JP

Tarampi - A Tale of Two Types of Perspective

Introduction to Perspective Taking in Psychology

Perspective taking is a significant construct across various sub-disciplines of psychology, including developmental, social, and cognitive psychology. Two primary research traditions explore perspective taking, informed by the classic three-mountain task developed by Piaget and Inhelder in 1948. In this task, children observe a physical model of three mountains and must judge how the model would appear to an observer in a different position.

Egocentrism in Children

  • Egocentrism: Defined as the inability to take the perspective of others. Young children typically exhibit this in the three-mountain task.

Visuospatial vs. Social Perspective Taking

  • Visuospatial Perspective Taking: This perspective taking involves imagining the spatial relationships between objects from a perspective other than one's own, characterized as an aspect of spatial ability (Hegarty & Waller, 2004; Zacks et al., 2002).

  • Social Perspective Taking: Focuses on understanding others’ beliefs and mental states. In studies examining social perspective taking, adults frequently perform near ceiling effects (Achim et al., 2013).

Interrelation of Spatial and Social Perspective Taking

  • Spatial and social perspective taking are not mutually exclusive but often interact. In social contexts, individuals engage in spatial perspective taking for various reasons:

    • Monitoring social intentions (Shelton et al., 2011)

    • Planning joint actions (Pezzulo et al., 2013)

    • Communicating effectively (Schober, 1993)

  • Frith and Frith (2010) propose that detecting social agents invokes automatic systems in the brain that facilitate interaction and cooperation, possibly integrating spatial perspective taking into these processes.

Research Findings and Implications

Sex Differences in Spatial Perspective Taking

  • Evidence indicates a male advantage in spatial perspective taking tasks. This study investigates if social factors like stereotype threat and the inclusion of human figures in tasks contribute to these observed differences.

Overview of Experiments

Experiment 1

  • Objective: Evaluate performance in spatial vs. social perspective-taking tests, framed either as spatial or social (empathetic) abilities.

  • Methodology:

    • Participants: 139 undergraduates (ages 18–22) from UC Santa Barbara, includes a balance of male and female participants.

    • Tests: Included spatial perspective taking and social tasks, emphasizing either spatial abilities (male advantage) or empathetic abilities (female advantage).

  • Results:

    • Spatial Test: Males outperformed females.

    • Social Test: No significant difference between male and female performance, highlighting that framing affected outcomes.

Experiment 2

  • Continued exploration of the influence of task framing:

    • Participants: 65 females participated, evaluated on performance with spatial and social framing.

    • Results indicated no significant difference in angular error between conditions, suggesting stereotype threat was not significantly impacting performance. However, notable performance improvements were observed in tasks framed as social versus spatial.

Experiment 3

  • Further investigation on the role of human figures in tasks:

    • Participants: 67 females, split into spatial and social conditions.

    • Findings: Including human figures improved performance in spatial perspective taking tasks, indicating the contextual influence of a social presence on spatial tasks.

General Discussion

Conclusions from the Research

  • Overall findings suggest that sex differences in spatial perspective taking assessed through standard tests can disappear when social contexts are employed. This points to the significant role stereotypes and task framing play.

  • The study enhances understanding of perspective taking and implies that spatial ability assessments might under-represent women’s capabilities, emphasizing the necessity for contexts that foster equality in performance.

  • Stereotype threat and perceptions of gender abilities affect performance outcomes, highlighting how the framing of tasks can alter perceptions.

Future Directions

  • Future research should explore how social contexts and supports can be integrated into training for spatial skills, particularly for females, thereby enriching STEM education and other fields reliant on spatial abilities.

References

  • Achim, A. M., et al. (2013).

  • Amorim, M.-A. (2003).

  • Baron-Cohen, S. (2002).

  • Baron-Cohen, S., et al. (2001).

  • Beilock, S. L., et al. (2007).

  • Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006).

  • Fields, A. W., & Shelton, A. L. (2006).

  • Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2010).

  • Hamilton, A. et al. (2009).

  • Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004).

  • Humphreys, L. G. et al. (1993).

  • Kessler, K. & Wang, H. (2012).

  • Linn, M. & Peterson, A. C. (1985).

  • McGlone, M. S., & Aronson, J. (2006).

  • Meneghetti, C. et al. (2012).

  • Michelon, P. & Zacks, J. M. (2006).

  • Moè, A. & Pazzaglia, F. (2006).

  • Money, J., et al. (1965).

  • Pezzulo, G. et al. (2013).

  • Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1948).

  • Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2004).

  • Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003).

  • Schober, M. F. (1993).

  • Shelton, A. L., et al. (2011).

  • Steele, C. M. (1997).

  • Surtees, A., et al. (2013).

  • Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009).

  • Uttal, D. H. et al. (2013).

  • Voyer, D., et al. (1995).

  • Wraga, M. et al. (2006).

  • Zacks, J. M. et al. (2002).