period Infancy Early childhood Middle to late</p><p>childhood</p><p>Adolescence Early adulthood</p><p>Face detection.</p><p>face discrimination</p><p>Ongoing improvement in the ability to recognize identity using faces</p><p>Discrimination of basic</p><p>facial expressions,</p><p>social referencing</p><p>Matching and labeling basic</p><p>facial expressions</p><p>Recognition of complex cognitive (e.g.,</p><p>contemplative) and social (e.g., shame)</p><p>emotions</p><p>Concerns</p><p>for harmed</p><p>individuals</p><p>Comforting,</p><p>Helping, attempts</p><p>to prevent harm</p><p>Ongoing improvement in regulation and selectivity of empathic responses</p><p>Understanding of non-literal</p><p>language</p><p>Sensitivity</p><p>to fairness</p><p>Acquisition of</p><p>moral rules</p><p>Emergence of moral</p><p>emotions</p><p>Ongoing increase of moral reasoning flexibility</p><p>Fig. 21.2. Graphic representation of the developmental milestones of selected core sociocognitive functions. Broad developmen-</p><p>tal periods are presented on the Y axis, and selected sociocognitive functions are presented on the X axis and illustrated using</p><p>different colors. Horizontal bars represent sociocognitive abilities that emerge or improve during the corresponding developmental</p><p>periods. These sociocognitive functions were chosen because they are generally representative of those that have received themost</p><p>attention in the study of pediatric clinical conditions and because they are discussed in this chapter. Ages are approximate, subject</p><p>to individual and cultural differences, and dependent on the availability of research assessing these sociocognitive processes at</p><p>different ages. Thus, the schematic is not exhaustive, but does illustrate sociocognitive development patterns and general</p><p>milestones.</p><p>SOCIAL COGNITION 259</p><p>recommendations of the Diagnostic and Statistical</p><p>Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V; American</p><p>Psychiatric Association, 2013) and in the National</p><p>Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)</p><p>Common Data Elements (CDE), as well as in the context</p><p>of research on disorders of mental health (Gur and Gur,</p><p>2016). Despite acknowledgment that it is critical in both</p><p>research and clinical practice, the development of stan-</p><p>dardized sociocognitive evaluation tools could benefit</p><p>from novel approaches that heighten ecologic value and</p><p>that optimally reflect the complexity of social stimuli</p><p>(Beauchamp, 2017). Assessment of social cognition is</p><p>also curtailed by the absence of a unified taxonomy.</p><p>Confusion can arise when different constructs are used</p><p>to refer to the same sociocognitive processes measured</p><p>using the same task. For example, in the Mind in the</p><p>Eyes task (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001), children are asked</p><p>to pick a word that best describes what a person is feeling</p><p>or thinking by analyzing a photograph of the eye region.</p><p>Some studies interpret poor performance on this task as</p><p>reduced empathy (Chapman et al., 2006), while others</p><p>conclude that their population manifests impaired theory</p><p>of mind (Henry et al., 2015), and yet others report deficits</p><p>in facial expression processing (Oakley et al., 2016).</p><p>These challenges notwithstanding, there are a number</p><p>of principles that should be promoted in the assessment</p><p>of social cognition.</p><p>Social cognition cannot always be inferred</p><p>from everyday social behavior</p><p>Due to their complexity, the integrity of sociocognitive</p><p>processes cannot be directly inferred from observations</p><p>of social functioning and behavior. For example, on</p><p>one hand, several sociocognitive problems (e.g., poor</p><p>theory of mind, impaired facial expression processing)</p><p>may result in lack of empathic behavior such as altruism.</p><p>On the other hand, a child can demonstrate intact socio-</p><p>cognitive functioning, but fail to display altruistic behav-</p><p>ior for other reasons (e.g., motivational or affective</p><p>factors). Notably, high level sociocognitive abilities</p><p>can be used either in prosocial or antisocial ways. For</p><p>example, good theory of mind can promote cooperation</p><p>and altruism but is also useful for manipulating and lying</p><p>to others (Mansfield and Clinchy, 2002; Bird and Viding,</p><p>2014; Slaughter, 2015).</p><p>Diverse cognitive deficits can lead to the same</p><p>manifestation of social dysfunction</p><p>Given that social competence relies on the integration of</p><p>a number of sociocognitive and cognitive functions,</p><p>manifestations of social dysfunction may be attributable</p><p>to a number of sources. For example, a child who cannot</p><p>understand sarcasm could have impairments in general</p><p>cognitive functions (e.g., receptive language, general</p><p>reasoning abilities) or in more specific sociocognitive</p><p>functions (e.g., facial or vocal expression processing,</p><p>theory of mind). In other words, the cognitive etiology</p><p>of social dysfunction can be relatively specific (e.g.,</p><p>deficits in face processing with relatively spared global</p><p>cognition, such as seen in congenital prosopagnosia;</p><p>Susilo, 2018) or can be the result of more diffuse deficits</p><p>(e.g., early visual attention deficits leading to missed</p><p>social cues and consequently to poor face processing,</p><p>such as in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; Tye</p><p>et al., 2013). Social cognition assessment should there-</p><p>fore be part of an extensive, comprehensive, cognitive</p><p>evaluation.</p><p>Distinct conditions present unique</p><p>sociocognitive profiles</p><p>There is mounting evidence to support the notion that</p><p>social cognition is disrupted</p><p>or altered in a range of</p><p>conditions (Dickerson, 2015; Cotter et al., 2018). For</p><p>example, in autism spectrum disorders, joint attention,</p><p>face processing, facial expression processing, theory</p><p>of mind, and empathy might reasonably be expected</p><p>to be altered (Bird and Viding, 2014; Henry et al.,</p><p>2015; Peter, 2018). Other conditions presented in Part</p><p>2 of the Handbook have also been associated with dis-</p><p>tinct sociocognitive alterations, including some genetic</p><p>disorders such as Fragile-X syndrome (i.e., facial</p><p>expression processing and aspect of theory of mind,</p><p>namely, faux pas understanding; Turkstra et al.,</p><p>2014), prematurity (e.g., face processing; Telford</p><p>et al., 2016), teratogenic agent-related disorders such</p><p>as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (e.g., theory ofmind;</p><p>Lindinger et al., 2016), traumatic brain injury (e.g.,</p><p>empathy, facial and vocal expression processing, theory</p><p>of mind, and moral reasoning/decision-making;</p><p>Beauchamp et al., 2013; McDonald, 2013; Bellerose</p><p>et al., 2017), language disorders (e.g., theory of mind;</p><p>Andr�es-Roqueta et al., 2016), attention deficit/hyperac-</p><p>tivity disorder (i.e., face processing, facial and vocal</p><p>expression processing and theory of mind; Tye et al.,</p><p>2013; Bora and Pantelis, 2015), learning disabilities such</p><p>as dyslexia (e.g., theory of mind; Eyuboglu et al., 2018),</p><p>nonverbal dysfunction syndrome (e.g., facial expression</p><p>processing; Metsala et al., 2017), intellectual disability</p><p>(e.g., theory of mind and moral processing; Baurain</p><p>and Nader-Grosbois, 2013), and temporal lobe epilepsy</p><p>(i.e., theory of mind and facial expression processing;</p><p>Bora and Meletti, 2016). Each of these conditions pre-</p><p>sents variations in the nature and intensity of socio-</p><p>cognitive difficulties, and thus the target domains of</p><p>260 C. BEAUDOIN AND M.H. BEAUCHAMP</p><p>sociocognitive assessment should be tailored and guided</p><p>by empirical literature on specific conditions.</p><p>Subcomponents of a sociocognitive ability</p><p>may not be uniformly affected within a single</p><p>condition</p><p>Within a single clinical condition, selected components</p><p>of a given sociocognitive ability might be preserved</p><p>whereas other components might be altered. One of</p><p>the most studied conditions with respect to social cog-</p><p>nition is ASD. Drawing on work in moral processing as</p><p>an example, individuals with ASD have been shown to</p><p>have intact understanding of what defines the moral</p><p>aspects of a situation and of the importance of such sit-</p><p>uations (Grant et al., 2005), but exhibit a tendency to</p><p>focus on the outcome of a behavior, as opposed to</p><p>the intention behind a behavior, to judge its morality</p><p>(Margoni and Surian, 2016), suggesting that all pro-</p><p>cesses are not systematically affected by the condition.</p><p>Moreover, some argue that individuals with ASD do</p><p>not exhibit true alterations in moral reasoning, but</p><p>rather the differential performance on moral reasoning</p><p>tasks may stem from underlying particularities in other</p><p>sociocognitive abilities such as facial expression pro-</p><p>cessing or theory of mind (Bird and Viding, 2014;</p><p>Margoni and Surian, 2016). These examples caution</p><p>against drawing broad, all-encompassing conclusions</p><p>about the integrity of a sociocognitive ability without</p><p>having investigated its subcomponents and the way</p><p>they were measured.</p><p>Sociocognitive assessment must</p><p>be developmentally appropriate</p><p>Given the rapid evolution and maturation of socio-</p><p>cognitive skills, it is critical to rely on measures with</p><p>appropriate developmental approaches and norms.</p><p>While this notion might seem obvious, the relatively</p><p>recent translation of social cognition toward clinical</p><p>practice and the paucity of clinically sensitive tools</p><p>suggests it is useful to highlight. For example, success</p><p>on the False-Belief Paradigm, a classic theory of mind</p><p>task (Wimmer and Perner, 1983), is gradually achieved</p><p>between the ages of 3 and 5 years in typically develop-</p><p>ing children, and is therefore not an appropriatemeasure</p><p>of theory of mind in younger or older children. In the</p><p>same vein, measures that rely on verbal responses</p><p>(e.g., labeling facial expressions) or that require sound</p><p>working memory capacities (e.g., complex theory of</p><p>mind scenarios) should logically be avoided in very</p><p>young children.</p><p>Sociocognitive assessment should rely on</p><p>measures that have good psychometric</p><p>properties</p><p>This well-established principle of cognitive assessment</p><p>(American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology,</p><p>2007; American Educational Research Association</p><p>et al., 2014) evidently holds for the domain of social</p><p>cognition. However, given social cognition assessment</p><p>approaches have not reached maturity, gold standards</p><p>are currently lacking. Nevertheless, global social compe-</p><p>tence can be described using broad social functioning</p><p>and behavior questionnaires (for a review, see Crowe</p><p>et al., 2011), while general guidelines for direct sociocog-</p><p>nitive assessments are available (Henry et al., 2015;</p><p>Beauchamp, 2017). There also exist reviews of common</p><p>assessment methods for sociocognitive abilities such as</p><p>facial expression processing (Paiva-Silva et al., 2016),</p><p>theory of mind (Manuel, 2010; Ziatabar Ahmadi et al.,</p><p>2015; Hayward and Homer, 2017; Beaudoin et al.,</p><p>2020), empathy (Ilgunaite et al., 2017), and moral</p><p>processing (Jordan, 2007).</p><p>CONCLUSION</p><p>Social cognition is an indispensable part of the clinician’s</p><p>knowledge arsenal when working with individuals with</p><p>neurologic, psychiatric, developmental, genetic, and</p><p>other clinical conditions. Although there remains much</p><p>to explore to achieve a complete representation of social</p><p>cognition components, development, assessment, and</p><p>integrity in clinical conditions, the critical importance</p><p>of this construct within cognitive functioning is undeni-</p><p>able. Social cognition is positioned at the complex yet</p><p>exciting interplay of multiple fields (e.g., developmental,</p><p>social and neuropsychology, social and affective cog-</p><p>nitive neurosciences; see Beauchamp, 2017, Fig. 21.1),</p><p>fostering multi- and transdisciplinary efforts to deepen</p><p>our understanding of social functioning. From a clinical</p><p>perspective, establishing clear social profiles for specific</p><p>conditions calls for collaborations among numerous</p><p>health practitioners (e.g., clinical psychologists, neuro-</p><p>psychologists, psychiatrists, speech therapists, occupa-</p><p>tional therapists, neurologists, and social workers). It is</p><p>undoubtedly through the merging of the knowledge,</p><p>expertise, methods, and tools of all these approaches</p><p>and disciplines that it will be possible to fully understand</p><p>human social functioning.</p><p>REFERENCES</p><p>Adolphs R (2001). The neurobiology of social cognition. Curr</p><p>Opin Neurobiol 11: 231–239.</p><p>Adolphs R (2009). The social brain: neural basis of social</p><p>knowledge. Annu Rev Psychol 60: 693–716.</p><p>SOCIAL COGNITION 261</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0015</p><p>Adolphs R (2010). Conceptual challenges and directions for</p><p>social neuroscience. Neuron 65: 752–767.</p><p>American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (2007).</p><p>American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN)</p><p>practice guidelines for neuropsychological assessment and</p><p>consultation. Clin Neuropsychol 21: 209–231.</p><p>American Educational Research Association, American</p><p>Psychological Association & National Council on</p><p>Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educa-</p><p>tional and psychological testing, AREA Publications,</p><p>Washington.</p><p>American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and sta-</p><p>tistical manual of mental disorders(DSM–5), American</p><p>Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, DC.</p><p>Andr�es-Roqueta C, Adrian JE, Clemente RA et al. (2016).</p><p>Social cognitionmakes an independent contribution to peer</p><p>relations in children with specific language impairment.</p><p>Res Dev Disabil 49–50: 277–290.</p><p>Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Spong A et al. (2001). Are</p><p>intuitive physics and intuitive psychology independent?</p><p>A test with children with Asperger syndrome.</p><p>J Dev</p><p>Learn Disord 5: 47–78.</p><p>Baurain C, Nader-Grosbois N (2013). Theory of mind, socio-</p><p>emotional problem-solving, socio-emotional regulation in</p><p>children with intellectual disability and in typically devel-</p><p>oping children. J Autism Dev Disord 43: 1080–1097.</p><p>Bayet L, Pascalis O, Gentaz �E (2014). Le d�eveloppement de la</p><p>discrimination des expressions faciales �emotionnelles chez</p><p>les nourrissons dans la première ann�ee. [The development</p><p>of emotional facial expression discrimination by infants in</p><p>the first year of life]. Annee Psychol 114: 469–500.</p><p>BeauchampMH (2017). Neuropsychology’s social landscape:</p><p>common ground with social neuroscience. Neuropsychol-</p><p>ogy 31: 981–1002.</p><p>BeauchampMH, Anderson V (2010). SOCIAL: an integrative</p><p>framework for the development of social skills. Psychol</p><p>Bull 136: 39–64.</p><p>BeauchampMH, Dooley JJ, Anderson V (2013). A preliminary</p><p>investigation of moral reasoning and empathy after trau-</p><p>matic brain injury in adolescents. Brain Inj 27: 896–902.</p><p>Beaudoin C, Leblanc �E, Gagner C et al. (2020). Systematic</p><p>review and inventory of theory of mindmeasures for young</p><p>children. Front Psychol 10: 2905. https://doi.org/10.3389/</p><p>fpsyg.2019.02905.</p><p>Bellerose J, Bernier A, Beaudoin C et al. (2017). Long-term</p><p>brain-injury-specific effects following preschool mild</p><p>TBI: a study of theory of mind. Neuropsychology 31:</p><p>229–241.</p><p>Benarous X, Guil�e J-M, Consoli A et al. (2015). A systematic</p><p>review of the evidence for impaired cognitive theory of</p><p>mind in maltreated children. Front Psych 6: 108. https://</p><p>doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00108.</p><p>Bhatt RS, Hock A, White H et al. (2016). The development of</p><p>body structure knowledge in infancy. Child Dev Perspect</p><p>10: 45–52.</p><p>Bird G, Viding E (2014). The self to other model of empathy:</p><p>providing a new framework for understanding empathy</p><p>impairments in psychopathy, autism, and alexithymia.</p><p>Neurosci Biobehav Rev 47: 520–532.</p><p>Bora E, Meletti S (2016). Social cognition in temporal lobe</p><p>epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epilepsy</p><p>Behav 60: 50–57.</p><p>Bora E, Pantelis C (2015). Meta-analysis of social cognition in</p><p>attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): compari-</p><p>son with healthy controls and autistic spectrum disorder.</p><p>Psychol Med 46: 699–716.</p><p>Bourvis N, Singer M, Saint Georges C et al. (2018).</p><p>Pre-linguistic infants employ complex communicative</p><p>loops to engage mothers in social exchanges and repair</p><p>interaction ruptures. R Soc Open Sci 5: 170274.</p><p>Brizio A, Gabbatore I, Tirassa M et al. (2015). “No more a</p><p>child, not yet an adult”: studying social cognition in adoles-</p><p>cence. Front Psychol 6: 1011. https://doi.org/10.3389/</p><p>fpsyg.2015.01011.</p><p>Burnett S, Thompson S, Bird G et al. (2011). Pubertal devel-</p><p>opment of the understanding of social emotions: implica-</p><p>tions for education. Learn Individ Diffe 21: 681–689.</p><p>Carlson SM, Koenig MA, Harms MB (2013). Theory of mind.</p><p>Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 4: 391–402.</p><p>Carlson SM, Claxton LJ, Moses LJ (2015). The relation</p><p>between executive function and theory of mind is more</p><p>than skin deep. J Cogn Dev 16: 186–197.</p><p>Cassel A, McDonald S, Kelly M et al. (2016). Learning from</p><p>the minds of others: a review of social cognition treatments</p><p>and their relevance to traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychol</p><p>Rehabil 29 (1): 22–55.</p><p>Chapman E, Baron-Cohen S, Auyeung B et al. (2006). Fetal</p><p>testosterone and empathy: evidence from the Empathy</p><p>Quotient (EQ) and the “reading the Mind in the Eyes” test.</p><p>Soc Neurosci 1: 135–148.</p><p>Cotter J, Granger K, Backx R et al. (2018). Social cognitive</p><p>dysfunction as a clinical marker: a systematic review of</p><p>meta-analyses across 30 clinical conditions. Neurosci</p><p>Biobehav Rev 84: 92–99.</p><p>Crick NR, Dodge KA (1994). A review and reformulation of</p><p>social information-processing mechanisms in children’s</p><p>social adjustment. Psychol Bull 115: 74–101.</p><p>Crone EA, Dahl RE (2012). Understanding adolescence as a</p><p>period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility.</p><p>Nat Rev Neurosci 13: 636.</p><p>Crowe LM, Beauchamp MH, Catroppa C et al. (2011). Social</p><p>function assessment tools for children and adolescents: a</p><p>systematic review from 1988 to 2010. Clin Psychol Rev</p><p>31: 767–785.</p><p>Decety J (2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in</p><p>humans. Dev Neurosci 32: 257–267.</p><p>Decety J, Meyer M (2008). From emotion resonance to</p><p>empathic understanding: a social developmental neurosci-</p><p>ence account. Dev Psychopathol 20: 1053–1080.</p><p>Decety J,Michalska K, Kinzler DK (2011). The developmental</p><p>neuroscience of moral sensitivity. Emot Rev 3: 305–307.</p><p>Derksen DG, Hunsche MC, Giroux ME et al. (2018).</p><p>A systematic review of theory of mind’s precursors and</p><p>functions. Z Psychol 226: 87–97.</p><p>262 C. BEAUDOIN AND M.H. BEAUCHAMP</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0070</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02905</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02905</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0080</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00108</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00108</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0110</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01011</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01011</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0180</p><p>Dickerson BC (2015). Dysfunction of social cognition and</p><p>behavior. Continuum 21: 660–677.</p><p>Etchepare A, Prouteau A (2017). Toward a two-dimensional</p><p>model of social cognition in clinical neuropsychology: a</p><p>systematic review of factor structure studies. J Int</p><p>Neuropsychol Soc 24: 391–404.</p><p>Eyuboglu D, Bolat N, EyubogluM (2018). Empathy and theory</p><p>of mind abilities of children with specific learning disorder</p><p>(SLD). Psychiatry Clin Psychopharmacol 28: 136–141.</p><p>Feldman R (2007). Parent–infant synchrony:biological foun-</p><p>dations and developmental outcomes. Curr Dir Psychol</p><p>Sci 16: 340–345.</p><p>Fiske ST, Taylor SE (2017). Social cognition: from brains to</p><p>culture, third edn. SAGE Publications.</p><p>Garcia V, Scherf KS (2015). Emerging sensitivity to socially</p><p>complex expressions: a unique role for adolescence? Child</p><p>Dev Perspect 9: 84–90.</p><p>Garrigan B, Adlam ALR, Langdon PE (2016). The neural cor-</p><p>relates of moral decision-making: a systematic review and</p><p>meta-analysis of moral evaluations and response decision</p><p>judgements. Brain Cogn 108: 88–97.</p><p>Gil S, Hattouti J, Laval V (2016). How children use emotional</p><p>prosody: crossmodal emotional integration? Dev Psychol</p><p>52: 1064–1072.</p><p>Grant CM, Boucher J, Riggs KJ et al. (2005). Moral under-</p><p>standing in children with autism. Autism 9: 317–331.</p><p>Grossard C, Chaby L, Hun S et al. (2018). Children facial</p><p>expression production: influence of age, gender, emotion</p><p>subtype, elicitation condition and culture. Front Psychol</p><p>9: 446.</p><p>Gur RC, Gur RE (2016). Social cognition as an RDoC domain.</p><p>Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 171b: 132–141.</p><p>Happ�e F, Frith U (2014). Annual research review: towards a</p><p>developmental neuroscience of atypical social cognition.</p><p>J Child Psychol Psychiatry 55: 553–577.</p><p>Hayward EO, Homer BD (2017). Reliability and validity of</p><p>advanced theory-of-mind measures in middle childhood</p><p>and adolescence. Br J Dev Psychol 35: 454–462.</p><p>Heiphetz L, Young L (2014). A social cognitive develop-</p><p>mental perspective on moral judgment. Behaviour 151:</p><p>315–335.</p><p>Henry JD, vonHippelW,Molenberghs P et al. (2015). Clinical</p><p>assessment of social cognitive function in neurological</p><p>disorders. Nat Rev Neurol 12: 28.</p><p>HoffmanML (2000). Empathy andmoral development: impli-</p><p>cations for caring and justice, Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Ilgunaite G, Giromini L, Di Girolamo M (2017). Measuring</p><p>empathy: a literature review of available tools. Appl</p><p>Psychol Bull 280: 2–28.</p><p>Itier RJ, Batty M (2009). Neural bases of eye and gaze proces-</p><p>sing: the core of social cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev</p><p>33: 843–863.</p><p>Jordan J (2007). Taking the first step toward a moral action: a</p><p>review of moral sensitivity measurement across domains.</p><p>J Genet Psychol 168: 323–359.</p><p>Kennedy DP, Adolphs R (2012). The social brain in psychiatric</p><p>and neurological disorders. Trends Cogn Sci 16: 559–572.</p><p>Kilford EJ, Garrett E, Blakemore S-J (2016). The development</p><p>of social cognition in adolescence: an integrated perspec-</p><p>tive. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 70: 106–120.</p><p>Klapwijk ET,GoddingsA-L,Heyes SB et al. (2013). Increased</p><p>functional connectivity with puberty in the mentalising</p><p>network involved in social emotion processing. Horm</p><p>Behav 64: 314–322.</p><p>Kristen S, Sodian B, Thoermer C et al. (2011). Infants’ joint</p><p>attention skills predict toddlers’ emerging mental state</p><p>language. Dev Psychol 47: 1207–1219.</p><p>Lepp€anen JM (2011). Neural and developmental bases of the</p><p>ability to recognize social signals of emotions. Emot Rev 3:</p><p>179–188.</p><p>Lindinger NM, Malcolm-Smith S, Dodge NC et al. (2016).</p><p>Theory of mind in children with fetal alcohol spectrum</p><p>disorders. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 40: 367–376.</p><p>Mahajan N, Wynn K (2012). Origins of “Us” versus “Them”:</p><p>prelinguistic infants prefer similar others. Cognition 124:</p><p>227–233.</p><p>Mansfield AF, Clinchy BM (2002). Toward the integration of</p><p>objectivity and subjectivity: epistemological development</p><p>from 10 to 16. New Ideas Psychol 20: 225–262.</p><p>Manuel S (2010). Clinically relevant measures of children’s</p><p>theory of mind and knowledge about thinking: non-</p><p>standard and advanced measures. Child Adolesc Mental</p><p>Health 15: 204–216.</p><p>Margoni F, Surian L (2016). Mental state understanding and</p><p>moral judgment in childrenwith autistic spectrum disorder.</p><p>Front Psychol 7: 1478.</p><p>MastenCL,Telzer EH, FuligniAJ et al. (2012). Time spentwith</p><p>friends in adolescence relates to less neural sensitivity to</p><p>later peer rejection. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7: 106–114.</p><p>Matthews D, Biney H, Abbot-Smith K (2018). Individual</p><p>differences in children’s pragmatic ability: a review of</p><p>associations with formal language, social cognition,</p><p>and</p><p>executive functions. Lang Learn Dev 14 (3): 186–223.</p><p>McCormick EM, Hoorn J, Cohen JR et al. (2018). Functional</p><p>connectivity in the social brain across childhood and ado-</p><p>lescence. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 13 (8): 819–830.</p><p>McDonald S (2013). Impairments in social cognition follow-</p><p>ing severe traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc</p><p>19: 231–246.</p><p>Meltzoff AN,MooreMK (1989). Imitation in newborn infants:</p><p>exploring the range of gestures imitated and the underlying</p><p>mechanisms. Dev Psychol 25: 954–962.</p><p>Metsala JL, Galway TM, Ishaik G et al. (2017). Emotion</p><p>knowledge, emotion regulation, and psychosocial adjust-</p><p>ment in children with nonverbal learning disabilities.</p><p>Child Neuropsychol 23: 609–629.</p><p>Mundy P (2018). A review of joint attention and social-</p><p>cognitive brain systems in typical development and</p><p>autism spectrum disorder. Eur J Neuroscience 47 (6):</p><p>497–514.</p><p>Murray L, De Pascalis L, Bozicevic L et al. (2016). The func-</p><p>tional architecture of mother-infant communication, and</p><p>the development of infant social expressiveness in the first</p><p>two months. Sci Rep 6: 39019.</p><p>SOCIAL COGNITION 263</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf9099</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf9099</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf9099</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf9099</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0360</p><p>Nelson EE, Jarcho JM, Guyer AE (2016). Social re-orientation</p><p>and brain development: an expanded and updated view.</p><p>Dev Cogn Neurosci 17: 118–127.</p><p>Oakley BFM, Brewer R, Bird G et al. (2016). Theory of</p><p>mind is not theory of emotion: a cautionary note on the</p><p>reading the mind in the eyes test. J Abnorm Psychol 125:</p><p>818–823.</p><p>Ochsner KN (2008). The social-emotional processing stream:</p><p>five core constructs and their translational potential for</p><p>schizophrenia and beyond. Biol Psychiatry 64: 48–61.</p><p>Paiva-Silva AI, Pontes MK, Aguiar JSR et al. (2016). How do</p><p>we evaluate facial emotion recognition? Psychol Neurosci</p><p>9: 153–175.</p><p>Peper JS, Dahl RE (2013). Surging hormones: brain-behavior</p><p>interactions during puberty. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 22:</p><p>134–139.</p><p>Peter M (2018). A review of joint attention and social-</p><p>cognitive brain systems in typical development and autism</p><p>spectrum disorder. Eur J Neurosci 47: 497–514.</p><p>Repacholi BM, Meltzoff AN, Toub TS et al. (2016). Infants’</p><p>generalizations about other people’s emotions: foundations</p><p>for trait-like attributions. Dev Psychol 52: 364–378.</p><p>Rice K, Viscomi B, Riggins T et al. (2014). Amygdala volume</p><p>linked to individual differences in mental state inference in</p><p>early childhood and adulthood. Dev Cogn Neurosci 8:</p><p>153–163.</p><p>Rodrigues PRG (2018). The visual neuropsychology of the</p><p>other. Psychol Neurosci 11 (3): 231–237.</p><p>Sato W, Kochiyama T, Uono S et al. (2016). Structural neural</p><p>substrates of reading the mind in the eyes. Front Hum</p><p>Neurosci 10: 151.</p><p>Scherf KS, Scott LS (2012). Connecting developmental trajec-</p><p>tories: biases in face processing from infancy to adulthood.</p><p>Dev Psychobiol 54: 643–663.</p><p>Simion F, Giorgio ED (2015). Face perception and processing</p><p>in early infancy: inborn predispositions and developmental</p><p>changes. Front Psychol 6: 969.</p><p>Slaughter V (2015). Theory of mind in infants and young</p><p>children: a review. Aust Psychol 50: 169–172.</p><p>Somerville LH, Fani N, McClure-Tone EB (2011).</p><p>Behavioral and neural representation of emotional facial</p><p>expressions across the lifespan. Dev Neuropsychol 36:</p><p>408–428.</p><p>Sugden NA, Marquis AR (2017). Meta-analytic review of the</p><p>development of face discrimination in infancy: face race,</p><p>face gender, infant age, and methodology moderate face</p><p>discrimination. Psychol Bull 143: 1201–1244.</p><p>Susilo T (2018). The face specificity of lifelong prosopagno-</p><p>sia. Cogn Neuropsychol 35: 1–3.</p><p>Telford EJ, Fletcher-Watson S, Gillespie-Smith K et al.</p><p>(2016). Preterm birth is associated with atypical social</p><p>orienting in infancy detected using eye tracking. J Child</p><p>Psychol Psychiatry 57: 861–868.</p><p>Tousignant B, Eugène F, Jackson PL (2017). A developmental</p><p>perspective on the neural bases of human empathy. Infant</p><p>Behav Dev 48: 5–12.</p><p>Tsao DY, Freiwald WA, Tootell RBH et al. (2006). A cortical</p><p>region consisting entirely of face-selective cells. Science</p><p>311: 670–674.</p><p>Turkstra LS, Abbeduto L, Meulenbroek P (2014). Social</p><p>cognition in adolescent girls with fragile X syndrome.</p><p>Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 119: 319–339.</p><p>Tye C, Mercure E, Ashwood KL et al. (2013). Neurophysio-</p><p>logical responses to faces and gaze direction differentiate</p><p>children with ASD, ADHD and ASD + ADHD. Dev</p><p>Cogn Neurosci 5: 71–85.</p><p>Walle EA, Campos JJ (2012). Interpersonal responding to</p><p>discrete emotions: a functionalist approach to the devel-</p><p>opment of affect specificity. Emot Rev 4: 413–422.</p><p>Wang Y, Metoki A, Alm KH et al. (2018). White matter path-</p><p>ways and social cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 90:</p><p>350–370.</p><p>Wimmer H, Perner J (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: repre-</p><p>sentation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in</p><p>young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition</p><p>13: 103–128.</p><p>Yeates KO, Bigler ED, Dennis M et al. (2007). Social out-</p><p>comes in childhood brain disorder: a heuristic integration</p><p>of social neuroscience and developmental psychology.</p><p>Psychol Bull 133: 535–556.</p><p>Yovel G, Kanwisher N (2004). Face perception: domain</p><p>specific, not process specific. Neuron 44: 889–898.</p><p>Ziatabar Ahmadi SZ, Jalaie S, Ashayeri H (2015). Validity and</p><p>reliability of published comprehensive theory of mind tests</p><p>for normal preschool children: a systematic review. Iran</p><p>J Psychiatry 10: 214–224.</p><p>264 C. BEAUDOIN AND M.H. BEAUCHAMP</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0365</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0365</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0365</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0370</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0370</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0370</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0370</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0375</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0375</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0375</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0380</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0380</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0380</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0385</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0385</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0385</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0390</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0390</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0390</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0395</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0395</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0395</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0400</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0400</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0400</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0400</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0405</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0405</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0410</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0410</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0410</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0415</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0415</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0415</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0420</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0420</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0420</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0425</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0425</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0430</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0430</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0430</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0430</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0435</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0435</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0435</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0435</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0440</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0440</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0450</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0450</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0450</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0455</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0455</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0455</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0460</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0460</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0460</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0465</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0465</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0465</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0465</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0470</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0470</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0470</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0475</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0475</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0475</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0480</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0480</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0480</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0480</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0485</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0485</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0485</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0485</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0490</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0490</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0495</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0495</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0495</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-444-64150-2.00022-8/rf0495</p><p>Social cognition</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Development of Social Cognition in Children</p><p>Social cognition emerges as a result of a developmental cascade</p><p>Sociocognitive and global development are mutually dependent</p><p>Sociocognitive development is driven by biologic processes</p><p>Sociocognitive development is subject to environmental influence</p><p>Sociocognitive development is protracted and continues across the lifespan</p><p>Social Cognition Assessment in Children</p><p>Social cognition cannot always be inferred from everyday social behavior</p><p>Diverse cognitive deficits can lead to the same manifestation of social dysfunction</p><p>Distinct conditions present unique sociocognitive profiles</p><p>Subcomponents of a sociocognitive ability may not be uniformly affected within a single condition</p><p>Sociocognitive assessment must be developmentally appropriate</p><p>Sociocognitive assessment should rely on measures that have good psychometric properties</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>References</p>