Mirror Test - Criticism

Criticism

Despite the popularity of the mirror test, Asendorpf et al. (1996) have identified some drawbacks to solely relying on the mirror test as means of self-awareness for young children. In their 1996 study, they observed 109 children in Munich, Germany. The children had an average age of 18.6 months. They tested 45 children using the classic mirror rouge test and an additional 59 children using modified mirror test. In the classic test, the experimenter first played with the children, making sure that they looked in the mirror at least three times. After the mirror recognition, the parent placed a large dot of rouge below the child’s right eye. The experimenter then brought the child back in front of the mirror until the child had three more instances of mirror recognition. Once in front of the mirror, the experimenter asked the child, “who is that?” up to three times, if needed, in order get a response. For the modified version of the mirror test, the experimenter introduced a doll with a rouge spot under its eye, and asked the children to help clean the doll. The experiment would ask the child for their help up to three times before cleaning the doll themselves. The doll was then put away and the experimenter played with the child for at least one minute. Then the parent applied the dot of rouge and the experimenter pointed out the mark on the child’s face. They were asked by the experimenter up to three times to clean the dot off of their face.

The results uncovered by Asendorpf et al. (1996) proved some issues with the classic mirror test. Their main problem with the classic mirror test is that it assumes that children will recognize the dot of rouge and in recognizing that it’s not normal, try to get rid of it. Asendorpf et al. (1996) found evidence against this. They found that the classic mirror test produced false negatives because the child’s recognition of the dot did not lead to them cleaning it. Therefore, the researchers have assumed that the children may not have developed self-recognition skills yet. In their modified test, in which the doll was cleaned first, they found a stronger relationship between cleaning the doll’s face and the child cleaning its own face. The demonstration with the doll means that showing the children what to do first may lead to more reliable confirmation of self-recognition.

On a more general level that applies across different categories, including different age ranges and species, the issue is the presumption that non-interaction with the dot indicates a lack of self-awareness, when this may not necessarily be the case, as there may be alternative reasons for any non-interaction, such as sight inhibitors or disinterest.