DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL COGNITION
To read up on the development of social cognition, refer to pages 358–374 of Eysenck’s
A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 Why can’t very young children play hide-and-seek properly?
 How much do young children understand of other people’s thoughts and
feelings?
 Do animals have any self-awareness?
What you need to know
THEORY OF MIND


What it involves
Its relation to
autism
SELMAN’S PERSPECTIVE- BIOLOGICAL
TAKING THEORY
EXPLANATIONS OF
SOCIAL COGNITION

Description,
research findings,
evaluation

Mirror neuron
system
THEORY OF MIND
The development of a sense of self and, alongside that, of understanding other
people’s point of view is crucial to social development. This can be explained by
Theory of Mind, which involves:
 The realisation that other people have beliefs, thoughts, and emotions that are
different from our own.
 The appreciation of the beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions of other
people.
The Theory of Mind is important in learning by imitation and for social interaction.
It develops gradually: it is absent in most 3-year-olds and present in most 5-yearolds, so it develops around 4 years of age.
The false-belief task is a way of assessing whether someone has a Theory of Mind.
This is done by using tasks like “Sally–Anne”.
Sally puts her marble in the basket. Then she goes out. Anne takes Sally’s marble,
and puts it into her box. Then Sally comes back from her walk and wants to play
with her marble. Where will she look for her marble?
We will consider two explanations of how children develop a Theory of Mind:
1. Shared attention mechanism: Baron-Cohen (1995; see A2 Level Psychology
page 363) argues that children combine information from their own
direction of gaze with that of other people. Once children are able to use this
mechanism they can understand that another person can see the same object
as they can, and, importantly, that the second person can understand that
they can see the object.
2. Language development: Astington and Jenkins (1999; see A2 Level
Psychology page 360) argue that language development is crucial to a child’s
development of Theory of Mind.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 O’Neill (1996; see A2 Level Psychology page 360) found evidence that Theory
of Mind may develop earlier than 4 years. It was shown that 2-year-olds are
aware of whether or not their parents know where an attractive toy is
hidden.



Charman et al. (2000; see A2 Level Psychology page 360), using a longitudinal
design, found that children who, at 20 months, had a lot of “shared attention”
with an adult were good at Theory of Mind tasks 2 years later. This supports
Baron-Cohen’s hypothesis concerning the shared attention mechanism.
Lohmann, Carpenter, and Call (2005; see A2 Level Psychology page 360)
found that children with better language ability were more proficient at
false-belief tasks than those with lower ability.
Astington and Jenkins (1999; see A2 Level Psychology page 360), in a
longitudinal study, found that language ability predicted ability on Theory-ofMind tasks. This, as well as the previous study, supports Astington and
Jenkins’ suggestion on the role of language in developing Theory of Mind.
Autism
Autism is a condition characterised by poor social interaction, impaired
communication, and repetitive patterns of behaviour.
Baron-Cohen maintains that the central problem with autism is failure to develop a
Theory of Mind. This accounts for why autistic people cannot understand other
people, and this impairs communication and social interaction. Baron-Cohen refers
to this as “mindblindness”. He believes the inability to develop Theory of Mind is
due to a lack of shared attention mechanism.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Baron-Cohen et al. (1995; see A2 Level Psychology page 362) used the Sally–
Anne tasks on typical 4-year-olds, those with autism, and those with Down’s
syndrome. They found that 80% of typical and Down’s children could do this
correctly but only 20% of the autistic children.
 Happé (1995; see A2 Level Psychology page 362) found that even when
autistic children succeeded in doing the Sally–Anne test, they did it in a very
painstaking way, which seemed to indicate that it was not an ability that
came to them automatically (as in a typical child).
 Baron-Cohen (1989; see A2 Level Psychology page 362) found that, on a more
complex Theory-of-Mind task, 90% of typically developing 7- to 8-years-olds
could solve the problem correctly whilst none of the autistic children of a
higher mean age could.
 Baron-Cohen et al. (1996; see A2 Level Psychology page 363) tested 16,000
18-month-olds on tasks of shared attention and found that nearly all the 12
children who failed it were diagnosed with autism at 42 months.
 Dawson et al. (2004; see A2 Level Psychology page 363) found that autistic
children have difficulties with aspects of attention and that these are worst
with shared attention tasks.
 Frith and Happé (1994; see A2 Level Psychology page 363) found that autistic
children lack central cohesion—the ability to take all aspects of a situation
into account. For example, if someone makes a seemingly unkind remark
whilst smiling, the autistic person does not appreciate that they are joking;
only the remark, not the smile, is taken into account.
Evaluation of Theoretical Approach to Theory of Mind
 It has shown the importance of Theory of Mind in communication.
 There is support for the concept of Theory of Mind. There is now such a
wide body of research support for this concept that it has become accepted
as an indisputable part of a typical child’s cognitive development.
 Some aspects of cognitive development associated with Theory of Mind
have been identified. Language seems particularly important.
 It has contributed to our understanding of the difficulties involved in
autism. One in particular is the shared attention mechanism.
 Its importance may be exaggerated. The false beliefs tasks are quite
complex (note that this is not the same as difficult—the tasks test a lot of
cognitive abilities). It is not clear how much a failure to achieve this
demonstrates a lack of Theory of Mind as opposed to a lack of more general
abilities.
 Motivational factors may better explain the findings. Baron-Cohen
emphasises that autistic children don’t understand other people’s emotions
because they do not have Theory of Mind. However, it’s possible that other
limitations are involved, which result in the autistic child having no
motivation to understand other people’s intentions.
 Autistic children may have deficits other than Theory of Mind. There is
evidence that autistic children don’t just lack Theory of Mind but that they
have other cognitive deficits, e.g. in central coherence.
 Theory of Mind does not account for all problems associated with
autism. It is difficult to see how it can account for features such as obsessive
behaviours, some language problems, and “islets of ability”.
SELMAN’S PERSPECTIVE-TAKING THEORY
Selman (1976, 1980) states that in order to understand other people and to have
good social interaction, you need to be able to take their perspective. It is therefore
similar to Baron-Cohen’s Theory of Mind. Being able to take another’s perspective
means that you can negotiate better with people and be effective in solving
interpersonal conflicts.
The theory states that children go through the following stages in perspective
taking:
Level
Age
Features
0
3–6
Some recognition that
other people can have
different thoughts and
feelings but no clear
distinction between their
social perspective
(thoughts and feelings) and
that of other people.
1
6–8
Some recognition that
other people have access to
different information and
that this can produce
different perspectives from
their own. However, they
generally focus on just one
perspective rather than coordinating perspectives.
2
8–10
They can “step into
another’s shoes”. They
realise that mentally
putting oneself in someone
else’s place is an effective
way of working out their
intentions and likely
actions.
3
10–12
Can understand that they
and the other person can
mutually and
simultaneously adopt each
other’s roles. They can
move outside the twoperson interaction and
view it mentally from the
perspective of a third
person.
4
12–15
Realise that mutual
perspective taking is not
guaranteed to lead to full
understanding. They
respect social convention
as important because these
conventions are
understood by everyone
and help to increase
mutual understanding.
Selman argues that good perspective taking is essential for good social interaction
but does not guarantee it. This also requires knowing what behaviour is appropriate
in a given situation. Good perspective taking is therefore a necessary but not a
sufficient condition of harmonious social relationships.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Gurucharri and Selman (1982; see A2 Level Psychology page 366), in a
longitudinal study, found that all the children showed some advance in
interpersonal understanding over a 5-year period.
 Selman et al. (1983; see A2 Level Psychology page 366) found that girls who
showed superior perspective-taking skills tended to communicate more
effectively than other girls.
 Yeates et al. (1991; see A2 Level Psychology page 366) showed that scores on
perspective taking were positively correlated with social competence and
negatively correlated with behaviour problems.
 Burack et al. (2006; see A2 Level Psychology page 367) found that children
from chronically dysfunctional families were worse on perspective-taking
abilities than children brought up in well functioning families.
 Walker (1980; see A2 Level Psychology page 367) found a correlation
between perspective-taking ability and Piaget’s stages of cognitive
development. Since this is correlational, it is difficult to say which way the
cause and effect lies but since most children reach the Piagetian stage before
the Selman stage it indicates that perhaps one needs a certain level of
cognitive ability before one can take the perspective of another person.
 Yeates, Schultz, and Selman (1990; see A2 Level Psychology page 367) found a
reasonably strong positive correlation between IQ and perspective taking.
Evaluation of Selman’s Perspective-taking theory
 The theory has successes to its credit:
 It has shown that children’s increasing ability to take the perspective of other
people into consideration is important in their social development.
 The development of perspective taking proceeds through the stages
identified by Selman.
 Perspective taking is associated moderately strongly with various aspects of
social <i>behaviour<i>. This is important as the theory should be able to
predict how perspective taking is related to actual behaviour.
 The poor perspective-taking abilities of maltreated children may help to
explain why they lack social skills and interpersonal sensitivity.
 The rate of development in perspective taking is predicted by children’s
cognitive development and IQ.
 Perspective taking is not the full story. Although cognitive factors are
important, there are some children with good abilities in this respect but
who are not very adept at social interaction because they lack motivation to
use these abilities.
 It does not explain how children pass through the stages. It describes the
stages but does not account for factors that move children through these
stages.
 Many findings are correlational, so cause and effect are not clear.

It de-emphasises individual differences in personality. It is concerned
with the stages each child goes through but cannot fully account for
individual differences in doing this.
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL COGNITION
Mirror Neuron System
The mirror neuron system is a part of the brain believed to help us understand the
actions of other people. Gallese et al. (1996; see A2 Level Psychology page 369)
labeled a set of neurons in the F5 area of the premotor cortex as the “mirror neuron
system”. It consists of neurons that are activated when animals perform an action
and when they observe another animal perform the same action. The mirror neuron
system, therefore, is believed to be concerned with understanding the behaviour and
emotional states (hence the intentions) of others and may underlie the Theory of
Mind.
As the research indicates, this system is present in monkeys. Whether or not it exists
in humans, as well as its precise functions, is still uncertain.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Umiltà et al. (2001; see A2 Level Psychology page 370) demonstrated that
monkeys can understand the meaning of actions, not just the actions, and
that mirror neurons are discharged only when the monkey may want to
imitate the behaviour (e.g. in order to get food), not when they wouldn’t
(because there is no food there).
 Dinstein et al. (2007; see A2 Level Psychology page 370) showed that five
brain areas were activated when the same movement was being observed
repeatedly as when that movement was actually being made repeatedly.
However, it is not yet clear whether the same neurons were being activated
or different neurons that were in the same part of the brain.
 Iacoboni et al. (2005; see <i>A2 Level Psychology<i> page 370) provided
evidence that the mirror neuron system in humans (if it exists) may be
involved in understanding the intentions behind observed actions because it
only seems to operate when it is obvious <i>why<i> a person is performing a
particular action.
EVALUATION OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
 Evidence that the mirror neuron system plays an important role in
social cognition. As discussed above, there is research supporting this,
especially that the mirror neuron system plays a part in understanding other
people’s intentions and actions.
 Evidence that the mirror neuron system takes account of the context of an
action. Umiltà et al.’s research demonstrates this.
 Impairments in the mirror neuron system may help to explain the
problems associated with autism. This is speculative at present but offers
insightful hypotheses for further research.




Brain imaging is not very precise. fMRI scans are not sufficiently detailed
enough to identify clearly what is happening at the level of individual
neurons.
The mirror neuron system does not take personality into account. When
we assess intentions, we take account of stable personality characteristics of
the person (e.g. Anne is smiling because she’s friendly; Clare is smiling
because she wants something from me). There is no evidence that the mirror
neuron system can account for how we do this.
Limits on generalisation. Most information on the role of the mirror neuron
system has come from monkeys so the findings cannot necessarily generalise
to humans brains. Monkeys are far less skilful at inferring intentions.
The relationship between the mirror neuron system and autism is not
clear. We are unclear of cause and effect: does autism result from an
impaired mirror neuron system or is an impaired mirror neuron system the
result of autism (see research below)?
Emotional States
The mirror neuron system may be involved in our ability to experience and
understand emotional states in others.
Philips et al. (1997; see A2 Level Psychology page 371 ) showed that the same part of
the brain (part of the limbic system in the brainstem) is activated when people
experience disgust as when they see a facial expression showing disgust. This
indicates that the human mirror neuron system is responsive to emotional states.
Again, though, it’s not clear if the same neurons are activated or just the same area
of the brain.
Autism
There is evidence relating to the role of the mirror neuron system in autism:
 Dapretto et al. (2006; see A2 Level Psychology page 371) found less activity in
the mirror neuron system of autistic children than in non-autistic children
when observing or imitating five basic emotions (e.g. happiness, anger, fear).
This indicates that autistic children have impaired mirror neuron systems.
Whether this causes the autism or is a consequence of it is, as yet, unclear.
 Hadjikhani et al. (2006; see A2 Level Psychology page 372) found that autistic
children have cortical thinning in areas of the brain believed to form part of
the mirror neuron system.
 Rogers et al. (2003; see A2 Level Psychology page 372) found that autistic
children’s ability to imitate was not related to their language development or
their adaptive behaviour. This indicates that the mirror neuron system is not
central to autistic children’s difficulties.
 Dinstein et al. (2008; see A2 Level Psychology page 372) found that in at least
half of a series of observation and imitation tasks autistic children had
similar brain activity as non-autistic children in areas associated with the
mirror neuron system. This again questions whether the mirror neuron
system is central to the autistic condition.
So What Does This Mean?
Great strides have been made in recent years on factors underlying the very
fundamental ability of acquiring a sense of self and of understanding other people’s
perspective. This has, in turn, led to greater understanding of autism. Both the
Theory of Mind and the Theory of Perspective Taking offer insight into some of the
impairments involved in this condition. They have certainly furthered our
knowledge of why so many autistic people find social interaction so challenging.
Nonetheless, some puzzles remain. Certain features of autism, such as obsessional
behaviour, the intolerance of change, and certain language deficits are hard to
explain in terms of these theories. Most of all they cannot account for the amazing
talents that a small number of autistic people demonstrate.
The biological contribution to this field of study has offered enlightenment that has
enhanced our understanding still further. Work on the mirror neuron system,
although in its infancy, has opened the possibility of exciting new research that
underpins and complements the work on the psychological processes involved in
our ability to engage in social interaction and provide us with a sense of our place in
society.
Over to you
Describe and evaluate one or more theories that seek to account for the
development of perspective taking in children. (25 marks)