Direct and indirect measures of Level-2 perspective-taking in children and adults
Surtees, Andrew D. R., Butterfill, Stephen A. (Stephen Andrew) and Apperly, Ian A.. (2011) Direct and indirect measures of Level-2 perspective-taking in children and adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol.30 (No.1). pp. 75-86. ISSN 0261-510XFull text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02063.x
Studies with infants show divergence between performance on theory of mind tasks depending on whether direct or indirect measures are used. It has been suggested that direct measures assess a flexible but cognitively demanding ability to reason about the minds of others, whereas indirect measures assess distinct processes which afford more efficient but less flexible theory of mind abilities (Apperly & Butterfill, 2009). This leads to the prediction that performance on indirect measures should be subject to signature limits. The current study tested whether the Level-1/Level-2 distinction might constitute one such limit. The study adapted a task that has shown evidence of Level-1 perspective-taking on both direct and indirect measures (Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite, Andrews, & Bodley-Scott, 2010). The aim was to test Level-2 perspective-taking in a sample of 6- to 11-year-olds (N = 80) and adults (N = 20). Participants were able to make Level-2 judgements on the direct measure. In contrast with the findings from Level-1 perspective-taking, there was no evidence of automatic processing of Level-2 perspectives on the indirect measure. This finding is consistent with the view that theory of mind abilities assessed by indirect measures are subject to signature limits. The Level-1/Level-2 distinction, suitably refined, marks one way in which efficient but inflexible theory of mind abilities are limited.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Philosophy|
|Journal or Publication Title:||British Journal of Developmental Psychology|
|Publisher:||The British Psychological Society|
|Page Range:||pp. 75-86|
|Access rights to Published version:||Restricted or Subscription Access|
Actions (login required)