Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The development of young children’s understanding of knowledge in others Boyes, Michael Clifford 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 B69.pdf [ 7.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095567.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095567-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095567-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095567-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095567-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095567-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095567-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095567-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095567.ris

Full Text

THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN'S UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWLEDGE IN OTHERS by MICHAEL CLIFFORD BOYES B.A., UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES . (Department of P s y c h o l o g y ) We ac c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as co n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1982 © M i c h a e l C l i f f o r d Boyes, 1982 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date September 2, 1982. DF-6 <"}/R-n i i ABSTRACT T h i s study examined a model of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g competencies which sought to p r e d i c t c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g performances by t a k i n g i n t o account both c h i l d r e n ' s b e l i e f s about the nature of knowledge ( i . e . , copy- t h e o r e t i c or q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c ) and the types of knowledge h e l d by other people i n the r o l e - t a k i n g s i t u a t i o n ( i . e . , p h y s i c a l i s t i c , l ogico-mathematical, or f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d ) . E i g h t y - f o u r 3- to 7-year-old c h i l d r e n were f i r s t screened to determine which of the p o t e n t i a l b e l i e f s about the nature of knowledge they h e l d and then presented with a s e r i e s of tasks r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of each of the t h e o r e t i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d types of knowledge in o t h e r s . The e x p e c t a t i o n that only those c h i l d r e n who h e l d developmentally more mature b e l i e f s about the nature of knowledge ( i . e . , q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c ) would be capable of understanding the more complex types of knowledge possessed by others was s t r o n g l y confirmed i n the present study. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study were seen to suggest that the proposed model c o u l d more adequately account f o r the development of r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s in young c h i l d r e n than p r e v i o u s l y presented t y p o l o g i e s . TABLE OF CONTENTS Ab s t r a c t i i L i s t . O f Tables v Acknowledgements v i Chapter 1: I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Purpose 2 H i s t o r i c a l Currents In Role-Taking Research 3 E a r l y Work 3 The Development Of Knowledge Of S p a t i a l R e l a t i o n s ...5 Role Taking In The S o c i a l World . . 12 The D i s t i n c t i o n Between L e v e l 1 And L e v e l 2 Knowledge 25 Research On L e v e l 1 Knowledge 32 Research On L e v e l 2 Knowledge 37 The D i s t i n c t i o n Among Domains Of Role Taking 44 Pe r c e p t u a l Role Taking 45 Conceptual Role Taking 45 Emotional Role Taking 49 The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Types Of Role Taking ....52 C r i t i q u e Of Trends In R o l e - t a k i n g Research 57 C o n s t u c t i v i s t i c Model Of S e l f - R e f l e x i v e Knowledge ....60 Hypotheses 65 Chapter 2: Method 69 Subjects .69 Procedures 69 Measures And S c o r i n g C r i t e r a 71 E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l L e v e l Screening Tasks 71 R o l e - t a k i n g Measures 72 R e l a t i v e View Task 75 R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n Task 76 P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning Task 77 P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning Task 79 T h i r d Person R e l a t i v i s e d Meaning Task 81 Chapter 3: R e s u l t s 84 E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 84 R e l a t i o n s Between The Role-Taking Tasks 86 The Test Of The T r a n s a c t i o n a l Model 93 Chapter 4: D i s c u s s i o n 98 Copy T h e o r e t i c C h i l d r e n 98 Q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c C h i l d r e n 98 I m p l i c a t i o n s For Other R o l e - t a k i n g T y p o l o g i e s ....100 Young C h i l d r e n ' s Role Taking And The Present Model 102 Future D i r e c t i o n s 105 Reference Notes 107 References 108 Appendix A: Sample Task Recording Forms 117 Appendix B: R o l e - t a k i n g Task S c r i p t s 122 Appendix C: R o l e - t a k i n g Task M a t e r i a l s 132 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1; Matrix Of Presumptive E p i s t e m o l o g i e s By Types Of S o c i a l Objects Of Knowledge 66 Table 2; C h i l d r e n C l a s s i f i e d By Grade And Presumptive E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l L e v e l 85 Table 3; C h i l d r e n ' s R e l a t i v e Performances On The P h y s i c a l i s t i c Knowledge Tasks 90 Table 4; C h i l d r e n ' s R e l a t i v e Performances On The L o g i c o -Mathematical Knowledge Tasks 90 Table 5; C h i l d r e n ' s R e l a t i v e Understanding Of Each Type Of Knowledge: Scalogram A n a l y s i s 92 Table 6; Highest L e v e l Of Knowledge Understood By • Presumptive E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l L e v e l ....94 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The p r o d u c t i o n of a t h e s i s such as t h i s r e q u i r e s a great d e a l of o u t s i d e input as w e l l as n e c e s s i t a t i n g a good measure of understanding and support i n areas and ways that r e l a t e to the t h e s i s through t h e i r being n e g l e c t e d by the goal focussed c a n d i d a t e . To Michael Chandler who has been my mentor and guide through the past few years I wish to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r h i s knowledge and wisdom and f o r h i s e f f o r t s i n t a k i n g me through the more d i f f i c u l t route to knowledge by engendering thoughts r a t h e r than simply i n c u l c a t i n g f a c t s . To Lawrence Walker I wish to express my thanks f o r h i s enthusiasm, guidance, and e s p e c i a l l y f o r suppo r t i n g me by h e l p i n g me to maintain a b e l i e f i n the worth of my work and thoughts over the past year. I wish a l s o to thank J e r r y Wiggins f o r h i s u n h e s i t a t i n g involvement i n t h i s p r o j e c t and h i s c o n t i n u i n g p o s s i t i v e regard and support f o r my progress over the l a s t few y e a r s . I would a l s o l i k e to express my thanks t o my f a m i l y and my f e l l o w graduate students (at times they seem one and the same) who by t h e i r n a t u r a l c a r i n g e f f o r t s c r e a t e d the support environment necessary f o r the e f f o r t s r e q u i r e d i n the pro d u c t i o n of a t h e s i s . Most i m p o r t a n t l y , I wish to reserve my deepest thanks f o r my wife, L o r r i e , without whose ongoing support and understanding over the past years I would have been unable to even a s p i r e to the present t h e s i s and a l l i t e n t a i l e d . 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The r e s e a r c h to be repo r t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s was intended to e xplore c r i t i c a l t r a n s i t i o n s i n the development of r o l e -t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s i n young c h i l d r e n . The a b i l i t y to take the r o l e of another person i n v o l v e s an awareness of a b a s i c tenet of human i n t e r p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e - - t h a t two people may experience the same s i t u a t i o n i n q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ways. While i t i s c l e a r that most a d u l t s are aware of the e x i s t e n c e of, and can perhaps even determine the nature of, other people's s u b j e c t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l e x p e r iences, i t i s e q u a l l y obvious that c h i l d r e n do not enter the world with such r o l e - t a k i n g competence. Thus young c h i l d r e n are r o u t i n e l y d e s c r i b e d as being e g o c e n t r i c a l l y embedded i n , or centered upon, t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r view of the world. T h i s n o t i o n of e g o c e n t r i c i t y r e f e r s to a lack of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on the p a r t of c h i l d r e n between themselves and t h e i r p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l worlds. Given t h i s , the course of development i s seen to i n v o l v e a movement away from t h i s type of world view towards one which rec o g n i z e s the d i s t i n c t i o n between the v a r i o u s aspects of meaning they a s s i g n to the world and the m a n i f o l d p o t e n t i a l f o r d i f f e r e n t meaning assignments by other people. One has only to r e f l e c t upon the g e n e r a l importance of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n f o r s o c i a l i n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g to r e a l i z e the c r i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r of i t s r o l e i n the movement of c h i l d r e n from infancy to adulthood. 2 Purpose The main purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s to d e t a i l a rese a r c h e f f o r t d i r e c t e d at producing evidence which w i l l h e l p serve to a r b i t r a t e an ongoing debate regarding the age at which c h i l d r e n commonly a c q u i r e v a r i o u s r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . The key assumption u n d e r l y i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h i s that the e i t h e r - o r dichotomy widely employed to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between e g o c e n t r i c and non-egocentric thought i s not, as i t i s commonly understood to be,, a c o r o l l a r y of P i a g e t ' s theory, and that the p u r s u i t of t h i s f a l s e dichotomy has r e s u l t e d i n needless c o n t r o v e r s y over the p r e c i s e age at which r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s are a c q u i r e d . A more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and, h o p e f u l l y , c o n c e p t u a l l y r i c h e r typology w i l l be s u b s t i t u t e d i n the place of t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l e g o c e n t r i c / n o n - e g o c e n t r i c dichotomy. T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e account, which c o n s t i t u t e s the p o t e n t i a l conceptual c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s , w i l l be evaluated through an e x p l o r a t i o n of the kinds of presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages c l a i m f o r themselves and an a n a l y s i s of the i n f l u e n c e which these a l t e r n a t i v e assumptions about knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n e x e r c i s e over t h e i r e f f o r t s to take the r o l e of ( i . e . , make sense of the knowledge possessed by) o t h e r s . The pages which f o l l o w w i l l o u t l i n e a s e r i e s of d i s c r e t e steps which together c o n t r i b u t e to the mounting of an argument f o r the reasonableness and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the concrete r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g y to be proposed. To begin with, a review of the r e l e v a n t trends and the c u r r e n t s t a t e of the 3 a r t i n r o l e - t a k i n g r e s e a r c h w i l l be presented. F o l l o w i n g t h i s , c e r t a i n of the g u i d i n g assumptions which have underpinned the work i n t h i s area w i l l be made e x p l i c i t and c r i t i q u e d to e s t a b l i s h the need f o r a new t h e o r e t i c a l order i n t h i s a r e a . T h i r d , an a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n , intended to speak to the i s s u e s r a i s e d by the c r i t i q u e of the l i t e r a t u r e w i l l be proposed. F i n a l l y , an attempt w i l l be made to employ the conceptual model being advanced here to generate a gen e r a l r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g y which w i l l be used as a guide f o r the p a r t i c u l a r e m p i r i c a l study to be d e t a i l e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . H i s t o r i c a l C u r r e nts i n Role-Taking Research The l i t e r a t u r e review which f o l l o w s r e p r e s e n t s an attempt to o u t l i n e some of the h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s and e v o l u t i o n a r y trends which have helped to shape cur-rent understanding of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s . While t h i s review w i l l be p r i m a r i l y d e s c r i p t i v e i n nature, the i n t e n t i s to s e n s i t i z e the reader to to the i s s u e s which w i l l be c r i t i q u e d . E a r l y Work The o r i g i n s of contemporary res e a r c h on c h i l d h o o d egocentrism can be l a r g e l y t r a c e d to work done by Piaget i n the 1920's. In these e a r l y p u b l i c a t i o n s , Piaget (1926, 1928) l a i d the groundwork f o r much of h i s l a t e r theory concerning the course of c o g n i t i v e development. T h i s i n c l u d e d the importance he attached to the process by which c h i l d r e n begin to move away from t h e i r i n i t i a l e g o c e n t r i c assumptions about 4 the world. These e a r l y works, while known in North America, were not widely read and had l i t t l e impact upon the developmental r e s e a r c h of that p e r i o d . For h i s own part Piaget moved on to other t o p i c s and d i d not r e t u r n to the i s s u e of egocentrism u n t i l the 1950's when he and Inhelder p u b l i s h e d t h e i r now c l a s s i c book on the c h i l d ' s understanding of space and s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). In t h i s work Piaget and Inhelder i n t r o d u c e d t h e i r now widely employed t e s t of three mountains. In t h i s procedure, a c h i l d was shown a t a b l e - t o p model of three mountains.. Each mountain was a d i f f e r e n t c o l o r and had s e v e r a l i d e n t i f y i n g o b j e c t s on i t (e.g., a small c r o s s or a c r e e k ) . The c h i l d was seated f a c i n g the a r r a y and then asked q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g to the p e r s p e c t i v e of a d o l l p l a c e d at c e r t a i n p o i n t s around the model. They were v a r i o u s l y asked t o : (1) choose from a number of photograghs the one which a c c u r a t e l y represented the d o l l ' s view; (2) r e c o n s t r u c t the d o l l ' s view using cardboard models of the mountains; or (3) choose a photogragh of the a r r a y and then i n d i c a t e where the d o l l would have to be to encounter that p a r t i c u l a r view. Piaget and I n h e l d e r ' s c o n c l u s i o n , based upon t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the three mountains task, was that p r i o r to approximately 7 years of age c h i l d r e n are e g o c e n t r i c - - t h e y r e g u l a r l y chose t h e i r own viewpoint as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the views of other persons s i t u a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from themselves; and thus i t i s only l a t e r i n c h i l d h o o d that the a b i l i t y to represent the views of others i s d i s p l a y e d . 5 Among the e a r l i e s t evidence of i n t e r e s t among North American p s y c h o l o g i s t s i n P i a g e t ' s theory was a s e r i e s of r e p l i c a t i o n s t u d i e s (Dodwell, 1963; E l k i n d , 1961; Laurendeau & Pinard,1970) which undertook to measure c h i l d h o o d egocentrism and which, for the most p a r t , c o r r o b o r a t e d the f i n d i n g s of Piaget and I n h e l d e r . In the l a t e 1960's and e a r l y 1970's, f o l l o w i n g these i n i t i a l r e p l i c a t i o n s t u d i e s , a b i f u r a c t i o n occurred i n subsequent work on r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . F i r s t , a number of r e s e a r c h e r s focussed a t t e n t i o n upon the p e r c e p t u a l aspects of the three mountains t e s t and undertook a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d at the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to p e r c e i v e s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s e x c l u s i v e of how t h i s a b i l i t y r e l a t e d to t h e i r understanding the p e r s p e c t i v e s of others.- The second l i n e of r e s e a r c h i n v o l v e d an attempt to move beyond Piaget and I n h e l d e r ' s e a r l y focus on the s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g of the c h i l d by t e s t i n g the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h e i r f i n d i n g s to the s o c i a l world of the c h i l d . In what f o l l o w s the course of subsequent r e s e a r c h in these two areas w i l l be s e p a r a t e l y reviewed. The Deveiopment of Knowledge of S p a t i a l R e l a t i o n s The s p e c i f i c focus of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s area has been the c h i l d ' s understanding of the s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s which might be seen to h o l d among o b j e c t s i n the p h y s i c a l world. Such understanding has g e n e r a l l y been s t u d i e d by n o t i n g how i t i s r e f l e c t e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s r e p o r t s about how t h i n g s look from vantage p o i n t s other than t h e i r own. Though other observers were u t i l i z e d i n these s t u d i e s , they served p r i m a r i l y as 6 i n d i c a t e r s of the s p e c i f i c angle of regard upon the a r r a y which the c h i l d was asked to r e p o r t . Thus the s t a t u s of the observers i n t h i s case i s that of a s o r t of g e n e r i c "everyperson" r a t h e r than that of a s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l whose view the c h i l d i s asked to d e t a i l . The importance of t h i s l i n e of i n q u i r y f o r the present re s e a r c h l i e s mainly i n i t s d e t a i l i n g of the e f f e c t of task v a r i a b l e s on any attempt to measure c h i l d r e n ' s competence i n r o l e t a k i n g of other s o r t s . I t i s with t h i s i n mind that the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i s presented, although i t s s p e c i f i c content w i l l be r e t u r n e d to only r a r e l y i n the e m p i r i c a l p o r t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . In a l a r g e study i n t h i s area, F i s h b e i n , Lewis, and K e i f f e r (1972) v a r i e d the number of o b j e c t s i n the t a r g e t a r r a y , the number of views on which the c h i l d was t e s t e d , and the number of photograghs the c h i l d had to choose from. F u r t h e r , the c h i l d r e n were asked to respond e i t h e r by choosing a p i c t u r e or by manipulating a r e p l i c a of the t a r g e t a r r a y . They r e p o r t e d that c h i l d r e n ' s performance improved both as the complexity of the task decreased (e.g., fewer o b j e c t s , fewer views, and fewer p i c t u r e c h o i c e s ) and as the age of the c h i l d i n c r e a s e d (from 3 1/2- to 9 1/2- years of age). F o l l o w i n g t h i s ambitious study, r e s e a r c h e r s began to look at even more s p e c i f i c a spects of the c h i l d ' s s p a t i a l e x p erience. By a n a l y s i n g the types of errors- c h i l d r e n made i n a p i c t u r e c h o i c e or r e p l i c a a r r a y c o n s t r u c t i o n task a number of 7 r e s e a r c h e r s (Coie, Costanzo, & F a r n h i l l , 1973; Cox, 1978; Liben, 1978; Minnigerode & Carey, 1974; N i g e l & F i s h b e i n , 1973, 1974) found that c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of b e f o r e -behind r e l a t i o n s h i p s develops before that of r i g h t - l e f t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t was suggested that the understanding of these r e l a t i o n s may c o n s t i t u t e the b a s i s f o r c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l . Cox (1978) and Hughes (1978) have both searched f o r the p r e c u r s e r s to c h i l d r e n ' s more general s p a t i a l a b i l i t i e s . Using d i s c r e t e o b j e c t s ( i . e . , d o l l s , etc.) they determined that c h i l d r e n f i r s t (by about 4 years of age) become capable of n o t i n g which s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i s l o c a t e d i n f r o n t of a d i f f e r e n t l y s i t u a t e d observer and only l a t e r begin to work out the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst o b j e c t s i n such a r r a y s . To t e s t the e f f i c a c y of a d i f f e r e n t marker of task complexity, s e v e r a l reseachers have i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of v a r i o u s angular displacements of the other's view r e l a t i v e to the c h i l d ' s view. In such s t u d i e s the hypothesis was that g r e a t e r displacements away from the c h i l d ' s view, to a maximum of 180°, would r e q u i r e a g r e a t e r degree of mental r o t a t i o n f o r a s u c c e s s f u l performance and thus be more d i f f i c u l t . T h i s n o t i o n was supported by Cox (1977) who found that 6- to 10-year-old c h i l d r e n performed e q u a l l y w e l l when the other's view was 90° or 270° d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r own but that both of these views were e a s i e r than the 180° d i s p l a c e d view. In r e l a t i n g t h i s f i n d i n g to the q u e s t i o n of the nature of the s p a t i a l - d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequence, 8 Cox suggested that t h i s may be due to the f a c t t h at f o r 180° displacements both before-behind r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r i g h t - l e f t r e l a t i o n s h i p s are r e v e r s e d . In l i n e with t h i s Fehr, McMahon, and Fehr (1982) found that angular displacements of 180° were most d i f f i c u l t while displacements of 120° and 240° were e a s i e r and that displacements of 60° and 300° were e a s i e s t ( f o r c h i l d r e n i n grades 1 to 6). These r e s u l t s suggest that c h i l d r e n who have problems determining what other views look l i k e may be having d i f f i c u l t i e s mentally r o t a t i n g themselves or the t a r g e t a r r a y . Huttenlocher and Presson (1973? a l s o see Presson, Note 1) found that c h i l d r e n who responded to r e l a t i v e view problems by r o t a t i n g a r e p l i c a a r r a y d i d b e t t e r than s i m i l a r c h i l d r e n who responded by choosing a p i c t u r e from a group of photograghs. I t i s u n c l e a r , however, whether these c h i l d r e n were e v i d e n c i n g an understanding of the s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the a r r a y or merely reading o f f the i d e n t i t y of the o b j e c t nearest the other viewpoint. S e v e r a l attempts have been made to introduce refinements in the methodology of t e s t s of s p a t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n i n order to allow f o r a b e t t e r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s competencies. An e a r l y l i n e of r e s e a r c h in t h i s area d e a l t s p e c i f i c a l l y with the c h i l d ' s tendency to e g o c e n t r i c a l l y R e p o r t t h e i r own view i n s p a t i a l t a s k s . I t was reasoned that i f the s a l i e n c e of the c h i l d ' s own view c o u l d be reduced through s h i e l d i n g i t from t h e i r s i g h t d u r i n g t e s t t r i a l s t h e i r performance on other views would be f a c i l i t a t e d . Shantz and Watson (1970) u t i l i z e d a r o t a t a b l e covered 9 d i s p l a y which c o u l d only be seen through small viewing holes in the cover when a l i g h t was turned on. They f i r s t allowed c h i l d r e n to view the d i s p l a y and then had them move to a viewpoint 180° around the d i s p l a y . At the new viewing p o i n t they were e i t h e r c o n f r o n t e d with a view of the a r r a y that was 180° d i f f e r e n t than t h e i r f i r s t view or with t h e i r o r i g i n a l view of the a r r a y which had been s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y r o t a t e d through 180° so that i t had not changed even though the c h i l d had s h i f t e d viewing l o c a t i o n s . Even c h i l d r e n as young as 3-4 years showed or expressed some s u r p r i s e at seeing t h e i r o r i g i n a l view a f t e r having walked 180° around the covered a r r a y . T h i s was seen to suggest that even young c h i l d r e n have some understanding that p h y s i c a l a r r a y s do not present the same v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n at a l l viewing p o s i t i o n s . F o l l o w i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h , Shantz and Watson (1971) had c h i l d r e n p r e d i c t the l o c a t i o n of s p e c i f i c o b j e c t s i n a covered array (1) a f t e r they had moved to the p o s i t i o n of the view i n q u e s t i o n o u t s i d e the cover or (2) while they remained at- t h e i r o r i g i n a l viewpoint. The a c t u a l movement of the 4- to 7-year-old c h i l d r e n f a c i l i t a t e d t h e i r performance at non-e g o c e n t r i c a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g the l o c a t i o n s of o b j e c t s i n the a r r a y . T h i s f i n d i n g was supported by the work of Schatzow, Kahane, and Youniss (1980) who found that r e a l , as opposed to imagined movement, about a covered a r r a y f a c i l i t a t e d the performance of 7 year o l d s f o r t h e i r own views but d i d not h e l p them i n r e p o r t i n g on the views of d i f f e r e n t l y l o c a t e d o t h e r s . Despite t h i s i t has been suggested that the use of 10 s h i e l d i n g may decrease the number of e r r o r s made by c h i l d r e n when they report on the views of others (Brodzinsky, Jackson, & Overton, 1972; Cox, 1980; Walker & G o l l i n , 1977). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note, however, that while the number of e g o c e n t r i c e r r o r s f o r 4- to 6-year-olds were decreased through the use of s h i e l d i n g the o v e r a l l number of e r r o r s were not. T h i s would suggest that the c h i l d ' s c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e s i n r e l a t i o n to the s p a t i a l environment i s not yet complete by t h i s p o i n t . The i s s u e of own-view s a l i e n c e , as i t r e l a t e s to the q u e s t i o n of egocentrism, was f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d by Garner and P l a n t (1972). They t e s t e d 6- to 8-year-old c h i l d r e n on an a r r a y task and found that those c h i l d r e n who were f i r s t asked about the other person's view e x h i b i t e d fewer e g o c e n t r i c e r r o r s than -did c h i l d r e n who r e p o r t e d on t h e i r own view f i r s t . S e v e r a l such p r o c e d u r a l refinements have been introduced i n t o t h i s a r e a . Cox (1975), f o r example, found that 6-year-o l d c h i l d r e n were l e s s l i k e l y to give an e g o c e n t r i c response i n a s p a t i a l task i f the other observer was a r e a l person as opposed to a d o l l . I t has a l s o been found that 8-year-old c h i l d r e n who merely had to recognize the o t h e r ' s view as a r e s u l t of having walked around the whole a r r a y p r i o r to t e s t i n g performed b e t t e r than those c h i l d r e n who had to i n f e r the other's p e r s p e c t i v e based on t h e i r a b i l i t y to c o o r d i n a t e before-behind and r i g h t - l e f t ( E i s e r , 1974). The f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s of a p r e t e s t walk around the a r r a y were extended by 11 Weatherford and Cohen (1980) to i n c l u d e walking through a s u i t a b l y l a r g e s c a l e a r r a y d u r i n g which the r e l a t i v e i n t e r p o s i t i o n s of o b j e c t s i n the a r r a y were p o i n t e d out to the c h i l d r e n . F i n a l l y , a number of r e s e a r c h e r s (Acredolo, 1977; Fehr & F i s h b e i n , 1976; Lapsley, Fehr, & E n r i g h t , 1981) found that c h i l d r e n ' s performances on s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e s tasks c o u l d be improved through the i n c l u s i o n of a d i s t i n c t i v e landmark in the t a r g e t a r r a y . These landmarks might be seen to have pr o v i d e d a s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e p o i n t about which the r e l a t i o n s which s h i f t with one's r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n may be more e a s i l y spec i f i e d . The task of making conceptual sense of t h i s general l i n e of i n q u i r y i s not an easy one. F o l l o w i n g a review of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , Fehr (1978) suggested that egocentrism as a determining f a c t o r i n the c h i l d ' s c o o r d i n a t i o n of space may be seen to fade out anywhere between 4 and 12 years of age. Where one s e t s the c u t o f f p o i n t seems to depend upon the p a r t i c u l a r combination of p r o c e d u r a l and p h y s i c a l task v a r i a b l e s one chooses to allow to stand as a t e s t of s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g s k i l l i n c h i l d r e n . The important p o i n t to be made, however, i s that d e s p i t e the wide range of manipulations r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e the approximate age at which c h i l d r e n are seen to master and become capable of m a n i p u l a t i n g the important s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s of before-behind and r i g h t - l e f t has not changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that p o s i t e d by P i a g e t . I t i s because of t h i s and the e s s e n t i a l l y 1 2 a s o c i a l focus of t h i s l i n e of r e s e a r c h that these i s s u e s w i l l not be prominent l a t e r in t h i s t h e s i s . Role Taking i n the S o c i a l World The second, and by f a r the l a r g e r , of the two g e n e r a l re s e a r c h l i n e s that developed f o l l o w i n g the e a r l y r e p l i c a t i o n s t u d i e s , can, l i k e the f i r s t , be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as an attempt to expand upon P i a g e t ' s e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s r egarding p h y s i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g . However, while the f i r s t l i n e of r e s e a r c h , o u t l i n e d above, sought to expand upon P i a g e t ' s f i n d i n g s w i t h i n the domain of s p a t i a l knowledge, t h i s second trend sought to t e s t t h e i r g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y to aspects of the s o c i a l world of the c h i l d . The 1968 book by F l a v e l l , B o t k i n , Fry, Wright, and J a r v i s e n t i t l e d The Development of Role- Taking and Communication i n C h i l d r e n may be seen to have i n s t i g a t e d t h i s e x p l o r a t o r y l i n e of r e s e a r c h . Of these two avenues of r e s e a r c h t h i s l a t t e r course, concerned with the study of s o c i a l r o l e - t a k i n g , , can be seen to be most in keeping with the s p i r i t of P i a g e t ' s e a r l y work, which p r i m a r i l y sought to f a c i l i t a t e a general understanding of the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e of knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n , and only s e c o n d a r i l y focussed upon the s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r o l e - t a k i n g p r o c e s s . The approach taken by F l a v e l l et a l . (1968) was e x p l o r a t o r y and developmentally d e s c r i p t i v e in nature i n that they sought to examine the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the concept of r o l e t a k i n g a c r o s s a wide range of task types and s i t u a t i o n s . The tasks employed ranged from simple p e r c e p t u a l l y - b a s e d ones 13 (e.g., l o o k i n g at how young c h i l d r e n show t h i n g s to others) to tasks which were intended to tap the workings of r e l a t i v e l y complex s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s (e.g., r e f e r e n t i a l communication tasks i n which c h i l d r e n were asked to e x p l a i n the r u l e s of a game to an uninformed newcomer). Two of these tasks are e s p e c i a l l y noteworthy, not only f o r the part they played i n h e l p i n g to s p e c i f y F l a v e l l ' s e a r l y conceptions of the nature of s o c i a l r o l e - t a k i n g , but a l s o because they, of a l l the tasks r e p o r t e d i n the book, have been the ones most quoted and u t i l i z e d by subsequent r e s e a r c h e r s . In the f i r s t of these tasks c h i l d r e n were i n v i t e d to play a game and were presented with two upside-down cups with one and two n i c k e l s glued to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e bottoms. The c h i l d r e n were shown that each cup had a corresponding number of n i c k e l s hidden underneath i t . The o b j e c t of the game, f o r the c h i l d r e n , was to remove the money from under one of the cups so as to " f o o l " a second experimenter who was to come i n t o the room l a t e r and choose a cup, g e t t i n g to keep the money he found t h e r e . The c h i l d r e n ' s reasoning as to how to outwit the second experimenter was analysed and the f o l l o w i n g range of s t r a t e g i e s was r e p o r t e d . In S t r a t e g y A the c h i l d a t t r i b u t e s motives to the other experimenter based s o l e l y on the game m a t e r i a l s , e.g. saying, "He w i l l choose the two n i c k e l cup because he w i l l get more i f the money i s under i t " (p. 47). In S t r a t e g y B the c h i l d begins with an "A" s t r a t e g y approach but then notes that the other p l a y e r might a l s o 1 4 th i n k that way and so switches h i s or her c h o i c e , e.g. "...he might th i n k we're going to f o o l him and take the two n i c k e l s out so I took the small one (one c o i n ) out" (p. 47). S t r a t e g y C takes the f i r s t two i n t o account and goes one step f u r t h e r , e s s e n t i a l l y a r r i v i n g back at an 'A' type choice but a f t e r f o l l o w i n g a w e l l reasoned route. i . e . , T h i s i n v o l v e s knowing that one's opponent may a n t i c i p a t e the simple s w i t c h i n g gambit of s t r a t e g y B and thus the money i s removed from the 10 cent cup. I t i s apparent that the l o g i c a l complexity of the c h i l d ' s game-playing reasoning i n c r e a s e s a c r o s s s t r a t e g i e s . F l a v e l l et a l . found, as expected, that the use of more complex s t r a t e g i e s over more simpler ones i n c r e a s e s with age in middle c h i l d h o o d . In the second task of note, c h i l d r e n were presented with a s e r i e s of seven p i c t u r e c a r d s . The cards, when f u l l y l a i d out, i l l u s t r a t e d a s t o r y which the c h i l d was asked to r e l a t e . The obvious seven p i c t u r e s t o r y i n v o l v e d a boy who while walking down the s t r e e t c o n f r o n t s an angry dog, i s chased, e v e n t u a l l y f i n d s s h e l t e r i n an apple t r e e , and once there s e t t l e s back to enjoy an apple. A f t e r t h i s i n i t i a l s t o r y was produced by the c h i l d the three of the seven cards which d e a l t with the dog elements of the s t o r y were removed and the c h i l d was asked to t e l l the s t o r y p o r t r a y e d by the remaining cards from the p o i n t of view of some newly a r r i v i n g experimenter who had never seen the cards b e f o r e . The obvious "dog-l e s s " s t o r y i n v o l v e s something about a boy who loves 1 5 apples seeing a t r e e , running to i t , c l i m b i n g i t , and e n j o y i n g an apple. C h i l d r e n ' s responses to t h i s task were c l a s s i f i e d as f a l l i n g i n t o one of four c a t a g o r i e s ranging from: (1) those c h i l d r e n who b a s i c a l l y recounted the f u l l seven p i c t u r e s t o r y even though the newly a r r i v i n g person had not seen a l l seven p i c t u r e s , to (4) those c h i l d r e n who t o l d spontaneous four p i c t u r e d og-less s t o r i e s . Category 2 responses were scored by those c h i l d r e n who, while not s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioning the dog, a t t r i b u t e d some form of fear as the m o t i v a t i o n f o r the boy's tre e c l i m b i n g . C h i l d r e n s c o r i n g i n category 3 d i d not mention the dog i n t h e i r second s t o r i e s but r e a d i l y s u p p l i e d i t , when asked, as the reason a new person would give fo r the boy having climbed the t r e e . As with the n i c k e l s task the use of higher response c a t a g o r i e s i n c r e a s e d with the age of the s u b j e c t s a c r o s s middle c h i l d h o o d . Given F l a v e l l ' s " d e s c r i p t i v e " purpose t h e o r e t i c a l e x t r a p o l a t i o n from h i s data was l e f t to f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t e r s . Before t u r n i n g to t h i s work, however i t i s necessary to mention the work of F e f f e r whose i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of r o l e t a k i n g a c t u a l l y predated those of F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g u e s . F e f f e r , l i k e F l a v e l l a f t e r him, was i n t r i g u e d by the s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of Piaget and I n h e l d e r ' s three mountains task and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the n o t i o n of d e c e n t r a t i o n and the i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviours of c h i l d r e n ( F e f f e r , 1959, 1970; F e f f e r & G o u r e v i t c h , 1960). To. assess t h i s , F e f f e r 1 6 c o n s t r u c t e d h i s g e n e r i c a l l y l a b e l e d Role Taking Task (RTT) i n which c h i l d r e n were f i r s t asked to t e l l a s t o r y using three or four c h a r a c t e r s that were presented to the c h i l d i n a p i c t u r e . They were then asked to r e t e l l the s t o r y from the po i n t of view of each of the c h a r a c t e r s presented i n the s t o r y beyond the p r o t a g o n i s t . The c h i l d r e n ' s responses were scored a c c o r d i n g to the degree to which they were capable of de c e n t e r i n g from the given t a r g e t p e r s p e c t i v e and simultaneously i n t e g r a t e i t with the p e r s p e c t i v e s of the other c h a r a c t e r s present i n the s t o r y . The r e s u l t i n g l e v e l s of "decentering a c t i v i t y " are as follows:. (1) Simple r e f o c u s s i n g - - T h i s i n v o l v e s . i n c o n s i s t e n t d e c e n t e r i n g i n that the c h i l d i s seen to s h i f t focus when d e s c r i b i n g d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r s but i s unable to preserve meaning c o n s i s t e n t l y across c h a r a c t e r s , e.g. a "mother" might be d e s c r i b e d as sad while at the same time the " f a t h e r " might d e s c r i b e her as pl e a s e d . (2) C o n s i s t e n t e l a b o r a t ion--Responses of t h i s type show evidence not only of an understanding that views may change from c h a r a c t e r to c h a r a c t e r but that there may be some c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n between them, e.g., the f a t h e r who had a bad day at the o f f i c e might d e s c r i b e h i m s e l f (through the c h i l d s t o r y t e l l e r ) as f e e l i n g l o u s y . (3) Change of p e r s p e c t i v e - - I n t h i s catagory responses are not only seen to e x h i b i t both r e f o c u s s i n g and c o n s i s t e n t e l a b o r a t i o n but the viewpoints themselves are a l s o e l a b o r a t e d i n a manner both c o n s i s t e n t and a p p r o p r i a t e with p r e v i o u s 17 views, e.g., the mother i s seen by h e r s e l f as being t i r e d from hard work while the f a t h e r sees her as not appearing p l e a s e d . C h a r a c t e r s here o f f e r the kinds of reasons f o r t h e i r f e e l i n g s that on which they themselves are b e t t e r equiped to r e p o r t . What F e f f e r ' s stages of r o l e t a k i n g may be seen to d e t a i l i s a general developmental movement away from an e g o c e n t r i c view of the world i n which c h i l d r e n only c o n s i d e r t h e i r own view of the world, towards a more decentered view which, i n c o n s i d e r i n g the p o t e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t views of o t h e r s , g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e s mutually s a t i s f a c t o r y i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n . To r e t u r n to the f i e l d s i n c e F l a v e l l et a l . ' s book, a number of developmental sequences have been p o s i t e d to account f o r c h i l d r e n ' s s o c i a l r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . DeVries (1970) u t i l i z e d a v a r i a t i o n of F l a v e l l ' s n i c k e l s task by l o o k i n g at c h i l d r e n ' s penny-hiding s t r a t e g i e s i n a w h i c h - h a n d - i s - i t - i n s t y l e game. Her r e s u l t s l e a d her to o u t l i n e a developmental sequence of game p l a y i n g a b i l i t y . T h i s sequence begins with those c h i l d r e n who f a i l to see any need f o r secrecy i n h i d i n g the penny and procedes through the p o i n t where the competitive nature of the game i s r e a l i z e d and the c h i l d r e n t r u l y hide the penny but f a i l to c r e d i t t h e i r opponent with s t r a t e g i c i n t e n t c u l m i n a t i n g when they not only r e a l i z e that t h e i r opponent i s t r y i n g to outwit them but take steps to a n t i c i p a t e those guessing s t r a t a g i e s . DeVries suggests that the improved gaming a b i l i t i e s of her 5-18 to 6-year-'old s u b j e c t s r e f l e c t s t h e i r i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y to take the r o l e of other persons. The development of the a b i l i t y to think about the t h i n k i n g of other people was i n v e s t i g a t e d more d i r e c t l y by M i l l e r , K e s s e l , and F l a v e l l (1970). They presented c h i l d r e n with l i n e drawn busts of a c h i l d over whose head hovered "thought bubbles" s i m i l a r to those used i n comic s t r i p s to represent c o v e r t thoughts or speech. The content of the t a r g e t c h i l d ' s thoughts ranged from simple c o n t i g u i t y (an o b j e c t or one or two p e o p l e ) , through a c t i o n s (one person t a l k i n g to another), one-loop r e c u r s i o n (a person t h i n k i n g about some t h i r d person), to the u l t i m a t e twp-loop r e c u r s i o n (a person t h i n k i n g of someone t h i n k i n g about yet another person). The s c a l a b i l i t y of these items was confirmed and the d i f f i c u l t y v a r i e d as p r e d i c t e d from c o n t i g u i t y items through to two-loop r e c u r s i o n s . A l l s u b j e c t s performed c o r r e c t l y on the c o n t i g u i t y items while i t was not u n t i l grade f i v e that a l e v e l of 35% c o r r e c t was reached f o r two-loop r e c u r s i o n s . These r e s u l t s were seen to suggest, i n l i n e with p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , that some op e r a t i o n s are grasped developmentally e a r l i e r than o t h e r s . A problem was noted with the s c a l a b i l i t y approach, however, i n that i t does not speak to the q u e s t i o n of how one stage or l e v e l might l e a d to or evolve i n t o the next. F o l l o w i n g the above r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s Selman began a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s aimed at d e s c r i b i n g the developmental sequence of s o c i a l r o l e t a k i n g i n terms which were l e s s 19 dependent on the tasks used to assess i t , as was the case with the game tasks of DeVries and F l a v e l l . In h i s f i r s t study i n t h i s area, Selman (1971) attempted to r e p l i c a t e DeVries' f i n d i n g s using a s i m i l a r penny h i d i n g game, and u t i l i z e d a hidden room paradigm to i n v e s t i g a t e c h i l d r e n ' s reasoning about the p r e d i c t i o n s of o t h e r s . In the hidden room task c h i l d r e n were seated i n a "watching" room from which they c o u l d see, through windows, two a d d i t i o n a l rooms. Another c h i l d was put i n t o one of the other rooms (the "choosing" room) where two dowels stuck out from the w a l l . The dowels a c t u a l l y continued through to the t h i r d room (the " s e c r e t " room) which was only v i s i b l e to the o r i g i n a l c h i l d i n the watching room. One o b j e c t was pl a c e d on the end of each of the dowels i n the choosing room (e.g., a red a i r p l a n e and a black h o r s e ) . Another o b j e c t from the set of three (e.g., a red Indian) was pl a c e d on the end of the dowel i n the s e c r e t room connected to the choosing room o b j e c t which the c h i l d had s a i d i t was r e l a t e d to i n p r e t e s t t r i a l s (e.g., Indian and plane together as both are red or the Indian and the horse together Indian can r i d e the h o r s e ) . The c h i l d i n the watching room was questioned about the knowledge of the c h i l d i n the choosing room as w e l l as being asked to p r e d i c t which dowel they would say the i n d i a n was on. Based on the responses of 4- to 6-year-old c h i l d r e n to the above tasks Selman d e t a i l e d four stages of s o c i a l r o l e t a k i n g . L e v e l A - - C h i l d r e n here are seen to have a sense of the 20 other but f a i l to d i s t i n g u i s h between thoughts and p e r s p e c t i v e s of s e l f and other. L e v e l B - - D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the s e l f and the other occurs here but the c h i l d r e n s t i l l f a i l to see any communality of thoughts between s e l f and other. L e v e l C--Here c h i l d r e n a t t r i b u t e s t h e i r own ideas to the other because they h y p o t h e t i c a l l y put themselves i n the o ther's shoes but see the other's i n t e r e s t s as being s i m i l a r to t h e i r own. L e v e l D - - F i n a l l y the c h i l d r e n become aware that o t hers have p e r s p e c t i v e s based on t h e i r own reasoning which may or may not be d i f f e r e n t than t h e i r own. Drawing on the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, the e a r l i e r work of F e f f e r and F l a v e l l et a l . , and what they termed "developmental p r i n c i p l e s of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and i n t e g r a t i o n " (p. 804), Selman and Byrne (1974) c o n s t r u c t e d a t h e o r e t i c a l mechanism f o r d e s c r i b i n g and a research s t r a t e g y f o r a s s e s s i n g the wider range of s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g beyond that of 4- to 6-year-olds. They u t i l i z e d a f i l m s t r i p to i l l u s t r a t e a s t o r y . In a sample s t o r y , a g i r l named H o l l y i s seen by her f a t h e r to f a l l unhurt from a t r e e and as a r e s u l t i s asked by her f a t h e r to promise never to climb t r e e s a g a i n . L a t e r H o l l y i s c o n f r o n t e d by a f r i e n d whose k i t t e n i s stuck up a t r e e and she i s asked by her f r i e n d to use her s u p e r i o r t r e e c l i m b i n g s k i l l to save the animal. A f t e r hearing the s t o r y the c h i l d r e n were asked a number of q u e s t i o n s about the f e e l i n g s of the key s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s and the r e l a t i v e 21 knowledge each c h a r a c t e r has about the thoughts and f e e l i n g s of other s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s . The probes were nested ( l i k e those of M i l l e r , K e s s e l , & F l a v e l l , 1970) so as to access, i n stepwise f a s h i o n , each of a h y p o t h e t i c a l developmental s e r i e s of r o l e t a k i n g l e v e l s . These l e v e l s are as f o l l o w s ; L e v e l Q--Egocentric r o l e t a k i n g . At t h i s l e v e l c h i l d r e n are incapable of drawing a d i s t i n c t i o n between a. p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a s o c i a l a c t i o n and what they c o n s i d e r to be the true or c o r r e c t response. L e v e l 1--Subjective r o l e t a k i n g . C h i l d r e n at t h i s l e v e l r e a l i z e that two people may think or f e e l d i f f e r e n t l y given that they have d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n or f i n d themselves in d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . However, they do not as yet a p p r e c i a t e that persons may c o n s i d e r each other as s u b j e c t s r a t h e r than o b j e c t s . L e v e l 2 - - S e l f - r e f l e c t i v e r o l e t a k i n g . At t h i s l e v e l c h i l d r e n b e l i e v e that others may t h i n k or f e e l d i f f e r e n t l y based on t h e i r own uniquely ordered set of values or purposes. They are capable of r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r own m o t i v a t i o n s and a c t i o n s from the p o i n t of view another person and r e a l i z i n g that others too are capable of t h i s . These r e f l e c t i o n s , however, only occur s e q u e n t i a l l y and thus are not c o n s i d e r e d mutually or from the viewpoint of some t h i r d person. L e v e l 3--Mutual r o l e t a k i n g . C h i l d r e n at t h i s l e v e l are capable of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h e i r own view from that of a g e n e r a l i z e d other ( i . e . , norm). In an i n t e r a c t i v e s i t u a t i o n 22 they are capable of c o n s i d e r i n g each person's view from a t h i r d person's stance. F u r t h e r they r e a l i z e that both s e l f and other can c o n s i d e r each o t h e r ' s view both simultaneously and mutually. T h i s sequence was found by Selman and Byrne to conform to developmental e x p e c t a t i o n s across the ages of 4 to 10 years with only 8- to 10-year-olds e x h i b i t i n g any l e v e l 2 or 3 a b i l i t y . As with p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h the suggestion here i s that i n terms .of s o c i a l r o l e t a k i n g , as with the e a r l i e r a s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g d e t a i l e d by Piaget and Inhelder, c h i l d r e n are seen, developmentally, to move away from an imbeddedness i n t h e i r own view of the world towards more outwardly d i r e c t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p o t e n t i a l l y unique thoughts and views of o t h e r s . To c l o s e t h i s s e c t i o n on developmental sequences of s o c i a l r o l e t a k i n g the work of Urberg and Docherty (1976) w i l l now be examined as t h e i r approach foreshadows the next t r e n d i n r o l e t a k i n g r e s e a r c h to be d e a l t with here. In r e a c t i n g t o the e a r l y debate about j u s t what type of r o l e t a k i n g task performance c o n s t i t u t e s decentered or non-e g o c e n t r i c r o l e t a k i n g on the p a r t of the c h i l d , Urberg and Docherty presented t h e i r s u b j e c t s with a s e r i e s of tasks r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of those then c u r r e n t in the r o l e t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e . These ranged from tasks i n which c h i l d r e n were simply asked to i d e n t i f y the emotions of another c h i l d i n a c u l t u r a l l y determined scene (e.g. g e t t i n g a b i r t h d a y present, Borke, 1971) through a three p i c t u r e a d a p t a t i o n of F l a v e l l et 23 a l . ' s (1968) apple-dog s t o r y and the f u l l p i c t u r e s t o r y procedure of Chandler and Greenspan (1972, see below f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n ) . A f t e r examining the perfomances of c h i l d r e n ranging in age from 3 to 6 years, Urberg and Docherty concluded that strong support e x i s t e d f o r t h e i r h y p othesis of a h i e r a r c h y of s o c i a l r o l e t a k i n g s k i l l s . Drawing upon t h e i r r e s u l t s and those of previous r e s e a r c h e r s they presented the f o l l o w i n g three step model of r o l e t a k i n g competence: L e v e l 0--NO r o l e t a k i n g s k i l l s . T h i s l e v e l i n c l u d e d those c h i l d r e n who gave no evidence of being able to see another's p e r s p e c t i v e when i t was d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r own (median age = 3 1/2 y e a r s ) . L e v e l 1--Sequential d e c e n t r a t i o n . C h i l d r e n at t h i s l e v e l can i n f e r another's viewpoint s e q u e n t i a l l y by f o c u s s i n g on aspects of the s i t u a t i o n (median age = 4 1/2 y e a r s ) , L e v e l 2--Simultaneous d e c e n t r a t i o n . At t h i s . l e v e l c h i l d r e n were capable of c o r r e c t l y i n f e r r i n g another's view even when t h i s i n v o l v e d simultaneous c o n s i d e r a t i o n of two aspects of the s i t u a t i o n (median age= 5 1/2 y e a r s ) . In a manner i n d i c a t i v e of what was to come i n the r o l e -t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e , Urberg and Docherty concluded t h e i r paper by suggesting that i t seems f u t i l e to search f o r the sequence of r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s development. They a s s e r t that a l l manner of p r o c e d u r a l and task v a r i a b l e s as w e l l as the nature of the concept to be i n f e r e d by the c h i l d , may a f f e c t the r e s u l t i n g c l u s t e r i n g of r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s . As a r e s u l t they urge that rather than c o n s i d e r i n g r o l e t a k i n g as a 24 g l o b a l or u n i - d i m e n s i o n a l a b i l i t y the p l e t h o r a of v a r i a b l e s which may e f f e c t performance r e q u i r e f u r t h e r m u l t i -dimensional i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Before moving on to the i m p l i c a t i o n s and consequences of the above d e t a i l e d r e s e a r c h trends, a f u r t h e r theme must be i d e n t i f i e d which i s not r e s t r i c t e d to the realm of egocentrism but may be seen to u n d e r l i e much' of the recent work i n t h i s a r ea. T h i s theme c e n t e r s about what may be i n t e r p r e t e d as a g e n e r a l r e a c t i o n to P i a g e t ' s s e t t i n g of t e n t a t i v e lower bounds on the ages at which v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s are mastered. Having announced a p o i n t before which c e r t a i n kinds of c o g n i t i v e accomplishments were thought not to be p o s s i b l e Piaget e f f e c t i v e l y threw out a c h a l l e n g e to every reputation-hungry d e v e l o p m e n t a l i s t i n North America to prove him wrong. Much of the r e s e a r c h i n the r o l e t a k i n g domain has consequently c o n s i s t e d of attempts to f i n d evidence of r o l e - t a k i n g , as w e l l as other c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s , i n younger and younger c h i l d r e n . The combined e f f e c t of these v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h trends has been to focus a t t e n t i o n upon the assessment of "non-perceptual" forms of r o l e - t a k i n g competence, in ways which were m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y informed by the more d e t a i l e d study of the p e r c e p t u a l r o l e -t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e and prompted by an i n t e r e s t i n pushing back the apparent age of which such accomplishments are presumed to be p o s s i b l e . In general these e f f o r t s have taken the form of v a r i o u s t y p o l o g i e s of presumably d i f f e r e n t r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . 25. There are two major t y p o l o g i e s which may be i d e n t i f i e d in the r o l e - t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e one of which i s nested w i t h i n the o t h e r . The more general typology d i v i d e s the domain of r o l e t a k i n g a c c o r d i n g to which aspect of the other person's s u b j e c t i v e experience i s to be known. These types w i l l be seen to i n c l u d e what the other person sees ( p e r c e p t u a l r o l e t a k i n g ) , what the other person t h i n k s (conceptual r o l e t a k i n g ) , and what the other person f e e l s (emotional r o l e t a k i n g ) . The other major typology i s subordinate to t h i s more general c o n t e n t - o f - r o l e - t a k i n g typology i n that the d i s t i n c t i o n i t draws i s seen to l i e w i t h i n the area of p e r c e p t u a l r o l e t a k i n g . T h i s l a t t e r typology, p o s i t e d by F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g u e s , d i s t i n g u i s h e s between i n s t a n c e s of r o l e t a k i n g which simply r e q u i r e c h i l d r e n to r e p o r t on what other people see ( L e v e l 1) and i n s t a n c e s i n which c h i l d r e n are asked to d e t a i l how or i n what o r i e n t a t i o n another person views an o b j e c t or a r r a y ( L e v e l 2). Research on t h i s L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l be d e t a i l e d f i r s t as i t i s the g u i d i n g assumptions and subsequent r e s u l t s of work in t h i s area which may be seen to have engendered much of the work on the more general r o l e -t a k i n g typology to be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h i s t h e s i s . The D i s t i n c t i o n Between L e v e l 1 and L e v e l 2 Knowledge The L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n i s the s p r i n g board fo r an ongoing l i n e of r e s e a r c h pursued by F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g u e s . T h e i r approach i s grounded i n an i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g framework as i t i n v o l v e s a t t e n d i n g to c h i l d r e n ' s 26 a c q u i s i t i o n of c e r t a i n f a c t s about, and general r u l e s f o r o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n , the s o c i a l world. T h e i r b a s i c c o n t e n t i o n i s that the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g demands of the p r e v i o u s l y employed measures of r o l e - t a k i n g competence ( i . e . , c o n s t i t u t e d by the universe of r e l e v a n t and i r r e l e v a n t task f e a t u r e s which c h i l d r e n must process i n order to perform the task c o r r e c t l y ) may have l e a d p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s to underestimate the rudimentary r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s of young c h i l d r e n . In the s e c t i o n s which f o l l o w the e m p i r i c a l case f o r the L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o the b a s i c nature of each of these l e v e l s w i l l be r e p o r t e d . F o l l o w i n g t h i s , recent r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g to the more general r o l e - t a k i n g typology w i l l be d e t a i l e d as i t may be seen to have been i n s p i r e d by the nature of the r e s e a r c h i n t o the L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n . The L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n was f i r s t p o s i t e d by F l a v e l l (1974) and the f i r s t e m p i r i c a l work based on i t was undertaken by Masangkay, McCluskey, Mc l n t y r e , Sims-Knight, Vaughn, and F l a v e l l (1974). In t h i s i n i t i a l e f f o r t i t was reasoned that Piaget and I n h e l d e r ' s three mountains task was overburdened with i n c i d e n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g demands which rendered the s p e c i f i c nature of the c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g competence l e s s c l e a r . T h e i r aim was to c o n s t r u c t a s e r i e s of simpler tasks which would more d i r e c t l y assess the e s s e n t i a l components of t h i s a b i l i t y i n young c h i l d r e n . To support t h i s r a t i o n a l e Masangkay et a l . c i t e d e a r l i e r work ( F i s h b e i n , Lewis, & K e i f f e r , 1972) which showed that with 27 simpler a r r a y s ( i . e . , d i s c r e t e o b j e c t s ) even p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t e d some understanding of the v i s u a l percepts of o t h e r s . To e x p l o r e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n Masangkay et a l . employed a v a r i e t y of tasks which were c l a s s i f i a b l e as being r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of e i t h e r L e v e l 1 (what) or L e v e l 2 (how) is s u e s and presented them to 3- to 5-year~old c h i l d r e n . The L e v e l 1 tasks w i l l be d e t a i l e d f i r s t . In t h e i r "Apple-Dog" task c h i l d r e n were presented with an u p r i g h t board which had a picture- on each s i d e (e.g., a dog on one s i d e and a cat on the Ot h e r ) . A f t e r f a m i l i a r i z i n g the c h i l d r e n with both s i d e s of the board i t was p l a c e d u p r i g h t between them and the experimenter such that each of them c o u l d only see one s i d e . C h i l d r e n were then asked to re p o r t on what the experimenter and they themselves saw. In the " D i r e c t i o n - o f - G a z e " task the experimenter e x p l a i n e d that she was going to look at some o b j e c t s i n the room and the c h i l d was to re p o r t what the experimenter was seei n g . The experimenter then c l o s e d her eyes and s h i f t e d her head such that upon being opened her eyes would be f i x a t e d on a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t (e.g., a toy a i r p l a n e a t t a c h e d to the c e i l i n g ) . The c h i l d r e n were asked to re p o r t on what the experimenter saw. In the f i n a l L e v e l 1 task ( F i s h e s ) three d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t f i s h were mounted on i n t e r s e c t i n g r o t a t a b l e spokes. The c h i l d r e n were asked to choose from three c h o i c e f i s h , i d e n t i c a l to those on the spokes, the one l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y in 28 f r o n t of them and the experimenter r e s p e c t i v l y . The L e v e l 2 tasks employed by Masankay et a l . are d e t a i l e d below. In t h e i r " T u r t l e 2" (where the number r e f e r s to the l e v e l the task i s intended to assess) task a drawing of a t u r t l e was p l a c e d f l a t on the t a b l e between the experimenter and each of the c h i l d r e n i n the study. The c h i l d r e n were asked whether the t u r t l e appeared upside-down or r i g h t - s i d e - u p to themselves and the experimenter. In the other L e v e l 2 task a foam rubber witch's head was presented such that the c h i l d r e n and experimenter saw e i t h e r i t s face or the back of i t s head. C h i l d r e n were then presented with three " t e s t witch heads" ( i . e . , f r o n t , back, and one s i d e view) and asked to p i c k the one which represented t h e i r own and the experimenter's view of the o r i g i n a l witch's head. A l l of the 3- to 5 1/2-year o l d c h i l d r e n performed at c e i l i n g l e v e l s on the Dog-Cat and D i r e c t i o n - o f - G a z e ( L e v e l 1) tasks however, i t was not u n t i l 4- to 4 1/2-years that the T u r t l e 2 ( L e v e l 2) task was mastered. The F i s h e s task was handled s u c c e s s f u l l y by most of the 3- to 3 1/2-year o l d s and a c e i l i n g of p e r f e c t performance was reached by the 3 1/2- to 4-year o l d s . F i n a l l y , only the 5- to 5 1/2-year o l d s began to approach c e i l i n g l e v e l s on the Witch Head task. In accounting f o r these r e s u l t s Masangkay et a l . p o i n t e d out that those tasks which r e q u i r e the c h i l d to i n d i c a t e which whole ob j e c t or p i c t u r e i s l o c a t e d c l o s e s t to the experimenter or themselves in l i n e of s i g h t f a s h i o n ( i . e . on Dog-Cat and F i s h e s tasks) are accomplishable b y . r e f e r e n c i n g a 29 L e v e l 1 understanding of what the other person sees. The other tasks ( i . e . T u r t l e 2 and Witches), by c o n t r a s t , r e q u i r e a L e v e l 2 or how the other sees i t understanding on the p a r t of the c h i l d i n that to perform c o r r e c t l y they must recognize which a t t r i b u t e s of the t a r g e t o b j e c t ( i . e . nose, s h e l l , or f e e t ) are d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e to viewers seated a p a r t . In order to t e s t t h i s a t t r i b u t e focus h y p o t h e s i s , a t h i r d experiment was run i n which the L e v e l 1 elements of a p a r t i c u l a r L e v e l 2 task were h i g h l i g h t e d . To accomplish t h i s the witch's head was presented: (1) as i t was i n the second experiment, (2) with d i f f e r e n t c o l o u r e d dots a f f i x e d to i t s nose and the back of i t s head, and (3) s p l i t from s i d e to s i d e and glued to a board i n a manner s i m i l a r to that used i n the dog-cat task. I t was found that 3 1/2- to 4-year o l d c h i l d r e n performed at c e i l i n g on a l l but the o r i g i n a l Witches task suggesting that only when such tasks are c a s t i n L e v e l 1 terms are the younger c h i l d r e n s u c c e s s f u l . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study were seen to support the L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n by showing that the a b i l i t y to c o r r e c t l y r e p ort what another person sees developmentally precedes that of r e p o r t i n g how or in what o r i e n t a t i o n something i s seen. The reason f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was seen, i n i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c c e s i n g terms, to be that younger, L e v e l 1, c h i l d r e n do not i n t e r p r e t L e v e l 2 q u e s t i o n s as an i n v i t a t i o n to focus on subparts or s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e s of the t a r g e t o b j e c t and thus f a i l i n such tasks by u t i l i z i n g a suboptimal s t r a t e g y . By way of a f i n a l statement Masangkay et a l . 30 suggested that while the three mountains task, when viewed i n l i g h t of t h e i r f i n d i n g s , may be seen to be a "hard" L e v e l 2 task i t i s not as yet c l e a r whether there are any f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g p r e r e q u i s i t e s to c h i l d r e n ' s s u c c e s s f u l performance on i t and s i m i l a r l y d i f f i c u l t t a s k s . The d i s t i n c t i o n between L e v e l 1 and L e v e l 2 knowledge was f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d (using 3- to 4-year-old c h i l d r e n ) i n a three p a r t study by F l a v e l l , E v e r e t t , C r o f t , and F l a v e l l (1981). The f i r s t p a r t of t h i s study i n v o l v e d a simple attempt to r e p l i c a t e the Masangkay et a l . f i n d i n g s using the Dog-Cat and T u r t l e 2 t a s k s . I t a l s o i n c l u d e d a t e s t of the d i s t i n c t i o n u t i l i z i n g tasks which were as s i m i l a r as p o s s i b l e i n order that the l e v e l of knowledge assessed be l e s s confounded by stimulus v a r i a t i o n . T h i s second manipulation ( " T u r t l e 1") was accomplished by p r e s e n t i n g c h i l d r e n with the o r i g i n a l T u r t l e 2 p i c t u r e s but adding to them a p e r p e n d i c u l a r white car d which was so p l a c e d as to e f f e c t i v e l y b i s e c t the t u r t l e and leave only the f e e t or the s h e l l v i s i b l e to a p p r o p r i a t e l y seated o b s e r v e r s . A s i m i l a r task ("Worm 2") d e p i c t e d a worm which appeared to be e i t h e r l y i n g on a red or blue blanket depending on the s i d e from which i t was viewed. As expected a l l of the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s f i r s t p art of the study evidenced mastery of the L e v e l 1 tasks ( i . e . , Dog-Cat & T u r t l e 1) while f a i l i n g to evidence any c l e a r competence with e i t h e r of the L e v e l 2 tasks ( i . e . , T u r t l e 2 & Worm 2). In the second part of the study the attempt was made to 31 u t i l i z e more r e a l i s t i c t a s k s . To t h i s end a v a r i e t y of animals were used both i n the T u r t l e 2 format and i n a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of t h i s procedure i n which c h i l d r e n were asked i f the animal looked, to them and the experimenter, to be on i t s back or on i t s f e e t . L a s t l y a p i c t u r e book was p l a c e d between the c h i l d and the experimenter and the c h i l d was asked whether the p i c t u r e i n the book looked "the r i g h t way" or "the wrong way" to him or her and the experimenter. C h i l d r e n ' s (3- to 4-year-olds) performances on these tasks were u n i f o r m l y poor and s i m i l a r to those found f o r other L e v e l 2 t a s k s . T h e i r poor performance on the book task lends perhaps the s t r o n g e s t support to the L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n by v i r t u e of i t s apparent s i m p l i c i t y . In the t h i r d part of the study, c h i l d r e n who f a i l e d the L e v e l 2 tasks i n the second p a r t of the study were given a b r i e f t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n on the d i f f e r i n g nature of own versus experimenter p e r s p e c t i v e of the up-side-down and r i g h t - s i d e -up p e r c e i v e d o r i e n t a t i o n of a d i f f e r e n t s timulus m a t e r i a l . The reasoning behind t h i s m a nipulation was that i f a true developmental step e x i s t e d between the a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e L e v e l 1 and L e v e l 2 knowledge a short t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n should not be s u f f i c i e n t to induce L e v e l 2 responding i n c h i l d r e n who have p r e v i o u s l y only given evidence of L e v e l 1 knowledge. While s i g n i f i c a n t pre- to p o s t - t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s were re p o r t e d , only 2 of the 13 c h i l d r e n achieved near c e i l i n g scores on the p o s t t e s t . I t was found that the r e l a t i v e improvement a c r o s s tasks was p r i m a r i l y due to a s h i f t by 32 s e v e r a l s u b j e c t s from e g o c e n t r i c to random responding. T h i s suggested t h a t , while the c h i l d r e n r e a l i z e d t h e i r p r i o r response p a t t e r n was wrong by L e v e l 1 standards, they lacked the L e v e l 2 a b i l i t y to determine what was c o r r e c t . On the whole these r e s u l t s were taken as powerful support f o r the " p s y c h o l o g i c a l and developmental r e a l i t y " {p. 102) of the L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n i n the area of c h i l d r e n ' s percept c o g n i t i o n . I t was thus determined that c h i l d r e n become capable of r e p o r t i n g what another peple see before they can e f f e c t i v l y i n d i c a t e how they see i t . F o l l o w i n g the i n i t i a l p o s i t i n g and d e t a i l i n g of the What/How or L e v e l 1/Level 2 d i s t i n c t i o n F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g e s moved r a p i d l y on to u n r a v e l the developmental i m p l i c a t i o n s h e l d by each type of knowledge f o r the v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g performances of young c h i l d r e n . Research on L e v e l 1 knowledge. In t h i s s e c t i o n and the one which f o l l o w s i t , a l i n e of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , undertaken by F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g e s , i n t o the b a s i c nature of L e v e l 1 and L e v e l 2 knowledge w i l l be o u t l i n e d . The reader i s asked to s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t e n d to the nature of t h i s l i n e of i n q u i r y . I t s e x c l u s i v e focus on g e n e r a l i z e d r u l e s - o f - v i e w s rather.than on the nature of c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of the s u b j e c t i v e experiences of others w i l l be seen, i n f u t u r e s e c t i o n s , to have informed much of the recent r e s e a r c h i n t o the nature of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g competencies. Lempers, F l a v e l l , and F l a v e l l (1977) undertook' a comprehensive study i n t o very young c h i l d r e n ' s t a c i t or L e v e l 33 1 knowledge concerning v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n . The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study ranged i n age from 1- to 3-years and were each presented with a long s e r i e s of tasks intended to tap t h e i r a b i l i t y i n three general areas: (1) showing o b j e c t s to o t h e r s , (2) d e p r i v i n g o t h e r s of t h e i r view of o b j e c t s ( i . e . , h i d i n g o b j e c t s from o t h e r s ) , and (3) f o l l o w i n g or d i r e c t i n g the v i s u a l l i n e of regard of another person ( i . e . , l o o k i n g and p o i n t i n g ) . The v a r i e t y of showing tasks i n c l u d e d having c h i l d r e n show o t h e r s : (1) p i c t u r e s (on cards, taped to b l o c k s or on the ends of s t i c k s ) , (2) o b j e c t s from behind screens, and (3) l a r g e immovable o b j e c t s . F u r t h e r the c h i l d r e n were requested to show t h i n g s to another person whose eyes were covered or c l o s e d . The h i d i n g tasks i n v e s t i g a t e d c h i l d r e n ' s attempts to hide themselves and s e v e r a l l a r g e or small o b j e c t s from another's view while p o i n t i n g tasks were aimed at the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to f o l l o w another's l i n e of i n d i c a t i o n / r e g a r d , as w e l l as the ways i n which c h i l d r e n themselves p o i n t e d to t h i n g s . To summarize the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study, 1-year-olds were found to be q u i t e capable of p o i n t i n g t h i n g s out to others and were n e a r l y as adept at f o l l o w i n g the i n d i c a t i o n s of o t h e r s . That they were not merely p o i n t i n g at o b j e c t s r a t h e r than i n d i c a t i n g them f o r the b e n e f i t of the other observer i s suggested by t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y checking on the o t h e r ' s l i n e of regard by l o o k i n g back and f o r t h between 34 them and the object s e v e r a l times. In showing t h i n g s to others they tended to' do so i n such a way that the stimulus o b j e c t / p i c t u r e was v i s i b l e to both. By 2 years of age, however, the c h i l d r e n were capable of showing t h i n g s to other in an " a d u l t " way ( i . e . , r i g h t - s i d e up and f u l l y o r i e n t e d to the other o b s e r v e r ) . Two-year-olds were seen to have a good understanding of the f u n c t i o n of the eyes i n that they removed o b s t r u c t i o n s ( i . e . , hands) from the oth e r ' s eyes or even moved the other person when necessary to f a c i l i t a t e h i s or her view of an o b j e c t . The 3-year-old s u b j e c t s performed almost f l a w l e s s l y on a l l tasks with the exception of the one which r e q u i r e d that they show something to another person while they themselves remained hidden. Lempers et a l . , i n reviewing these f i n d i n g s o u t l i n e four key a s p e c t s of the v i s u a l p e r c e p t i v e process which together c o n s t i t u t e L e v e l 1 knowledge. These r u l e s of p e r c e p t i o n which are seen to develop between 1 and 3 years of age are as f o l l o w s : (1) The f u n c t i o n of the eyes i s re c o g n i z e d . . . a person i s only able to see something when t h e i r eyes are open or uncovered. (2) Even when the eyes are open not e v e r y t h i n g i s seen. One's l i n e of regard must be p r o p e r l y d i r e c t e d or guided by another i n order that i t c r o s s a t a r g e t o b j e c t to see i t . (3) Even open and d i r e c t e d eyes are not alone s u f f i c i e n t as other o b j e c t s or screens may be i n the way and have 35 to be moved before the t a r g e t o b j e c t may be seen. (4) Young c h i l d r e n seem to know that the other's p e r c e p t i o n or nonperception of o b j e c t s i s d i f f e r e n t than t h e i r own as they w i l l show something to others (and not to themselves) when asked to do so. T h i s i s seen to suggest that the P i a g e t i a n n o t i o n of profound egocentrism cannot be c o r r e c t with r e f e r e n c e to percept c o g n i t i o n (p. 47). A b i l i t y to u t i l i z e these four f a c t o r s of L e v e l 1 knowledge are seen by Lempers et a l . to allow c h i l d r e n to be aware of and be capable of doing three kinds of t h i n g s with regards to another's (O's) seeing of an o b j e c t (X) while a s c r e e n i n g o b j e c t (A) p o t e n t i a l l y or a c t u a l l y occludes the t a r g e t o b j e c t (X). These are as f o l l o w s : Percept P r o d u c t i o n The c h i l d S... [ i s able to] produce a v i s u a l percept i n 0 by v a r i o u s l y r e p o s i t i o n i n g X, A, 0, or S h i m s e l f . . . s o that 0 i s permitted or induced to see X. Percept D e p r i v a t i o n The c h i l d . . . [ i s able to] d e p r i v e 0 of a percept by moving X behind an A, by moving an A i n f r o n t of an X, or by c a u s i n g 0 to turn away from X. Percept D i a g n o s i s The c h i l d . . . [ i s able to] diagnose the o b j e c t of O's c u r r e n t v i s u a l a t t e n t i o n by n o t i n g the o r i e n t a t i o n , i n r e l a t i o n to X of O's eyes or p o i n t e d f i n g e r . ( F l a v e l l 1977, p. 50). 36 There are two s t u d i e s which provide support f o r these c a t a g o r i e s of v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n r e l a t e d a b i l i t i e s . The f i r s t of these (Hughes, 1975) i n v o l v e d p r e s e n t i n g i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n (3 1/2- to 5-years of age) with two p e r p e n d i c u l a r i n t e r s e c t i n g screens so p l a c e d as to c r e a t e four quadrants. One or two "policemen" d o l l s were p l a c e d f a c i n g the edge of one of the screens such that together t h e i r view's covered three quadrants i n t o t a l ( i . e . each policeman saw; two q u a d r a n t s ) . The c h i l d r e n were then asked to p l a c e another d o l l i n a quadrant such that i t was not observable by the policeman or policemen. In l i n e with e a r l i e r r e s u l t s , Hughes found that c h i l d r e n as young as 3 1/2 years of age were capable of e f f e c t i v e l y d e p r i v i n g the p o l i c e d o l l s of a view of the t a r g e t d o l l . The second study ( F l a v e l l , Shipstead, & C r o f t , 1978) i n v o l v e d a systematic attempt to study the e f f e c t s of a l l three of these a b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s on c h i l d r e n ' s success i n h i d i n g o b j e c t s from other people. C h i l d r e n were i n d i v i d u a l l y asked to hide an o b j e c t from themselves or another person e i t h e r by moving the o b j e c t i n r e l a t i o n to a s t a t i o n a r y screen or by moving a screen while the o b j e c t remained i n p l a c e . They were f u r t h e r asked whether they or the other person c o u l d see the o b j e c t given a v a r i e t y of screen and o b j e c t placements made by the experimenter. The r e s u l t s confirmed those p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d by i n d i c a t i n g that by 3 years of age the c h i l d r e n were c l e a r l y capable of h i d i n g an o b j e c t from themselves. I t was f u r t h e r 37 r e p o r t e d that such s u b j e c t s were a l s o capable of noh-e g o c e n t r i c a l l y h i d i n g o b j e c t s from other people. The r e s u l t s of a l l of these s t u d i e s are taken to suggest that the rudiments of L e v e l 1 knowledge may be found i n c h i l d r e n as young as 1 year of age and f u r t h e r that by 3 years of age c h i l d r e n are f u l l y capable of n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l l y r e p o r t i n g what other observers see even though they are as yet unable to determine the s p e c i f i c nature of what the other sees. Research on L e v e l 2 knowledge. In e l a b o r a t i n g upon the contents of L e v e l 2 knowledge, F l a v e l l (1977) draws a d i s t i n c t i o n between: (1) the computational s t r a t e g i e s that c h i l d r e n mentally employ to r o t a t e themselves or an a r r a y or to manipulate before-behind and r i g h t - l e f t r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n order to determine the p r e c i s e nature of another's view, and (2) c h i l d r e n ' s awareness of and a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e , what F l a v e l l terms, n o n - s i t u a t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c L e v e l 2 r u l e s . Such r u l e s are seen to apply to an a b s t r a c t e d n o t i o n of views-of-others ( i . e . , they are d i r e c t e d more at p r o p e r t i e s of the v i s u a l f i e l d than of other viewers) and as such t h e i r use or d i s u s e i s to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from successes or f a i l u r e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s attempts to determine the view of a d i f f e r e n t l y s i t u a t e d observer c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y . In expanding on t h i s r u l e s - o f - p e r c e p t - c o g n i t i o n approach S a l a t a s and F l a v e l l (1976) i n d i v i d u a l l y presented k i n d e r g a r t e n and second grade c h i l d r e n with an a r r a y of e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e d o l l s set i n a d i a g o n a l l i n e before 38 the s u b j e c t . Three Walt Disney c h a r a c t e r d o l l s served as observers l o c a t e d o p p o s i t e and to the r i g h t and l e f t of the c h i l d . C h i l d r e n were f i r s t shown each Disney c h a r a c t e r ' s view and asked to p i c k the p i c t u r e which a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t e d each one. They were then asked to s e l e c t the p i c t u r e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the v a r i o u s views of the d o l l s from e i t h e r a simple ( i . e . seven p i c t u r e s f r o n t , back, and s i d e s ) or one of two complex (with t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ) s e t s . They were f u r t h e r asked a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d at determining t h e i r understanding of the p o t e n t i a l uniqueness of each observer's view of the t a r g e t a r r a y . The r e s u l t s showed that while the k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n understand that a p a r t i c u l a r observer can only have one view of a given a r r a y (Rule 1 ) , o n l y the second graders evidenced a working understanding of the n o t i o n that a p a r t i c u l a r view of the array cannot be seen from more than one viewing p o s i t i o n (Rule 2 ) . I t was f u r t h e r noted that the lac k of Rule 2 use, as evidenced by attempts on the p a r t of s u b j e c t s to compute the other's view, was a f u n c t i o n of e g o c e n t r i c responding which i n turn was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with task d i f f i c u l t y up to at l e a s t second grade. As such i t was suggested that i t i s only l a t e r i n development, when e g o c e n t r i c responding ceases, that use of Rule 2 may be seen to have become c o n t e x t - f r e e . At that time c h i l d r e n may respond i n c o r r e c t l y but not e g o c e n t r i c a l l y , that i s , they w i l l be c e r t a i n that other observers see something e l s e even though they may f a i l to compute i t s exact nature. The nature 39 of L e v e l 2 r u l e s and t h e i r use by c h i l d r e n at v a r i o u s ages were thus e s t a b l i s h e d by the f o r e g o i n g s t u d i e s . With th.ese i n hand, F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g e s moved on to compare the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e s e ' r u l e s to that of the more t r a d i t i o n a l a s p e c t s of c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of space ( i . e . , t h e i r computation-of-other-views s t r a t e g i e s ) . T h i s was attempted by F l a v e l l , Omanson, and Lathan (1978) who sought to b e t t e r c h a r a c t e r i z e the d i f f e r e n t i a l use of L e v e l 2 r u l e s and computational s t r a t e g i e s by c h i l d r e n i n v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a s k s . The s p e c i f i c r u l e i n q u e s t i o n was the above d e t a i l e d " d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s i m p l i e s d i f f e r e n t 'views" (Rule 2) and i t s c o r o l l a r y that "the same p o s i t i o n i m p l i e s the same view." To accomplish t h i s they presented f i r s t , t h i r d and f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n with three s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e problems; one of which c o u l d only be s o l v e d by r u l e use, one s o l v a b l e by computation alone, and one that c o u l d be s o l v e d e i t h e r by r u l e a p p l i c a t i o n or computation. In the "computation on l y " task the c h i l d was to s e l e c t from two p i c t u r e s the one showing the o t h e r ' s view a f t e r l o o k i n g at the a r r a y and the other observer's p o s i t i o n . In the " r u l e o n l y " task the a r r a y was covered and the c h i l d was asked to say which of two p i c t u r e s represented a c e r t a i n observer's view given that one of the p i c t u r e s showed the view of yet another observer who was seated e i t h e r o p p o s i t e or beside the f i r s t observer. The " r u l e or computation" task was s i m i l a r to the " r u l e - o n l y " task except that the d i s p l a y remained uncovered. 40 The f i n d i n g s suggested that performance on both " r u l e only" and "computation only" tasks i n c r e a s e s with age but that the r e l a t i o n between them i s unclear ( i . e . some c h i l d r e n at a l l age l e v e l s were good at one but not the o t h e r ) . More importantly i t was found that c h i l d r e n capable of using Rule 2 p r e f e r r e d i t to computation i n " r u l e or computation" tasks (as measured by response l a t e n c y ) and c o u l d , i f asked, give v e r b a l evidence of having c o n s c i o u s l y accessed the r u l e . These r e s u l t s make i t c l e a r that once c h i l d r e n are capable of u t i l i z i n g L e v e l 2 r u l e s and can determine t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y to a given s i t u a t i o n they w i l l apply them c o n s c i o u s l y , c o n f i d e n t l y , and without e x c e p t i o n . Another L e v e l 2 r u l e to be i n v e s t i g a t e d s t a t e s that "one observer w i l l see a small d i s p l a y b e t t e r (more c l e a r l y , in f i n e r d e t a i l ) than another who shares roughly the same l i n e of s i g h t i f she i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y c l o s e r to i t than the other observer and w i l l see about e q u a l l y w e l l i f they are side by si d e and hence equadistant from i t " ( F l a v e l l , F l a v e l l , Green, & Wilcox, 1980, p. 10). T h i s r u l e i s seen to be s i m i l a r to p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d L e v e l 2 r u l e s i n that i t too i n v o l v e s an understanding on the part of the c h i l d that the v i s u a l experiences of two persons may d i f f e r d e s p i t e the f a c t that they may share the same view or l i n e of s i g h t of an- a r r a y . In order to evaluate c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge of these r u l e s 3- to 5- y e a r - o l d c h i l d r e n were i n d i v i d u a l l y asked whether each of two seated experimenters c o u l d best see a t a r g e t d i s p l a y . The c h i l d r e n were f i r s t t e s t e d f o r t h e i r 41 comprehension of the term " s e e - b e t t e r " by being shown two p i c t u r e s at a d i s t a n c e that made one of them q u i t e ambiguous while the other remained c l e a r . In a l l three t e s t c o n d i t i o n s , two experimenters sat along the same l i n e of s i g h t f a c i n g a p i c t u r e of a b i r d , s e v e r a l f e a t u r e s of which (e.g., i t s eye lashes) were not n o t i c e a b l e from a d i s t a n c e of more than 5 f e e t . The experimenters were e i t h e r : (1) seated si d e by s i d e , or (2) seated 8- and 11-feet, or (3) 5- and.11-feet from the b i r d p i c t u r e r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t was found that while the 3-year-olds seemed to have, l i t t l e understanding of the r e l a t i o n between r e l a t i v e d i s t a n c e from t a r g e t and q u a l i t y of t a r g e t p e r c e p t i o n the 4-year-olds c l e a r l y understood these i s s u e s . The 4-year-olds' understanding seem to c o n s t i t u t e a g e n e r a l i z e d r u l e f o r them in that they o f t e n p r o v i d e d the c o r r e c t answers to q u e s t i o n s the moment they were asked. Thus i t appears that 4- to 5-year-olds understand that the c l o s e r one i s to a t a r g e t p i c t u r e the more l i k e l y one i s to o b t a i n a c l e a r and accurate p e r c e p t i o n of i t . These r e s u l t s were seen by F l a v e l l et a l . to i l l u s t r a t e another aspect of L e v e l 2 knowledge that may be seen to develop d u r i n g the 3- to 5-year age p e r i o d . The r u l e which c h i l d r e n were seen to a c q u i r e b a s i c a l l y i n v o l v e s some understanding that the c l o s e r one i s to a v i s u a l o b j e c t the more l i k e l y they are to p e r c e i v e i t c l e a r l y . The most recent i n q u i r y i n t o the development of L e v e l 2 knowledge i n v o l v e d an attempt to b e t t e r document c h i l d r e n ' s 42 understanding of three L e v e l 2 r u l e s ( F l a v e l l , F l a v e l l , Green, & Wilcox, 1981). These r u l e s , which are e s s e n t i a l l y c o r o l l o r i e s of the above d e t a i l e d Rule. 2, are o u t l i n e d below: (1) Any obj e c t w i l l present the same v i s u a l appearance to the s e l f and to another person i f the two persons view i t from the same p o s i t i o n . (2) An obj e c t that c o n t i n u e s to present d i f f e r e n t appearances to the s e l f when r o t a t e d around i t s v e r t i c a l a x i s (thus, a heterogeneous-sided o b j e c t ) w i l l present d i f f e r e n t appearances to the s e l f and another person i f they view i t from d i f f e r e n t s i d e s . (3) An obj e c t that c o n t i n u e s to present the same appearance to the s e l f when r o t a t e d around i t s v e r t i c a l a x i s ( a homogeneous-sided o b j e c t , such as a c y l i n d e r or sphere) w i l l present e s s e n t i a l l y the same appearance to the s e l f and to another person i f they view i t from d i f f e r e n t s i d e s , (p. 356) The aim of t h i s study was to see i f the p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d ages of mastery ( F l a v e l l , Omanson, & Lathan, 1978) of Rules -1 and 2 (4- to 5-years) c o u l d be pushed back through the use of simpler task m a t e r i a l s . The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study (age ranges.= 4 1/2- to 6-years of age) were f i r s t f a m i l i a r i z e d with the way homogeneous and heterogeneous s i d e d o b j e c t s would "look the same" and "look d i f f e r e n t " r e s p e c t i v e l y when r o t a t e d . I n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s i n v o l v e d p r e s e n t i n g each c h i l d with an a b s t r a c t wire s c u l p t u r e ( i . e . a heterogeneous-sided 43 o b j e c t ) and an up r i g h t c y l i n d e r ( i . e . a homogeneous-sided o b j e c t ) . The experimenter was v a r i o u s l y l o c a t e d o pposite or behind each c h i l d who was asked whether the t a r g e t o b j e c t looked the "same" or " d i f f e r e n t " to themselves and the exper imenter. The tasks r e l a t i n g to the three r u l e s were found to be about equal i n d i f f i c u l t y . The c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to make use of the f i r s t two r u l e s was seen to i n c r e a s e from 4 1/2- to 5 1/2-years of age with a l l of the 5 1/2 year o l d s e x h i b i t i n g mastery of a l l three r u l e s . The speed with which the. most of the o l d e r c h i l d r e n responded was taken to i n d i c a t e that they made use of the above d e t a i l e d r u l e s i n coming to an answer rat h e r that attempting to compute the other observer's view. As a whole these r e s u l t s were seen to suggest that the use of these r u l e s of v i s u a l . p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g are mastered e a r l i e r than had been p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d ( F l a v e l l , Omanson, & Lathan, 1978, F l a v e l l , F l a v e l l , Green, & Wilcox, 1980). In attempting to summarily c a t e g o r i z e the d i v e r s e work on c h i l d r e n ' s L e v e l 2 knowledge i t i s important to bear i n mind that F l a v e l l ' s expressed d e s i r e was to focus upon c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about the views of others i n general r a t h e r than upon the computational s t r a t e g i e s they employ i n coming to an acc u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of another's view at any one p o i n t i n time. Given t h i s i t seems c l e a r that there are a o v a r i e t y of r u l e s by which c h i l d r e n may determine how another observer sees an ob j e c t or a r r a y without having to compute the exact nature of such views. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s f o r 44 the explanatory u t i l i t y of the concept of egocentrism are unclear f o r while c h i l d r e n as young as 1 year of age ( i . e . , on L e v e l 1 tasks) and 3 1/2 years years of age ( i . e . , on L e v e l 2 tasks) are s a i d to respond n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l l y there i s no framework i n p l a c e f o r r e l a t i n g such f i n d i n g s to the t h e o r e t i c a l l y r i c h n o t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s movement toward a decentred world view as o r i g i n a l l y p o s i t e d by P i a g e t . The D i s t i n c t i o n Among Domains of Role Taking While the work of F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a q u e s j u s t o u t l i n e d may be seen to c o n s t i t u t e the bulk of the c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e on r o l e t a k i n g i t may a l s o be seen to occupy but one p a r t of a l a r g e r typology of r o l e t a k i n g types. T h i s g e n e r a l typology has been most c l e a r l y d e t a i l e d by Shantz (1975) who noted a d i s t i n c t i o n i n the 1iterature•among r o l e -t a k i n g tasks which v a r i o u s l y asked the c h i l d r e n to report on what another person sees, f e e l s , t h i n k s , i ntends, and i s l i k e . Of these aspects of other people's experience the f i r s t three bear most d i r e c t l y upon the domain of r o l e t a k i n g and are most commonly r e f e r r e d to i n the l i t e r a t u r e as p e r c e p t u a l , c o n c e p t u a l , and emotional r o l e t a k i n g . The l a s t two task types ( i . e . , intends and i s l i k e ) may be seen to r e l a t e more d i r e c t l y to the domain of person p e r c e p t i o n w i t h i n the f i e l d of S o c i a l Psychology and as such w i l l not be d e a l t with i n t h i s t h e s i s . In the s e c t i o n which f o l l o w s r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g to each of these key types of r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t y w i l l be o u t l i n e d i n order that t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e domains might be b e t t e r 45 understood. F o l l o w i n g t h i s the present l i t e r a t u r e review w i l l c l o s e by d e t a i l i n g the attempts of s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s to determine the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the areas of p e r c e p t u a l , c o n c e p t u a l , and emotional r o l e t a k i n g . P e r c e p t u a l r o l e t a k i n g . In d e a l i n g with what other people see, p e r c e p t u a l or v i s u a l r o l e t a k i n g i s probably the l e a s t s o c i a l type of r o l e t a k i n g . As was amply d e t a i l e d above, i t has been v a r i o u s l y i n v e s t i g a t e d i n r e f e r e n c e to c h i l d r e n ' s a s o c i a l understanding of s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s as w e l l as i n terms of t h e i r n o n - s i t u a t i o n a l s p e c i f i c knowledge about the views of o t h e r s . Given t h i s d i v e r s i t y of a t t e n t i o n i t i s perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g that the age at which c h i l d r e n are deemed to have mastered the t a k i n g of another's v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e ranges from 1- to 9- years of age depending on the t h e o r e t i c a l approach advocated and the r e s u l t a n t tasks employed. Conceptual r o l e t a k i n g . The c a p a c i t y to s p e c u l a t e upon or, i n c e r t a i n cases, determine what another person i s t h i n k i n g d e f i n e s what i s intended by the l a b e l "conceptual r o l e t a k i n g " . The nature of t h i s type of r o l e t a k i n g i s g e n e r a l l y seen to have been e s t a b l i s h e d by the e a r l y work i n t o the s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of Piaget and I n h e l d e r ' s f i n d i n g s regarding p h y s i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that the v a r i o u s developmental sequences of F e f f e r , Selman and Byrne, and others suggest that i t i s not u n t i l middle c h i l d h o o d ( i . e . , 6- to 7-years of age) that c h i l d r e n 46 become capable of n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l l y c o n s i d e r i n g the thoughts of o t h e r s . In much the same way as h i s 1968 book sparked i n t e r e s t i n the general area of s o c i a l r o l e t a k i n g , F l a v e l l ' s l i n e of r e s e a r c h i n t o c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n prompted r e s e a r c h e r s to b r i n g a s i m i l a r l y task focussed approach to the area of conceptual r o l e t a k i n g . The aim of t h i s approach was to uncover the e a r l y rudiments of conceptual r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t y . In l i n e with t h i s g o a l , Mossier, Marvin, and Greenburg (1976) noted that while the p i c t u r e s t o r y tasks of F l a v e l l , B o t k i n , Fry, Wright, J a r v i s (1968) and Chandler and Greenspan (1972), which, d e a l with the r e s t r i c t e d c o nceptual viewpoints of o t h e r s , p o s i t an age of mastery of between 7 and 9 years, evidence of e a r l i e r competence e x i s t s . To support t h i s they c i t e d a study by Borke (1971) which showed that c h i l d r e n as young as 3- to 4-years of age were capable of s e l e c t i n g a p i c t u r e which c o r r e c t l y matched the emotional s t a t e of a s t o r y c h a r a c t e r . Noting that the Borke study had- been c r i t i c i z e d (see Chandler & Greenspan, 1972) f o r merely a c c e s s i n g f e e l i n g s that c o u l d be s i m i l a r f o r a l l c h i l d r e n i n the given t a r g e t s i t u a t i o n s , Mossier et a l . set out to t e s t a " s i m p l i f i e d v a r i a t i o n " of the p i c t u r e - s t o r y format. In t h e i r study each c h i l d (aged 2- to 6-years) was presented with two video-taped s t o r y episodes. In each s t o r y c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n d e f i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was c o n t a i n e d only i n the audio p o r t i o n of the tape ( i . e . , a c h i l d was shown walking toward and e n t e r i n g a house at which p o i n t the n a r r a t o r s t a t e d that 47 he/she was e n t e r i n g h i s / h e r grandmother's house). Each c h i l d f i r s t viewed the tapes with the experimenter. The c h i l d ' s mother was then brought i n t o the room and the tape was shown again with the sound turned o f f . The c h i l d was then questioned about h i s or her mother's knowledge of both the v i s u a l and audio p o r t i o n s of the tape. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that some of the 4-year-olds and most of the 5-year-olds were capable of n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l l y r e a l i z i n g that t h e i r mothers d i d not know the key s t o r y a t t r i b u t e presented i n the audio p o r t i o n of the tapes. Only a l e s s e r percentage at each age, however, c o u l d adequately j u s t i f y t h e i r answers. Mossier et a l . concluded from t h i s that c h i l d r e n are capable of " v e r i d i c a l conceptual p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g " at an e a r l i e r age than was p r e v i o u s l y thought p o s s i b l e . In an attempt to expand on t h i s l i n e of r e s e a r c h , Marvin, Greenburg, and Mossier (1976) i n t r o d u c e d another s i m p l i f i e d conceptual r o l e t a k i n g task. In t h i s study each c h i l d (ranging i n age from 2 1/2- to 6 1/2-years) was seated with h i s or her mother and the experimenter about a c o l l e c t i o n of to y s . One of them would cover t h e i r eyes and the remaining two would choose a toy together which was to be t h e i r " s e c r e t " . The c h i l d was then asked i f he or she, h i s or her mother, and experimenter knew which was the s e c r e t toy (one of them, of course, d i d n o t ) . The r e s u l t s showed that even the 4-year-olds knew who d i d not have access to the i d e n t i t y of the s e c r e t toy. T h i s 48 was seen to i n d i c a t e that they possessed the a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h t h e i r own conceptual p e r s p e c t i v e from those of others and were thus able to to n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l l y i n f e r the nature of those p e r s p e c t i v e s . The success of the 4-year-olds, i n t h i s and the p r e v i o u s study, i s at odds with p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s as to the ages at which competence in t h i s area has been evidenced. T h i s was a t t r i b u t e d by Marvin et a l . to the use of simpler conceptual tasks which were s t i l l seen to i n c l u d e the key element of "demonstrably d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s " (p. 513). Apparent support f o r the views of the above r e s e a r c h e r s was put forward by Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, and Brady-Smith (1977). In t h e i r study c h i l d r e n from 3- to 6-years of age were presented with a v a r i e t y of tasks intended to assess t h e i r c onceptual p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g : (1) a g i f t c h o i c e task i n which c h i l d r e n were to choose an a p p r o p r i a t e g i f t f o r t h e i r mother, f a t h e r , and an o p p o s i t e -sex peer, (2) a preference task i n which c h i l d r e n were asked to choose a game or a snack f o r an absent confederate who had e i t h e r agreed or d i s a g r e e d with the c h i l d i n e x p r e s s i n g l i k e or d i s l i k e f o r one of the o p t i o n s , and (3) a c h o i c e task i n which c h i l d r e n were asked to s e l e c t a c h a i r t h at was a p p r o p r i a t e f o r e i t h e r a c h i l d or an a d u l t . I t was found that a s u b s t a n t i a l number of 3-year-olds were competent with these t a s k s . Zahn-Waxler et a l . suggest that t h e i r r e s u l t s p rovide f u r t h e r support f o r the c o n t e n t i o n that the a b i l i t y to take the conceptual p e r s p e c t i v e s of 49 others i n t o account appears and i s mastered e a r l i e r i n l i f e than had been p r e v i o u s l y p r e d i c t e d . Thus i t appears t h a t , as i s the case with v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g , c h i l d r e n may be seen to be capable of n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l l y determining the c o n c e p t u a l l y based p e r s p e c t i v e s of others anywhere between 3 and 9 years of age depending upon one's t h e o r e t i c a l base and the r e s u l t a n t nature of the tasks one employs to access t h i s competence. Emotional r o l e t a k i n g . The f i n a l e n t ry i n t h i s g eneral typology of r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s , i n v o l v e s c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of what other people are f e e l i n g i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s . While there i s some c o n t r o v e r s y as to the a c t u a l form of t h i s understanding ( i . e . , see Shantz, . 1975) the v e r s i o n which speaks most d i r e c t l y to the i s s u e s at hand i n v o l v e s c h i l d r e n ' s " c o g n i t i v e " understanding of the emotions of o t h e r s . In t h i s view competence i n emotional p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g i s seen to e n t a i l an understanding on the pa r t of the c h i l d that two persons may experience d i f f e r e n t emotions i n a given s i t u a t i o n . In an e a r l y study i n t h i s area, Burns and Cavey (1957) presented 3- to 7-year-old c h i l d r e n with p i c t u r e s d e p i c t i n g c h i l d r e n i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s . The key manipulation i n v o l v e d the p i c t u r e d c h i l d ' s f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n which was d i s c r e p a n t with the emotion which might be expected given the s i t u a t i o n ( i . e . , s m i l i n g when about to r e c e i v e a shot i n the d o c t o r ' s o f f i c e ) . The c h i l d r e n were then asked how the c h i l d i n the p i c t u r e f e l t and t h e i r responses were compared to how they 50 had responded when asked how they might f e e l i n the d e p i c t e d s i t u a t i o n . The r e s u l t s suggested that p r i o r to 5 years of age the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study had d i f f i c u l t y n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l l y r e a l i z i n g that other c h i l d r e n might f e e l d i f f e r e n t l y than they would i n the given s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g was seen to support the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s of Piaget r e g a r d i n g the developmental movement of c h i l d r e n away from an e g o c e n t r i c view of the world. T h i s r a t h e r s t r a i g h t forward a p p l i c a t i o n of the t h e o r e t i c a l work of Piaget to the area of emotion p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g d i d not go unchallenged. In a search f o r e a r l i e r evidence of non-egocentric r o l e t a k i n g , Borke (1971) presented 3- to 8-year-old c h i l d r e n with 23 s t o r i e s each i l l u s t r a t e d by a p i c t u r e ( i . e . a b i r t h d a y p a r t y ) . The c h i l d r e n were asked to choose the face which c o r r e c t l y i n d i c a t e d the s t o r y p r o t a g o n i s t ' s emotion ( i . e . happy, sad, f e a r f u l , or angry). Using t h i s procedure i t was found that a s i g n i f i c a n t number of the 3-year-old c h i l d r e n were able to c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f y a l l four of the s t o r y c h a r a c t e r emotions presented. T h i s r e s u l t was seen by Borke to c h a l l e n g e P i a g e t ' s p r e d i c t i o n s r egarding the d e c l i n e of egocentrism and to suggest, r a t h e r , that even 3-year-old c h i l d r e n possess an awareness that other people have f e e l i n g s and that these f e e l i n g s may be seen to vary depending on the nature of the s i t u a t i o n . 51 T h i s a s s e r t i o n was c h a l l a n g e d by Chandler and Greenspan (1972; see a l s o Chandler, 1973, 1977; H i g g i n s , 1981; H i g g i n s , Feldman, & Ruble, 1980) who suggested that Borke's procedure d i d not i n f a c t r e f e r e n c e c h i l d r e n ' s emotional p e r s p e c t i v e -t a k i n g a b i l i t y but r a t h e r tapped simple p r o j e c t i o n s of t h e i r f e e l i n g s onto the s t o r y c h a r a c t e r . To t e s t t h i s h ypothesis c h i l d r e n were presented with s e v e r a l p i c t u r e s t o r y sequences. In each sequence an event occured which c r e a t e d a s p e c i f i c emotional s t a t e i n the s t o r y ' s p r o t a g o n i s t ( i . e . , an g i r l ' s watches her f a t h e r leave on an a i r p l a n e and i s sad). T h i s main c h a r a c t e r was l a t e r j o i n e d by a second c h a r a c t e r who, not having seen the preceeding events, was p u z z l e d as to the p r o t a g a n i s t ' s emotional s t a t e ( i . e . , a postman b r i n g s the g i r l - a p a r c e l and i s p u z z l e d when she c r i e s upon d i s c o v e r i n g that i t c o n t a i n s a model a i r p l a n e ) . The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study were asked q u e s t i o n s about the f e e l i n g s of the primary c h a r a c t e r and about the thoughts of the l a t e a r r i v i n g c h a r a c t e r regarding those f e e l i n g s . As they hypothesised, Chandler and Greenspan found that i t was not u n t i l about 7 years of age that c h i l d r e n were capable of n o n - e g o c e n t r i c a l y understanding the emotions of o t h e r s . Thus they argued that Borke's "simple" emotional p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g tasks were not i n f a c t r e f e r e n c i n g true understanding of the f e e l i n g s of others on the p a r t of young c h i l d r e n . What t h i s b r i e f overview ( f o r a more d e t a i l e d account the reader i s r e f e r r e d to Chandler, 1977, or Shantz, 1975) of 52 work on c h i l d r e n ' s emotional p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g would seem to suggest i s t h a t , as p r e v i o u s l y noted for both v i s u a l and conceptual p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g , the age at which c h i l d r e n are s a i d to master these types of r o l e t a k i n g competence depends l a r g e l y upon one's general t h e o r e t i c a l stance on r o l e t a k i n g and the r e s u l t a n t r e l a t i v e importance att a c h e d to the concept of egocentrism. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between types of r o l e t a k i n g . Before moving on to a c r i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the v a r i o u s trends i n the r o l e t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e a f i n a l o v e r a r c h i n g l i n e of r e s e a r c h must be put i n p l a c e . As i s obvious from what has been r e p o r t e d above, the main concern i n the recent l i t e r a t u r e has been over p r e c i s e l y when i t i s that the v a r i o u s types of r o l e t a k i n g may be seen to emerge with only secondary a t t e n t i o n being p a i d to how the emergence of such a b i l i t i e s and the c o n s t r u c t ( s ) which they r e f e r e n c e might be r e l a t e d developmentally. Working from the premise that the d e c l i n e of egocentrism i s i m p l i c i t i n the development of r o l e t a k i n g s k i l l s a c r o s s a l l p o s s i b l e content areas, s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s have sought to determine e m p i r i c a l l y whether or not a developmental r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between the s p e c i f i c types of r o l e t a k i n g and the c o n s t r u c t of egocentrism or c e n t r a t i o n g e n e r a l l y . In an e f f o r t to determine whether movement away from an e g o c e n t r i c view of the world that has been shown to u n d e r l i e c h i l d r e n ' s competence i n n o n - s o c i a l c o n s e r v a t i o n tasks might a l s o be seen to u n d e r l i e t h e i r r o l e - t a k i r t g competencies, 53 Rubin (1973) gave k i n d e r g a r t e n to s i x t h - g r a d e c h i l d r e n a s e r i e s of both s o c i a l ( i . e . , p e r c e p t u a l & conceptual r o l e -t a k ing) and n o n - s o c i a l ( i . e . , c o n s e r v a t i o n ) t a s k s . He found s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s a c r o s s tasks and ac r o s s domains. F u r t h e r , both r o l e - t a k i n g and c o n s e r v a t i o n tasks loaded h e a v i l y on a s i n g l e f a c t o r i n a subsequent f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of these r e s u l t s . Thus the r e s u l t s of t h i s study were seen to support the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e n t i o n that the c o n s t r u c t of egocentrism may be seen to u n d e r l i e the a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n to deal c o r r e c t l y with i s s u e s i n the n o n - s o c i a l world of c o n s e r v a t i o n as w e l l as the s o c i a l world' of r o l e t a k i n g . In a second study, Rubin (1978) e v a l u a t e d both the convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y of a number of r o l e -t a k i n g measures (eg., Borke's & Chandler's emotional, tasks and the c o n c e p t u a l l y o r i e n t e d tasks of DeVries and M i l l e r , K e s s e l , & F l a v e l l ) . The average c o r r e l a t i o n among these tasks was found to be .17 and thus p r o v i d e d l i t t l e support f o r the convergent v a l i d i t y of these measures. The d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y of the tasks was a l s o c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n as the average c o r r e l a t i o n between them and a s e r i e s of t h e o r e t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d marker v a r i a b l e s was low ( i . e . , .19). Rubin suggested three p o s s i b l e e x p l a n t i o n s f o r h i s f i n d i n g s : (1) the r e l i a b i l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l measures of r o l e t a k i n g may have been low, (2) i t may w e l l have been that the d i f f e r e n t r o l e - t a k i n g tasks accessed d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of r o l e - t a k i n g competence as d e t a i l e d by e i t h e r Selman & Byrne's 54 (1974) or Urberg & Docherty's (1976) developmental sequences of r o l e t a k i n g , or (3) the lack of a strong i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p among the tasks may have been due to the d i f f e r e n t i a l complexity of the response mode they r e q u i r e d ( i . e . Borke's task r e q u i r e s a p o i n t i n g response while Chandler's task r e q u i r e s a v e r b a l response). The important aspect of the above s t u d i e s to be kept i n mind given the present purpose i s that Rubin o f f e r s some support f o r the c o n t e n t i o n that the d e c l i n e of egocentrism i s i m p l i c i t i n the r i s e i n r o l e t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s with development. His f u r t h e r p o i n t r e g a r d i n g the v a l i d i t y of r o l e - t a k i n g measures i s a c a u t i o n a r y one which a l e r t s the r o l e - t a k i n g researcher to the need to be aware of which tasks tap which aspects of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g competence. Furth e r such c a u t i o n s were advanced by Kurdek and Rodgon (1975) who, in a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study, f a i l e d to f i n d , a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p among three measures of r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t y ( i . e . , one task r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of each of the areas of p e r c e p t u a l , c o n c e p t u a l , and emotion r o l e t a k i n g ) . T h i s was d e s p i t e the f a c t that the performances of t h e i r s u b j e c t s on the i n d i v i d u a l tasks were comparable to those found i n prev i o u s s t u d i e s using the same tasks i n i s o l a t i o n . In attempting to e x p l a i n t h i s unexpected r e s u l t , Kurkek and Rodgon ca u t i o n e d that while a gen e r a l f a c t o r of s o c i a l r o l e t a k i n g competence may yet be found to u n d e r l i e c h i l d r e n ' s performance on each type of r o l e - t a k i n g task the d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g demands unique to each task 55 e f f e c t i v e l y masked any evidence of such an u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r . A somewhat d i f f e r e n t r a t i o n a l was o f f e r e d by O'Connor (1977) who f a c t o r analysed the r e s u l t s of a number of r o l e -t a k i n g tasks i n each of the p e r c e p t u a l and conceptual domains. In f i n d i n g that the tasks r e p r e s e n t i v e of each type r o l e t a k i n g loaded on two separate f a c t o r s O'Connor concluded that an understanding of what other people see i s not s u f f i c i e n t f o r an e q u a l l y advanced understanding of what they are t h i n k i n g . T h i s was seen by O'Connor to suggest that a u n i t a r y c o n s t r u c t does not u n d e r l i e c h i l d r e n ' s performances on p e r c e p t u a l and conceptual r o l e t a k i n g t a s k s . What these s t u d i e s suggest i s that f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons ( i . e . , l a c k of v a l i d i t y , lack of a u n i t a r y u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t r u c t , or l a c k of equal l e v e l s of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g requirements) the developmental r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i o u s types of r o l e t a k i n g are u n c l e a r . Two s t u d i e s have sought, from d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s , to remedy t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Abrahams (1979) attempted to assess these i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s by f i r s t equating her measures of each type of r o l e t a k i n g f o r i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g demands and response complexity. T h i s was accomplished by p r e s e n t i n g c h i l d r e n with a s i n g l e task d i s p l a y through which, with the use of a p p r o p r i a t e probes, each type of r o l e t a k i n g c o u l d be assessed. Using t h i s design Abrahams found that the c h i l d r e n in her study were f i r s t capable of d i s t i n q u i s h i n g another person's v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e ( i . e . , what others see) and were only l a t e r capable of d i s t i n q u i s h i n g . o t h e r ' s conceptual and 56 emotional p e r s p e c t i v e s . The i n t u i t i v e appeal of these f i n d i n g s i s that a s i m i l a r developmental movement away from a d i r e c t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of o b j e c t s and toward thoughts about o b j e c t s i s p o s i t e d w i t h i n P i a g e t ' s more gen e r a l theory of development. Thus as; Abrahams p o i n t s out i t should not be s u r p r i s i n g that c h i l d r e n are capable of understanding the p e r c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e s of others before they are capable of understanding t h e i r more c o g n i t i v e l y bound conceptual and emotional p e r s p e c t i v e s . In a study from a somewhat d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , Lemare (1982, Note 2) endeavored to d e t a i l the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of v a r i o u s r o l e - t a k i n g t a s k s . To t h i s end she a d m i n i s t e r e d a v a r i e t y of r o l e - t a k i n g measures to c h i l d r e n from grades 1 to 6. In order to c o n t r o l f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y that d i f f e r e n t tasks might access d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s o c i a l r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t y , Lemare f i r s t ordered the r o l e - t a k i n g stages of each t h e o r i s t whose task she employed and then attempted to compare c h i l d r e n ' s performance on only those tasks which r e q u i r e d p a r a l l e l l e v e l s of r o l e -t a k i n g s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . The u t i l i t y of t h i s approach was supported by the c o r r e l a t i o n s measures of a c r o s s - t a s k r e l a t i o n s h i p s she r e p o r t e d . The d i f f e r e n c e between Lemare's approach and that of Abraham's i s that while Lemare sought to t h e o r e t i c a l l y ground the r o l e - t a k i n g tasks she employed by d e t a i l i n g the s t r u c t u r a l p a r a l l e l s between l e v e l s of the v a r i o u s u n d e r l y i n g t h e o r e t i c a l sequenses Abrahams d i d so through the use of a 57 simple task format to assess only the lowest common denominators of performance i n each area of r o l e t a k i n g . C r i t i q u e of Trends i n R o l e - t a k i n g Research In t h i s s e c t i o n each of the s e v e r a l s a l i e n t r e s e a r c h themes i d e n t i f i e d i n the proceeding s e c t i o n w i l l be c r i t i q u e d in t urn with an eye to the eventual p r e s e n t a t i o n of a new typology. The t e s t and measurement approach to the qu e s t i o n of when r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s are f i r s t a c q u i r e d has i n some way served to muddy ra t h e r than c l e a r the conceptual waters surrounding the is s u e of r o l e - t a k i n g competence. As has been the case i n the I.Q. l i t e r a t u r e , psychometric modelling has had the e f f e c t of d e f l e c t i n g a t t e n t i o n away from a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the concept i t s e l f and m i s l o c a t e d i t on matters of i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . Thus a t t e n t i o n has been d i r e c t e d more to the contents of v a r i o u s assessment s t r a t e g i e s and s p e c i f i c methodologies than towards a formal conceptual a n a l y s i s of the c o n s t r u c t that prompted the re s e a r c h i n t e r e s t in the f i r s t p l a c e . F u r t h e r , the p e r c e p t u a l context w i t h i n which t h i s s t r i c t l y m ethodological f o c u s s i n g was c a r r i e d out has a l s o provided an entry p o i n t f o r those r e s e a r c h e r s i n t e n t upon lowering the ages at which Piaget t h e o r i z e d that these a b i l i t i e s were f i r s t mastered. While c e r t a i n u s e f u l i n s i g h t s and methodological refinements have r e s u l t e d from the t e s t and measurement approach to egocentrism and r o l e t a k i n g (Brandt, 1978; 58 E n r i g h t & L a p s l e y , 1980; Ford, 1979; Hudson, 1978; Kurdek, 1977; Kurdek & Rodgon, 1975; Rubin, 1973), simply f i n d i n g that c e r t a i n measures c o r r e l a t e or mutually l o a d on a s i n g l e f a c t o r does l i t t l e to c l a r i f y the more fundamental conceptual i s s u e s . Thus r e g a r d l e s s of whether or not a t i g h t f i t or high l e v e l of communality i s r e p o r t e d , r e s u l t s from t h i s type of e n t e r p r i s e are l a r g e l y beside the p o i n t being examined here i n that they focus on t e s t s of c o n s t r u c t s r a t h e r than the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of such tasks to the c o n s t r u c t s themselves. Another theme p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n the r o l e -t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e i s the conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n , drawn by some r e s e a r c h e r s , between p e r c e p t u a l ( v i s u a l ) and conceptual ( c o g n i t i v e ) r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . The d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s approach stems from the f a c t that, i n P i a g e t ' s theory no such c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n i s made. The c h i l d i s seen to c o n s t r u c t h i s / h e r world and through t h i s process a l l events of " p e r c e p t i o n " are i n t r u d e d upon by "conceptual" processes ( P i a g e t , 1947). Thus those who maintain such an approach are, i n e f f e c t , i n v o king a d i s t i n c t i o n that has no meaning w i t h i n the t h e o r e t i c a l domain to which i t i s meant to apply. T h i s i s not to say that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n has not provided a c e r t a i n degree of h e u r i s t i c u t i l i t y i n the area. The p o i n t i s , r a t h e r , that any such value r e l a t e s s o l e l y to the p a r t i c u l a r measures i n v o l v e d and thus speaks not at a l l to the nature of c h i l d r e n ' s attempts to cope with such t a s k s . The r a t i o n a l f o r t h i s argument w i l l become c l e a r e r when the model to be advocated i n t h i s t h e s i s i s presented below. 59 A t h i r d p o i n t of c o n t e n t i o n concerns the what/how d i s t i n c t i o n i n t r o d u c e d by F l a v e l l . F l a v e l l ' s concern has been p r i m a r i l y with the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g demands of v a r i o u s r o l e - t a k i n g t a s k s . As such, h i s goals appear to have been two - f o l d . On the one hand he sought to e l i m i n a t e any unnecessary noi s e from v a r i o u s r o l e - t a k i n g tasks that may have obscured the accurate assessment of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e -t a k i n g competence. Having done t h i s he pursued what he has regarded as a need to impose some kind of a typology upon what remains. While t h i s s t r a t e g y i s i n general agreement with the p o s i t i o n to be advocated l a t e r i n t h i s t h e s i s , there are s e v e r a l p o i n t s where F l a v e l l ' s approach bears c l o s e r s c r u t i n y . To begin with, i t may be seen that i n an e f f o r t to s i m p l i f y v a r i o u s assessment procedures, F l a v e l l may be g u i l t y of a c t u a l l y changing what i s being measured. An example of t h i s i s h i s i n s i s t e n c e that there i s nothing d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t about the conceptual requirements of P i a g e t ' s three mountains task and those inherent i n any of h i s own s i n g l e o b j e c t d i s p l a y s ( i . e . , h i s Witch, T u r t l e , and F i s h t a s k s , e t c . , see Masangkey et a l . , 1974). That an important d i s t i n c t i o n does in f a c t e x i s t w i l l become c l e a r through d i s c u s s i o n of the t h e o r e t i c a l approach to be advanced i n t h i s t h e s i s . Beyond t h i s , F l a v e l l ' s c h o ice of the what/how d i s t i n c t i o n i s troublesome i n that i t may be seen to generate a number of ambiguous or n o n c l a s s i f i a b l e cases. The problem which a r i s e s i n h i s "how" d i s t i n c t i o n i s that there are two 60 common language meanings of the word "how" each of which are c a l l e d to mind with equal ease and between which no d i s t i n c t i o n i s made by F l a v e l l . F i r s t , there i s the l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which r e f e r e n c e s such q u e s t i o n s as "from what v i s u a l angle" and as such r e l a t e to i s s u e s of simple s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n . Second, there i s the metaphorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "how" suggested by such statements as " i n what l i g h t " or "by which c o n s t r u c t i o n (of meaning)" which r e f e r e n c e those i n s t a n c e s where a l l or part of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y may be seen to c o l o u r t h e i r thoughts about a s i n g l e shared event. F l a v e l l ' s use of the what/how d i s t i n c t i o n c o l l a p s e s these two meanings and, i n the process, has c r e a t e d a great d e a l of conceptual c o n f u s i o n . What t h i s examination of the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e would suggest i s the need fo r a more formal examination of the c o n s t r u c t of egocentrism i t s e l f r a t h e r than a c o n t i n u a t i o n of such measurement-minded i n q u i r y . What seems needed, in l i g h t of the t h i r t y years of Genevan Psychology that have int e r v e n e d s i n c e the egocentrism/non-egocentrism d i s t i n c t i o n was f i r s t p o s i t e d , i s some attempt to c o o r d i n a t e t h i s c o n s t r u c t with the Genevan p o s i t i o n as i t has unfolded over the l a s t q u a r t e r of a c e n t u r y . C o n s t u c t i v i s t i c Model of S e l f - R e f l e x i v e Knowledge The purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n i s to d e t a i l the formal d e s c r i p t i o n of d i f f e r e n t kinds of knowledge c h i l d r e n may be s a i d to c l a i m f o r themselves at d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n t h e i r development and f u r t h e r , to d i s c u s s p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s of 61 t h i s account f o r a c h i e v i n g a b e t t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t e d view of the r o l e - t a k i n g p r o c e s s . The general viewpoint to be adopted here i s intended as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and l o g i c a l extension o f , or an e x t r o p o l a t i o n from, P i a g e t ' s general account of c o n i t i v e development. A l l c h i l d r e n are seen, i n t h i s view, to c o n s t r u c t t h e i r world a c t i v e l y by o p e r a t i n g upon i t . T h e i r p a r t i c u l a r manner of o p e r a t i n g on events, and the degree of formal s t r u c t u r e , or lack of i t , which may be s a i d to underpin t h e i r t h i n k i n g i s seen to vary a c r o s s the course of development. Given t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n , i t i s presumed that the d e f i n i n g a t t r i b u t e s of P i a g e t ' s theory of c o g n i t i v e stages w i l l p r o v i d e a general framework and language f o r d i s c u s s i n g the developmental course of c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about t h e i r knowledge, or rather t h e i r "presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s " . P r i o r to the onset of P i a g e t ' s p r e o p e r a t i o n a l p e r i o d , the sensory-motor c h i l d i s s a i d to operate upon h i s or her world and know i t only through h i s or her d i r e c t a c t i o n s upon i t . Such c h i l d r e n are thus t i e d to the p h y s i c a l world i n 'the sense that only through t h e i r d i r e c t a c t i o n s do they have access to o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y . The f u r t h e r and l a t e r - a r r i v i n g a b i l i t y to represent t h i s sensory-motor world i s s a i d by Piaget to h e r a l d the onset of the p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l p e r i o d . In t h i s second major stage of c o g n i t i v e development the c h i l d i s now seen as capable of beginning the process of mastering mental o p e r a t i o n s and thus must rework much that was e a r l i e r l e a r n e d on the plane of a c t i o n . These e a r l y o p e r a t i o n s , 62 however, are s a i d to lack w e l l formed s t r u c t u r e and thus the c h i l d ' s thought i s s t i l l judged to be importantly t i e d to the m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s of h i s or her experience. The c h i l d ' s concepts are shown to be u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n that he/she does not d i s t i n g u i s h between an exemplar of a given c l a s s and the c l a s s i t s e l f . F u r t h e r , the p r e o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d ' s reasoning i s such that i t can be shown to proceed from p a r t i c u l a r to p a r t i c u l a r , such that any two t h i n g s that co-occur are seen to be r e l a t e d . Given i t s lack of formal s t r u c t u r e , the thought of the p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d i s such that they are unable to d i s t i n g u i s h between the p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s of an o b j e c t or group of o b j e c t s and the l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s that h o l d between such o b j e c t s . Thus the " f i v e n e s s " of a stack of pennies i s t r e a t e d by the p r e o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d as though i t were an a t t r i b u t e of the pennies themselves r a t h e r than an aspect of t h e i r own o r g a n i z i n g e f f o r t s . A l l of t h i s , of course, i s the well-known view of the p r e o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d ' s thought as i t i s understood by o u t s i d e observers such as Piaget and h i s co-workers. What on the other hand, might be s a i d about the c h i l d ' s own view of h i s / h e r knowledge and consequently the knowledge of other? A p o t e n t i a l key to answering t h i s q u e s t i o n may be seen to l i e i n the c h i l d ' s own b e l i e f s that c o - o c c u r r i n g events are a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d and that the r e l a t i o n s which hol d between events of knowledge are n e c e s s a r i l y assumed to be products of the o b j e c t s themselves and not of the persons who 63 know them. Given these assumptions the c h i l d may be a n t i c i p a t e d to f u n c t i o n as i f they employed a "copy theory" of knowledge, i . e . a presumptive epistemology grounded i n the b e l i e f that knowledge of the world i s simply p a s s i v e l y absorbed or d i r e c t l y t r a n s p o r t e d from the environment. The onset of the concrete o p e r a t i o n a l p e r i o d of development i s marked by the a b i l i t y on the p a r t of the c h i l d to u t i l i z e l o g i c a l o p e r a t i o n s i n coming to know the world. The c h i l d i s thus able to t r e a t any given -object as an exemplar of any of a v a r i e t y of l o g i c a l l y generated c l a s s e s . They are consequently capable of grouping and regrouping a set of o b j e c t s w i t h i n s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t i v e c l a s s e s . T h i s a b i l i t y i s understood to be a consequence of t h e i r r e a l i z a t i o n of the d i s t i n c t i o n between p h y s i c a l i s t i c a t t r i b u t e s of o b j e c t s and any logico-mathematical r e l a t i o n s that may be s a i d to h o l d between them. The concrete o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d t h e r e f o r e not only operates on h i s or her world, i n t h i s wide sense, but does so o p e r a t i o n a l l y . Thus they may be s a i d to recognize a d i f f e r e n c e between l o g i c a l or o p e r a t i v e a s p e c t s of knowledge (which are r e l a t i o n a l i n nature i n that they h o l d about and between t h i n g s , but are c o n f e r r e d upon and do not d i r e c t l y adhere to them) and f i g u r a t i v e a spects of knowledge (which may be more l e g i t i m a t e l y s a i d to r e f e r e n c e f e a t u r e s of t h i n g s r a t h e r than the people who know them). Fur t h e r they recognize the p o t e n t i a l f o r undoing a l o g i c a l o p e r a t i o n through e i t h e r negation or r e c i p r o c i t y . Given t h i s d e s c r i p t i v e account of 64 the thought of concrete o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n i t seems apparent that the presumptive epistemology with which they approach t h e i r world i s capable of being understood by them as " c o n s t u c t i v i s t i c " i n nature. That i s , such concrete o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n are understood to be capable of r e a l i z i n g and a p p r e c i a t i n g those aspects of knowledge which draw t h e i r meaning from the l o g i c a l o p e r a t i o n s brought to bear upon them by a p o t e n t i a l knower rather than from the p e r c e p t u a l l y given a t t r i b u t e s of p o t e n t i a l o b j e c t s of knowledge per se. Such concrete o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n should however, f a l l importantly short of a t o t a l l y c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c outlook, i n t h a t , d e s p i t e the i n c r e a s i n g l y l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r of t h e i r thought they are s t i l l understood to be bound to the concret e here- and now, and are thus assumed to be incapable of yet d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f i r s t order r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l knowledge ( i . e . , t h i n k i n g about o b j e c t s , e t c.) from more a b s t r a c t knowledge about r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l knowledge ( i . e . , t h i n k i n g about thought or t a k i n g ones thought as an ob j e c t of knowledge). Because of t h i s l i m i t a t i o n on t h e i r presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s , concrete o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as " q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c " . While the concrete o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d i s l i m i t e d in that they are only capable of a p p l y i n g t h e i r l o g i c a l a b i l i t i e s to the o b j e c t s of knowledge given at any p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e or time, the formal o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d or a d o l e s c e n t , by c o n t r a s t , i s s a i d to be capable of tr a n s c e n d i n g t h i s l i m i t a t i o n and t a k i n g h i s / h e r own thoughts as o b j e c t s of 65 knowledge and o p e r a t i n g upon them. They are, thus, capable of generating the range of p o s s i b l e l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s that might be s a i d to o b t a i n i n any given r e a l or imaginary s i t u a t i o n r a t h e r than being r e s t r i c t e d i n t h i s process to that which i s a c t u a l l y a v a i l a b l e at any p o i n t i n time. T h e i r knowing processes are thus more completely r e l a t i v i z e d i n that they are capable of r e a l i z i n g or producing the myriad of p o s s i b l e o p e r a t i o n a l outcomes of knowing beyond any p a r t i c u l a r f i g u r a t i v e i n s t a n c i a t i o n . Given t h i s achievement, the p a r t i c u l a r presumptive epistemology to which they would l a y c l a i m w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as " f u l l y c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c " i n nature. If the s e r i e s of presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s o u t l i n e d above i s seen to be l e g i t i m a t e , then i t f o l l o w s that they set l i m i t s upon the kinds of knowledge that c h i l d r e n at each of these c o g n i t i v e developmental l e v e l s are capable of r e c o g n i z i n g i n , and a t t r i b u t i n g t o , o t h e r s . Hypotheses concerning the nature of these l i m i t s are what w i l l be put to e m p i r i c a l t e s t i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . Hypotheses Table one o u t l i n e s the proposed matrix format from which the hypotheses w i l l be drawn. I t i s a 3 X 3 t a b l e which r e l a t e s c h i l d r e n ' s presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s to the types of knowledge to be known in o t h e r s . To begin with, i t w i l l be assumed that c h i l d r e n who presume themselves to be o p e r a t i n g i n terms of a copy-t h e o r e t i c epistemology should be capable of c o r r e c t l y TABLE 1 M a t r i x of Presumptive E p i s t e m o l o g i e s and Types of S o c i a l O b j e c t s of Knowledge Types of S o c i a l O b j e c t s of Knowledge P h y s l e a l 1st1c Log 1co-Mathemat1cal F u l l y R e l a t l v l s t l c Copy-T h e o r e t 1 c Presumpt1ve E p l s t e m o l o g l c a l Q u a s i -L e v e l C o n s t r u c t 1 v 1 s t 1 c Mature C o n s t r u c t 1v1st 1c C e l l 1 Cel 1 2 C e l l 3 Cel 1 6 C e l l 4 Cel 1 5 Cel 1 7 Cel 1 8 Cel 1 9 67 a t t r i b u t i n g to others those, and only those, aspects of knowledge that are in f a c t p h y s i c a l i s t i c i n nature or p e r c e p t i o n a l l y given (see Table 1). Thus they should be capable of answering que s t i o n s of F l a v e l l ' s "what" type; that i s , q u e s t i o n s about what p a r t i c u l a r contents . t h i s ' or that s i t u a t i o n a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e l i v e r to d i f f e r e n t l y s i t u a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s about another person's knowledge. F u r t h e r , they should be capable of c o r r e c t l y a s c e r t a i n i n g another's knowledge of the world i n the l i t e r a l sense of "how" or " i n what o r i e n t a t i o n " ( i . e . , whether something appears r i g h t s i d e -up or upside-down) ( c e l l 1 ) . In c o n t r a s t c h i l d r e n at t h i s l e v e l should f a i l i n any r o l e - t a k i n g tasks where what i s known by others i s of any s o r t other than simple p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowledge. Thus, i n i n s t a n c e s where the knowledge of others which needs to be known i s i n f a c t r e l a t i o n a l or o p e r a t i v e knowledge, the young p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d , f u n c t i o n i n g as a copy t h e o r i s t , w i l l be expected to be unable to respond c o r r e c t l y ( c e l l 2). S i m i l a r l y , they w i l l f a i l to a p p r e c i a t e the f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d nature of meaning assignment endemic to mature c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c thought ( c e l l 3) . Concrete o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n whose presumptive epistemology has been d e s c r i b e d as q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c should p r o p e r l y a p p r e c i a t e a l l knowledge i n others that i s p h y s i c a l i s t i c i n nature ( c e l l 4 ) and f u r t h e r should a l s o be s u c c e s s f u l i n r o l e - t a k i n g tasks when the knowledge of others which needs to be known i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the same f i r s t -68 order o p e r a t i v i t y that they themselves possess ( c e l l 5). They should f a i l , however, when the knowledge of others which they are r e q u i r e d to understand i s based i n the wholly r e l a t i v i s e d or second-order form of o p e r a t i v i t y of mature c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c thought ( c e l l 6). F i n a l l y , formal o p e r a t i o n a l s u b j e c t s who are o p e r a t i n g from a mature c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c p o s i t i o n should (given enough inf o r m a t i o n ) be s u c c e s s f u l i n understanding a l l three types of knowledge i n others ( c e l l s 7, 8, and 9). I t would be absurd to suggest that a c h i l d ' s simply being capable of understanding a given type of knowledge immediately ensures that they are capable of a p p r e c i a t i n g a l l of another person's knowledge that may be s a i d to f a l l w i t h i n that given type. Thus i t i s important to note that each presumptive epistemology c o n s t i t u t e s , by way of the advanced h y p o t h e s i s , a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e to understanding the c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y complex nature of another person's knowledge that when f i r s t a c q u i r e d may only be s u f f i c i e n t f o r an understanding of such knowledge i n i t s l e a s t e l a b o r a t e form. 69 CHAPTER 2: METHOD Subjects The s p e c i f i c age groups chosen f o r study were s e l e c t e d to r e f l e c t the general age range employed i n most of the s t u d i e s which address themselves to the issue of the e a r l y developmental aspects of r o l e - t a k i n g . The sample f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h e f f o r t c o n s i s t e d of a t o t a l of 84 c h i l d r e n drawn from a p r e s c h o o l , a k i n d e r g a r t e n program, and a grade 1 c l a s s , a l l l o c a t e d in a major m e t r o p o l i t a n area. The pr e s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n was broken down by age i n t o two c l a s s e s and • thus y i e l d e d two groups of s u b j e c t s . The sample drawn from the younger group c o n t a i n e d 12 boys and 8 g i r l s with a mean age of 3-11 years (range = 3-3 to 4-7 y e a r s ) . The o l d e r p r e s c h o o l group co n t a i n e d 10 boys and 8 g i r l s with a mean age of 4-10 years (range = 4-3 to 5-3 y e a r s ) . The kinde r g a r t e n sample c o n s i s t e d of 11 boys and 10 g i r l s with a mean age of 5-9 years (range = 5-3 to 6-1 y e a r s ) . F i n a l l y , the grade one sample c o n s i s t e d of 15 boys and 10 g i r l s with a mean age of 6-9 years (range = 5-11 to 7-1 y e a r s ) . C h i l d r e n ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study was v o l u n t a r y and s u b j e c t to p a r e n t a l consent. Procedures A l l t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s took p l a c e i n rooms pro v i d e d by the school o f f i c i a l s at the v a r i o u s t e s t i n g l o c a t i o n s . These 70 rooms were l o c a t e d i n or near the c h i l d r e n ' s classrooms so as to minimize the strangeness of the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n f o r them. A l l c h i l d r e n were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y by the present author. In each i n d i v i d u a l 30- to 40-minute s e s s i o n the c h i l d r e n were f i r s t screened using a b a t t e r y of P i a g e t i a n - d e r i v e d procedures (to be d e s c r i b e d below) to determine the nature of t h e i r presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s through an assessment of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e developmental l e v e l . These t e s t s were always admi n i s t e r e d f i r s t as they served the added f u n c t i o n of h e l p i n g to e s t a b l i s h a rapport between the c h i l d r e n and the experimenter as w e l l as i n t e r e s t i n g them i n the experimenter's "games" and thus f o c u s s i n g t h e i r a t t e n t i o n and c o n c e n t r a t i o n on the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . F o l l o w i n g t h i s the v a r i o u s r o l e - t a k i n g tasks ( d e t a i l e d below) were ad m i n i s t e r e d in randomized order (with the exception of one task f o r reasons to be d e t a i l e d below) to c o n t r o l f o r p o t e n t i a l order e f f e c t s . The c h i l d r e n ' s responses on a l l tasks were recorded on answer sheets by the experimenter f o r l a t e r s c o r i n g and a n a l y s i s (see Appendix A f o r sample r e c o r d i n g forms). I t should be noted here that there i s a p o t e n t i a l f o r experimenter b i a s to enter i n t o the r e s u l t s given that the sc r e e n i n g measures were always a d i m i n i s t e r e d f i r s t . To minimize any such e f f e c t s the task s c r i p t s d e t a i l e d i n Appendix B were rehearsed and fo l l o w e d very c l o s e l y d u r i n g t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s . 71 Measures and S c o r i n g C r i t e r a  E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l L e v e l Screening Tasks The s c r e e n i n g tasks c o n s i s t e d of "Form C" of the Goldschmid/Bentler Concept Assessment K i t (see Appendix B f o r a sample s c o r i n g sheet and a d e s c r i p t i o n of each t a s k ) . T h i s k i t was chosen as i t has been used e x t e n s i v l y i n the area of developmental assessment and r e p r e s e n t s one of the s o l e attempts to provide s t a n d a r d i z e d tasks of t h i s nature. Form C c o n t a i n s t e s t s of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to conserve area ( i . e . , "Barns" task) and l e n g t h ( " S t i c k s " t a s k ) . In each task c h i l d r e n ' s judgements of r e l a t i v e area and l e n g t h across i r r e l e v e n t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of m a t e r i a l s and t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r such judgements were recorded f o r each of the s e v e r a l response p o i n t s i n each task. The , s c o r i n g of the Concept Assessment K i t tasks e s s e n t i a l l y followed that o u t l i n e d i n the manual f o r the procedure (Goldschmid & B e n t l e r , 1968). The Barns task e n t a i l s three s c o r i n g p o i n t s while the S t i c k s tasks i n v o l v e s only two as the M u e l l e r - L y e r i l l u s i o n m anipulation was dropped due to the q u e s t i o n a b l e nature of i t s l i n k to the c o n s t r u c t i n q u e s t i o n . At each resonse p o i n t w i t h i n each of these tasks c h i l d r e n ' s i n i t i a l responses ( i . e . , same or d i f f e r e n t ) and t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r them are scored as to whether or not they evidence c o n s e r v a t i o n of the q u a n t i t y i n q u e s t i o n . As the c h i l d r e n ' s i n i t i a l responses alone are i n s u f f i c i e n t to allow f o r i n f e r e n c e s as to t h e i r competencies in the area ( i . e . , due to the p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e i r simply 72 choosing from among the response p o s s i b i l i t i e s o u t l i n e d by the experimenter) c h i l d r e n i n the present study r e c e i v e d a pass score at each response p o i n t only i f they were able to j u s t i f y t h e i r , answers. The summing of these response p o i n t scores l e a d to a p o s s i b l e maximum t o t a l of 5 pass scores f o r each i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d ( i . e . , three f o r the Barns task and two f o r the S t i c k s t a s k ) . To be c e r t a i n that true competency or mastery of the o v e r a l l concept of c o n s e r v a t i o n was assessed a c r i t e r i o n of 3 out of 5 c o r r e c t on these t a s k s . Thus those c h i l d r e n who scored at or above 3 out of 5 c o r r e c t were deemed to be o p e r a t i n g from a q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c e p i stemology. •Given that the goal of the present t h e s i s i s to p o s i t and t e s t a new conceptual order i n the r o l e - t a k i n g domain, i t was d e s i r a b l e to i n c l u d e f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s the p r o t o c o l s of only those c h i l d r e n who were c l e a r l y c l a s s i f i a b l e i n terms of the nature of t h e i r presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s . Thus those c h i l d r e n who scored 0 out of 5 c o r r e c t on the scre e n i n g procedures were c l a s s i f i e d as copy t h e o r e t i c while those who obtained scores of 1 or 2 out of 5 were dropped from the remainder of the study while those c h i l d r e n who scored 4 or 5 out of 5 c o r r e c t were c l a s s i f i e d as q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t s . R o l e - t a k i n g Measures Given the wide v a r i e t y of r o l e - t a k i n g measures c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e there were two temptations which had to be avoided i n d e c i d i n g how best to t e s t the present hypotheses. One a l t e r n a t i v e might have been to adm i n i s t e r as many of the 73 c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e r o l e - t a k i n g tasks as time and p a t i e n c e allowed. T h i s , i f s u c c e s s f u l , c o u l d have been seen as a step toward e m p i r i c a l l y r e p l i c a t i n g or e m p i r i c a l l y s y n t h e s i z i n g the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , such a psychometric approach would d u p l i c a t e e x i s t i n g methodological q u i r k s and obscure conceptual d i f f e r e n c e s which c u r r e n t l y c l o u d e x i s t i n g measures. As a second a l t e r n a t i v e , one c o u l d have fo l l o w e d what seems to be the popular p a t t e r n amongst those who wish to propound new conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n s and c o n s t r u c t a new assessment procedure that c o u l d be shown to p r o v i d e a c l e a r t e s t .of the proposed' hypotheses. T h i s second approach, however, would a l s o i n v o l v e the c o m p l i c a t i n g f a c t o r that every other researcher wishing to t e s t the proposed typology would be c o n s t r a i n e d to adopt t h i s procedure and to attempt to separate i t from the concept i t i s meant to d e s c r i b e . To a v o i d these i s s u e s a middle course was taken wherein the tasks used allowed f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s to be met. (1) Each task may be seen to be i d e n t i c a l to or a c c e p t a b l e v a r i a t i o n s of tasks f r e q u e n t l y employed by those a l r e a d y working in the area of r o l e t a k i n g . (2) The key aspects of the t a s k s , as they r e l a t e to the proposed typology of knowledge in o t h e r s , w i l l be made c l e a r i n order that they may be more e a s i l y compared to other a v a i l a b l e t a s k s . (3) F i n a l l y , the manner i n which the tasks are intended to r e l a t e to the c o n s t r u c t of r o l e t a k i n g w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t l y c l a r i f i e d to allow f o r the c o n s t r u c t to be accessed i n a 74 v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t i v e ways. Beyond t h i s the s e r i e s of assessment tasks has been c o n s t r u c t e d with the aim of minimizing present p o t e n t i a l confounds, of which i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g demands are an example. The assessment procedure, then, c o n s i s t e d of a s e r i e s of a p p l i c a t i o n s of a set of t e s t m a t e r i a l s such that each of the types of knowledge d e t a i l e d i n the proposed typology i s represented. The s e r i e s of tasks employed c o n t a i n the same advantages that were claimed by F l a v e l l for h i s L e v e l 1/Level 2 tasks ( i . e . , T u r t l e 1 and T u r t l e 2) i n that i t c o n t r o l s as many extraneous v a r i a b l e s as p o s s i b l e while a l l o w i n g , where p o s s i b l e , only the c o n s t r u c t - r e l e v a n t aspects of the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n to vary. Thus, for four of the f i v e tasks employed in t h i s study, r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the m a t e r i a l s and the probes employed by the experimenter were v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of the type of knowledge that the c h i l d s u b j e c t was to attempt to understand. The f i f t h task i n v o l v e d the use of a d i f f e r e n t set of m a t e r i a l s that have been u t i l i z e d before in r o l e - t a k i n g r e s e a r c h and were thus i n c l u d e d both as a check on the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y of c e r t a i n of present tasks as w e l l as r e p r e s e n t i n g a means of i n c r e a s i n g the data base f o r logico-mathematical r e l a t e d task performance. These m a t e r i a l s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d below. Each of the four s e t s of p u z z l e m a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t e d of three p i c t u r e s on cards which were matched and tabbed at the r i g h t and l e f t s i d e s i n jigsaw p u z z l e f a s h i o n such that they f i t together in only one l i n e a r sequence. An example of the 75 type of p u z z l e used in the study w i l l f a c i l i t a t e an understanding of the tasks as they are d e s c r i b e d below. In one such set (see Appendix C f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of a l l stimulus s e t s ) the f i r s t p i e c e showed a r a b b i t c l e a r l y running. The second p i e c e d e p i c t e d a wolf a l s o running such that when these two p i e c e s were locked together the wolf was behind the r a b b i t and running i n the same d i r e c t i o n . The t h i r d and f i n a l p u z z l e p i e c e showed a number of animals running out of, and away from, a stand of t r e e s which were on f i r e . When added to the other two p i e c e s a l l the animals appeared to be f l e e i n g the f i r e . With t h i s example in mind, the s p e c i f i c r o l e - t a k i n g tasks used i n t h i s study are o u t l i n e d below. R e l a t i v e View Task. In t h i s task the r a b b i t and wolf p u z z l e p i e c e s were c l i p p e d to o p p o s i t e s i d e s of an u p r i g h t d i s p l a y board such that only one of the animals was v i s i b l e to each of the i n d i v i d u a l l y t e s t e d c h i l d r e n and the experimenter seated opposite a c r o s s a small t a b l e with the board between them. A f t e r being f a m i l i a r i z e d with both s i d e s of t h i s board/cards arrangment the c h i l d r e n were asked what they saw and what the experimenter saw. T h i s was repeated f o r both p o s s i b l e o r i e n t a t i o n s of the cards and f o r a t o t a l of 3 such s e t s of p u z z l e p i c t u r e s . C h i l d r e n ' s responses were scored as c o r r e c t each time they were able to c l e a r l y s t a t e what the experimenter saw. Thus they c o u l d r e c e i v e a maximum score of 2 c o r r e c t other-view responses on each of the three sets of m a t e r i a l s f o r f o r 76 a p o s s i b l e t o t a l of s i x c o r r e c t other-view responses. T h i s task c l e a r l y r e p l i c a t e s F l a v e l l ' s T u r t l e 1 and Dog/Cat tasks (Masangkay et a l . r 1974) and accesses c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of the p h y s i c a l placement of the r a b b i t and the wolf. As such i t may be seen to r e f e r e n c e t h e i r understanding of p h y s i c a l i s t i c or copy t h e o r e t i c knowledge i n o t h e r s . In terms of other types of r o l e - t a k i n g t h i s task may a l s o be r e f e r e d to as " p e r c e p t u a l " i n nature and to r e f e r e n c e F l a v e l l ' s "what" or L e v e l 1 type of knowledge. R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n Task. In t h i s task c h i l d r e n were f i r s t probed f o r t h e i r understanding of the phrases "upside-down" and " r i g h t s i d e - u p " u sing a small "piggy bank" which c o u l d be p l a c e d e i t h e r on i t s f e e t or balanced on i t s back. Once i t was determined that the c h i l d r e n c o u l d use the phrases c o r r e c t l y , or once the phrases they commonly use to r e f e r e n c e these concepts were c l e a r to the experimenter, the r o l e - t a k i n g task was a d m i n i s t e r e d . To accomplish t h i s the wolf p i c t u r e ( f o r example) was p l a c e d f l a t on the t a b l e between the c h i l d r e n and the experimenter and o r i e n t e d such that i t looked r i g h t s i d e - u p to one of them while l o o k i n g upside-down to the other. The c h i l d r e n were then asked how the animal appeared to both them and the experimenter. T h i s was repeated f o r both p o s s i b l e o r i e n t a t i o n s of each of three such p i c t u r e s . The exact nature of the r e q u i r e d response v a r i e d somewhat acr o s s s e t s i n that while i n two of the p i c t u r e s r i g h t s i d e - u p and upside-down are the optimal responses the c h a r a c t e r i n the t h i r d p i c t u r e appears to be 77 standing on h i s fe e t or on h i s hands depending on how he i s viewed. Thus, as with the R e l a t i v e View task, c h i l d r e n c o u l d get a maximum of two o t h e r - o r i e n t a t i o n probes c o r r e c t on each set of m a t e r i a l s y i e l d i n g a maximum p o s s i b l e score of 6 c o r r e c t o t h e r - o r i e n t a t i o n probes c o r r e c t i f summed acro s s the three s e t s of m a t e r i a l s . T h i s task, while s t i l l r e f e r r i n g to p h y s i c a l i s t i c / c o p y t h e o r e t i c knowledge i n others and being " p e r c e p t u a l " i n nature, a l s o d u p l i c a t e s F l a v e l l ' s T u r t l e 2 and Worm 2 -tasks and r e f e r e n c e s h i s l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "how" or L e v e l 2 knowledge. P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning Task. P r i o r to the s t a r t of t h i s task, or the P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning task whichever occurred f i r s t i n the randomized order of p r e s e n t a t i o n , the c h i l d r e n had been introduced to two puppets (named "Oscar" & "Leo") d e s c r i b e d as f r i e n d s of the experimenter. The c h i l d r e n were then asked with which f r i e n d they wished to pl a y a game. Fo l l o w i n g t h i s c h o ice the puppets were returned to t h e i r "homes" ( i . e . , shoe boxes) and the c h i l d r e n were then t o l d that the puppets would stay there u n t i l i t was t h e i r turn to play i n the game. They were f u r t h e r t o l d that the i n s i d e of the boxes was very q u i e t and that when the puppets were i n them they c o u l d not hear what e i t h e r they or the experimenter s a i d . F o l l o w i n g the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the puppets, to continue to use the w o l f / r a b b i t example o u t l i n e d above, the wolf and r a b b i t cards were i n t e r l o c k e d and p l a c e d f l a t on the t a b l e i n f r o n t of the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n and the experimenter (now 78 "beside the s u b j e c t ) . The c h i l d r e n were then asked to make up a s t o r y that would e x p l a i n the p u z z l e that they had j u s t a s s i s t e d i n assembling. In the example p u z z l e , the wolf c l e a r l y seems to be chasing the r a b b i t . F o l l o w i n g t h i s the t h i r d p i e c e was locked onto the " p u z z l e " such that i t becomes c l e a r t h a t , r a t h e r than the wolf chasing the r a b b i t , both animals are i n f a c t p a r t of a more general stampede away from a f o r e s t f i r e . Once the c h i l d r e n were able to a r t i c u l a t e t h i s , the f i r e c a r d was covered or removed ( t h i s was counterbalanced a c r o s s m a t e r i a l s e t s ) and the c h i l d r e n were t o l d that someone e l s e was coming to look at the c a r d s . At t h i s p o i n t each c h i l d ' s chosen puppet was brought out and allowed to "look" at the two p i c t u r e d i s p l a y before r e t u r n i n g to i t s box. The c h i l d r e n were then asked what they thought the puppet would say about why the r a b b i t was running. C h i l d r e n ' s responses were scored by drawing on the key p o i n t s i n c l u d e d i n Chandler's (Note 3; Chandler & Helm, Note 4) o r i g i n a l s c o r i n g c r i t e r i o n f o r h i s Droodles task as they provide an i d e a l language f o r f o r s c o r i n g the responses of c h i l d r e n on both t h i s and the P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning task. On each p u z z l e s e t , c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d a score of 2 i f they gave a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n that the puppet d i d not know what was r e a l l y going on i n the whole pu z z l e sequence ( i . e . , s a y i ng that the puppet cannot know because i t d i d not see the whole puzzle or suggesting that the puppet would construe the two p i c t u r e p u z z l e i n the same manner that they themselves 79 o r i g i n a l l y had). A score of 0 was given to those c h i l d r e n who e s s e n t i a l l y a t t r i b u t e d f u l l knowledge of the meaning of the whole pu z z l e to the puppet. A score of 1 was given i f "leakage" occurred i n c h i l d r e n ' s responses. Leakage r e f e r s to those i n s t a n c e s where some key aspects of the meaning of the pu z z l e as a whole c o l o u r s t h e i r r e p o r t on the puppet's knowledge ( i . e . , the wolf may be s a i d to be ch a s i n g the r a b b i t because both are a f r a i d of the. f i r e ) . While a d i s t i n c t i o n may be seen to e x i s t at one l e v e l between scores of 0 and 1 i t i s not one of importance to the present t h e o r e t i c a l e f f o r t . With t h i s i n mind scores of 0 and 1 were c o l l a p s e d i n t o the more general catagory of " f a i l i n g " responses while scores of 2 were desi g n a t e d as passes. A c o r r e c t understanding of t h i s task c l e a r l y i n v o l v e s an a p p r e c i a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s between the cards such t h a t , when the f i r e c a r d i s covered, the r e l a t i o n that transformed t h e i r own newly a c q u i r e d understanding of the w o l f / r a b b i t scene i s negated. I t was hypothesised that a q u a s i -c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c epistemology should be r e q u i r e d before a c o r r e c t understanding of another's r e l a t i v e knowledge about t h i s event i s p o s s i b l e . F i n a l l y , the r e l a t i o n a l nature of the meaning inherent i n the two- as opposed to t h r e e - p i e c e puzzle s t o r y c l e a r l y marks t h i s task as conceptual i n nature as i t r e q u i r e s that the c h i l d r e n r e f l e c t upon the thoughts of another person about some given o b j e c t or event. P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning Task. T h i s task, being the only one of the present set which does not u t i l i z e some 80 aspect of the puzzle s e t s , was i n c l u d e d p a r t i a l l y to expand the c u r r e n t data base of c h i l d r e n ' s performances i n such priviledged-meaning-format tasks and p a r t i a l l y as a check on the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of the P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning task as the Droodles have been used p r e v i o u s l y i n the r o l e -t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e (Chandler and Helm, Note 4). Each of the 4 Droodles used ( P r i c e , 1953; a l s o see Appendix C f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of these m a t e r i a l s ) i n v o l v e d a two-sided c a r d , one s i d e of which d e p i c t e d a scene (e.g., a witch r o l l e r s k a t i n g i n f r o n t of a w a l l ) while the other s i d e showed only one aspect of the whole p i c t u r e (e.g., due to the w a l l a l l that c o u l d be seen from the other s i d e was the peak of the witch's p o i n t e d h a t ) . The c h i l d r e n were shown the r e s t r i c t e d view of the Drbodle and asked to guess what i t was. Once they had seen the whole Droodle i t was turned over again and t h e i r chosen puppet was brought out to look at i t . The puppet was then returned to i t s box and the c h i l d r e n were asked what they thought the puppet would say, i f asked, the obscured Droodle represented. T h i s task was scored i n v i r t u a l l y the same manner as the P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning tas k . Thus c o r r e c t l y a t t r i b u t i n g n a i v e t e to the puppet earned a score of 2 on each Droodle. Leakage c o u l d a l s o occur here i n that c h i l d r e n who o r i g i n a l l y s a i d the witch's hat looked l i k e a teepee might, a f t e r seeing the whole p i c t u r e , suggest that the puppet may say i t i s a hat on a w a l l "and thus r e c e i v e a score of 1 . A t t r i b u t i n g f u l l knowledge of the Droodle to the puppet was scored as a 0 81 response. As with the P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning Task above, i t was hypothesised that to be s u c c e s s f u l on t h i s task, c h i l d r e n must understand that the observer's knowledge about the car d i s a f u n c t i o n of the other's processes of meaning assignment and as such should only be c o r r e c t l y understood by those c h i l d r e n o p e r a t i n g from a q u a s i - c o n s t u c t i v i s t i c epistemology. S i m i l a r l y t h i s task may be seen to access what i s intended by the n o t i o n of conceptual knowledge i n o t h e r s . T h i r d Person R e l a t i v i s e d Meaning Task. T h i s task i n v o l v e d s e t t i n g up one of the four p u z z l e s on the t a b l e i n f r o n t of the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n and the experimenter ( i . e . , seated s i d e by s i d e ) . Two. cardboard d i v i d e r s were p l a c e d p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the p u z z l e along the p i e c e j o i n t l i n e s such that they were edge-wise to the viewers. Two small d o l l s , named "George" and "Lucy" were then re v e a l e d and introduced to the c h i l d r e n . The George d o l l was then p l a c e d near the p i e c e d e p i c t i n g the running r a b b i t ( f o r example) such that he c o u l d see only the r a b b i t . The Lucy d o l l was then p l a c e d with her nose a g a i n s t the cardboard which d i v i d e d the wolf and r a b b i t p i c t u r e s such that she c o u l d see both the wolf and the r a b b i t but not the f o r e s t f i r e or the f l e e i n g animals. The p o s i t i o n of the p u z z l e and the d i v i d e r s were such that only the c h i l d r e n and the experimenter c o u l d see the whole p u z z l e . A f t e r i t was determined that the c h i l d r e n had a c l e a r understanding of what the George and Lucy d o l l s alone c o u l d see, they were asked to r e p o r t on what Lucy thought George 82 thought about why the r a b b i t was running ( f o r the exact form of the probe see the t e s t i n g s c r i p t i n Appendix B). T h i s task was scored on a p a s s / f a i l b a s i s as to whether or not c h i l d r e n evidenced a c l e a r understanding of the Lucy d o l l ' s impression of the George d o l l ' s view of the p u z z l e . C h i l d r e n were scored as f a i l i n g i f they a t t r i b u t e d knowledge to George, through Lucy, of the second puzzle p i e c e (e.g., the wolf) or of the whole p u z z l e (e.g., the f o r e s t f i r e ) . A pass was assigned to c h i l d r e n who were able to p o i n t out that Lucy knew what George knew and that t h i s was d i f f e r e n t than what Lucy or they themselves knew. T h i s task r e q u i r e s that the c h i l d r e n understand the nature of another's thoughts about a t h i r d person and as such n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e d that the o t h e r ' s thought become the o b j e c t of knowledge f o r the s u b j e c t s . I t was hypothesised that to c o r r e c t l y understand t h i s type of r e c u r s i v e t h i n k i n g about t h i n k i n g r e q u i r e s that one be able to l a y c l a i m to a f u l l y c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c epistemology. The form of t h i s task was modeled c l o s e l y a f t e r that of M i l l e r , K e s s e l , and F l a v e l l ' s (1970) two- loop r e c u r s i o n task as w e l l as on the more advanced probes of Selman and Byrne's (1974) " H o l l y " s t o r y and as such may be seen to r e f e r e n c e what i s known in the r o l e - t a k i n g l i t e r a t u r e as conceptual r o l e - t a k i n g . To b r i e f l y review the tasks employed i n t h i s study, four s e t s of m a t e r i a l s of the form o u t l i n e d above were developed and u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study. Due to s e v e r a l c o n s t r a i n t s inherent i n the p i c t u r e s chosen f o r some of the p u z z l e s , a l l 83 puzzle s e t s were not used in a l l tasks ( i . e . , one such pu z z l e d e p i c t s two tug boats which were deemed not to be d i s t i n c t i v e enough to be used in e i t h e r the R e l a t i v e View or T h i r d Person R e l a t i v i s e d Meaning tas k s ; as w e l l , tugs do not as e a s i l y lend themselves to being spoken of as e i t h e r r i g h t s i d e - u p or upside-down and were thus not used in the R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n t a s k ) . These l i m i t a t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n three sets of m a t e r i a l s i n each of the R e l a t i v e View and R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n tasks and four s e t s of m a t e r i a l s i n each of the other type of task being used. These summed to produce twelve sub-tasks in which p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowledge i s to be known, ei g h t i n which log i c o - m a t h m a t i c a l knowledge i s to be known, and two i n which the knowledge to be known i n the other i s f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d in nature. 84 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS The f i r s t step r e q u i r e d f o r a proper a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s of the t e s t of the proposed model i n v o l v e s the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n as to the nature of t h e i r presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s as determined through the use of the s c r e e n i n g procedures. E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Of the 84 c h i l d r e n screened i n t h i s study, 34 were c l a s s i f i e d by the above d e t a i l e d s c o r i n g c r i t e r i o n as m a i n t a i n i n g a q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c view of the world while 41 evidenced c o p y - t h e o r e t i c e p i s t e m o l o g i e s . Nine c h i l d r e n showed response p a t t e r n s which c o u l d be l a b e l l e d t r a n s i t i o n a l i n nature ( i . e . , t h e i r combined scores on the s c r e e n i n g tasks f e l l between 0 and 3). Given the d e s i r e that the present study c o n s t i t u t e a c l e a r t e s t of the proposed t h e o r e t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n these t r a n s i t i o n a l s u b j e c t s were dropped from f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s . In order to r e d e f i n e the sample, the c h i l d r e n who were dropped i n c l u d e d : 1 boy and 1 g i r l from the younger p r e s c h o o l group, 3 boys and 1 g i r l from the o l d e r p r e s c h o o l group, 1 boy from the k i n d e r g a r t e n group, and 1 boy and 1 g i r l from the grade 1 sample. The breakdown of the 75 c l e a r l y c l a s s i f i a b l e c h i l d r e n by grade l e v e l and the nature of t h e i r presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s i s shown in Table 2. While i t i s c l e a r there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between grade l e v e l and type of e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( (3) = 28.74, p_ < .001), i t i s not, i n t h i s sample, a l i n e a r one. Of the 18 young 85 TABLE 2 C h i l d r e n C l a s s i f i e d by Grade L e v e l and Presumptive E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l L e v e l Presumptive E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l L e v e l Copy-T h e o r e t i c Quasi-C o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c Young Pr e s c h o o l 17 1 Old P r e s c h o o l 4 10 Grade L e v e l K i n d e r g a r t e n 1 5 5 Grade 1 5 18 86 p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n only 1 was c l a s s i f i e d as a q u a s i -c o n s t r u c t i v i s t while of the 14 o l d e r p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n 10 were so c l a s s i f i e d . T h i s apparent t r e n d was reversed among the 20 k i n d e r g a r t e n . c h i l d r e n as only 5 of them were c l a s s i f i e d as q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c while 18 of the 23 grade 1 c h i l d r e n were so l a b e l l e d . The manner in which t h i s unexpected f i n d i n g r e l a t e s to the o v e r a l l aim of the present study w i l l be returned to in the d i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n . R e l a t i o n s Between the Role-Taking Tasks Before the r o l e - t a k i n g task performances of these two groups of c h i l d r e n c o u l d be compared, i t was necessary to f i r s t compare the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of each of the i n d i v i d u a l , s e t s of m a t e r i a l s ( i . e . , sub-tasks) i n order to c o n f i r m the e x p e c t a t i o n that they might be j u s t i f i a b l y c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s m a t e r i a l s w i t h i n t a s k s . The small number of c h i l d r e n who f a i l e d to evidence competence on e i t h e r the R e l a t i v e View or R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n tasks ( i . e . , 0 and 5 c h i l d r e n f a i l i n g any aspect of these r e s p e c t i v e tasks) meant that there was i n s u f f i c i e n t data to determine whether or not any d i f f e r e n c e s , i n terms of r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y , e x i s t e d among the v a r i o u s task m a t e r i a l s e t s u t i l i z e d . The same c o n s t r a i n t s hold f o r the T h i r d Person R e l a t i v i s e d Meaning task i n that there was i n s u f f i c i e n t v a r i a b i l i t y of performance ac r o s s the two s e t s of m a t e r i a l s used to assess, or even q u e s t i o n , t h e i r r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y . Ample data e x i s t s , however, f o r such comparisons amongst the v a r i o u s m a t e r i a l s e t s of the P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning 87 and P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning t a s k s . To accomplish t h i s the number of c h i l d r e n scored as p a s s i n g or f a i l i n g each s p e c i f i c set of m a t e r i a l s w i t h i n each of the two tasks were compared. The p a t t e r n f o r the P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning task i s very c l e a r i n that f o r each of the four p u z z l e s used i n t h i s study, 39 of the 75 c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d p a s s i n g s c o r e s . The number of c h i l d r e n who passed or f a i l e d each of the P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning task items ranged from 42 passes and 33 f a i l s on the Witch Droodle to 38 passes and 37 f a i l s on both the Bear and Trombone Droodles (see Appendix C f o r d e s c r i p t i o n s of these m a t e r i a l s ) . While the p a s s / f a i l l e v e l s are not i d e n t i c a l across m a t e r i a l s e t s there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s found among them (P > .05, using the normal approximation to the b i n o m i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n ) . F o l l o w i n g t h i s a n a l y s i s of i n t e r - t a s k s i m i l a r i t y , the c h i l d r e n ' s scores were c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s m a t e r i a l s w i t h i n tasks in the f o l l o w i n g manner to produce a p a s s / f a i l score f o r each c h i l d on each task. T h i s was accomplished by s e t t i n g a c r i t e r i o n number of sub-task passes r e q u i r e d before a c h i l d c o u l d be s a i d to have mastered the task i n q u e s t i o n . T h i s was done f o r two reasons. F i r s t , on the R e l a t i v e View and R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n tasks the experimenter, i n the course of a d m i n i s t e r i n g the task, v e r b a l l y presented both of the - a p p r o p r i a t e responses and thus a c r i t e r i o n was needed to d i s t i n g u i s h true competency fron random responding. Secondly, i t was d e s i r e d that t h i s study c o n s t i t u t e a c l e a r t e s t of the proposed model and as such the attempt i s being made to focus on those p a t t e r n s of responses 88 which represent a competent rather than a t r a n s i t i o n a l understanding of the knowledge i n v o l v e d i n each type of task. I t i s p r i m a r i l y f o r t h i s second reason that performance c r i t e r i a were e s t a b l i s h e d on the two P r i v i l e d g e d Meaning t a s k s , as random responding does not represent n e a r l y as great a confounding p o t e n t i a l on these t a s k s . Given the above reasoning, a c u t t i n g score of 5 out of 6 c o r r e c t was e s t a b l i s h e d f o r both the R e l a t i v e View and the R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n t a s k s . For both the P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning and P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning tasks a minimum of 3 c o r r e c t responses out of a p o s s i b l e 4 were r e q u i r e d before c h i l d r e n were deemed to have evidenced mastery of these t a s k s . F i n a l l y , given the complex nature of the requirments p l a c e d upon the c h i l d r e n f o r performance i n the T h i r d Person R e l a t i v i s e d Meaning task and given the r e s u l t a n t m a n i f o l d ways i n which they c o u l d respond, i t was decided to r e q u i r e that they r e c e i v e a passing score on both sub-tasks before they were s a i d to have mastered t h i s task. The f i n a l step r e q u i r e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s of the r o l e -t a k i n g tasks employed in t h i s study i n v o l v e s a comparison of the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of those tasks i n t e n t e d to r e f e r e n c e s i m i l a r types of knowledge in other people. T h i s i s seen to be necessary as the hypotheses of t h i s study are intended to r e l a t e more to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c h i l d r e n ' s presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s and the nature of the knowledge i n others to be known rather than to any one s p e c i f i c measure intended to represent such knowledge in o t h e r s . To t h i s end 89 the number of c h i l d r e n who passed and f a i l e d each of the two tasks w i t h i n each of the f i r s t two types of knowledge in others ( i . e . , p h y s i c a l i s t i c & logico-mathmatical) were compared. The number of c h i l d r e n who passed one of these t h e o r e t i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t tasks while f a i l i n g the other were compared using the normal approximation to the binomial d i s t r i b u t i o n to determine i f the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l s of the two tasks were e q u i v a l e n t . The r e s u l t s of t h i s comparison f o r the p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowledge tasks ( i . e . , R e l a t i v e View and R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n tasks) are d e p i c t e d i n Table 3 while the corresponding r e s u l t s f o r the logico-mathematical tasks ( i . e . , P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning and P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning tasks) are presented i n Table 4. The comparison of the p a s s / f a i l c e l l e n t r i e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t i n e i t h e r case ( p > .05 f o r both types of knowledge). F o l l o w i n g the above f a i l u r e to f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of the tasks w i t h i n each type of o t h e r ' s knowledge, i t f i n a l l y became p o s s i b l e to d i v i d e the c h i l d r e n i n the sample on the b a s i s of whether or not they c o u l d be s a i d to have evidenced of each of the three types of knowledge they encountered i n the course of the study. The reasoning behind t h i s process proceded as f o l l o w s . Given that d e f e n s i b l e mastery c r i t e r i a had been set f o r each of the i n d i v i d u a l t a s k s , and given that the tasks w i t h i n each of the knowledge types were subsequently confirmed to be of equal d i f f i c u l t y , i t was decided that those c h i l d r e n who had performed at or above c r i t e r i o n l e v e l s on e i t h e r of the tasks c TABLE 3 C h i l d r e n ' s R e l a t i v e Performances on the P h y s i c a l i s t i c Knowledge Tasks R e l a t i v e View Task F a i l Pass R e l a t i v e Or i e n t a t ion Task 0 5 0 70 TABLE 4 C h i l d r e n ' s R e l a t i v e Performances on the Logico-Mathematical Knowledge Tasks P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning Task F a i l Pass r F a i l P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning Task Pass 37 . 4 3 31 91 at a given knowledge type would be deemed to be capable of understanding the nature of that type of knowledge in other people. As only one task of F u l l y R e l a t i v i s e d knowledge was i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study, c h i l d r e n ' s performances on i t alone were taken to i n d i c a t e t h e i r a b i l i t y to understand t h i s type of knowledge i n o t h e r s . In order to c o n f i r m that the hypothesised q u a l i t a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n or step e x i s t e d between the p a r t i c u l a r types of knowledge ( i . e . , with tasks c o l l a p s e d w i t h i n knowledge t y p e s ) , a Guttman scalogram a n a l y s i s was run i n which the knowledge types were ranked i n terms of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p a s s / f a i l r a t e s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are shown in Table 5. The r e l e v a n t i n d i c a t o r s of the robustness of the d e r i v e d s c a l e were a l l w i t h i n accepted l i m i t s . The c o e f f i c i e n t of r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y i s an i n d i c a t o r of the extent to which c h i l d r e n ' s s c a l e scores are p r e d i c t i v e of t h e i r response p a t t e r n s and can range from 0 to 1. The c o e f f i c i e n t of r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y f o r the present s c a l e was found to be 1.0. The c o e f f i c i e n t of s c a l a b i l i t y , which p o t e n t i a l l y ranges from 0 to 1, i s an i n d i c a t e r of the extent to which the s c a l e i n q u e s t i o n i s u n i d i m e n s i o n a l and cumulative i n nature. The c o e f f i c i e n t of s c a l a b i l i t y f o r the present s c a l e was a l s o found to be equal to 1.0. S e v e r a l aspects of t h i s s c a l e are important and should be emphasised. F i r s t , the o v e r a l l l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y of the knowledge types f o l l o w e d the expected P h y s i c a l i s t i c through F u l l y R e l a t i v i s e d Knowledge or d e r . Second, the Guttman procedure i n d i c a t e s any e r r o r s that occur 92 TABLE 5 C h i l d r e n ' s R e l a t i v e Understanding of Each Type of Knowledge: Scalogram A n a l y s i s <\ Number of Items Passed F u l l y R e l a t i v i s e d Type Of Knowledge L o g i c o -Mathematical P h y s i c a l i s t i c F a i l Pass F a i l Pass F a i l Pass T o t a l 3 0 2 a 0 2 0 2 2 2 36 i 0 0 36 0 36 36 1 37 0 37 0 0 37 37 Sums 73 2 37 38 0 75 75 93 in l i g h t of the proposed s c a l e by counting the number of c h i l d r e n who pass more d i f f i c u l t items while f a i l i n g e a s i e r ones. The present a n a l y s i s r e p o r t s on such e r r o r s . The e x p e c t a t i o n , then, that the o v e r a l l performances of the s u b j e c t s a c r o s s the types of knowledge they encountered i n t h i s study would conform to a t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e s c r i b e d sequence on a Guttman Scale was s t r o n g l y confirmed. The Test of the T r a n s a c t i o n a l Model Given the f o r e g o i n g r e s u l t s , the c r i t i c a l t e s t of the proposed t r a n s a c t i o n a l model may now procede. Table 6 . shows the e n t i r e sample of 75 c h i l d r e n broken down by presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l e v e l and l i s t e d a c c o r d i n g to the highest type of other's knowledge of which they evidenced mastery (as d e f i n e d by the above d e t a i l e d s c o r i n g c r i t e r i o n and data summary g u i d e l i n e s ) . The o v e r a l l p a t t e r n of these r e s u l t s was t e s t e d for s i g n i f i c a n c e u s ing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample t e s t ( t w o - t a i l e d ) . T h i s t e s t compares the cumulative d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the two groups of c h i l d r e n a c r o s s the ordered types or l e v e l s of knowledge i n o t h e r s to be known. T h i s t e s t i n d i c a t e d that a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e d i d e x i s t between the p a t t e r n s of r e s u l t s f o r the two groups of c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study (P < .001). Turning now to the s p e c i f i c hypotheses of t h i s study, i t i s c l e a r from the e n t r i e s i n Table 9 that the m a j o r i t y of the copy t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n were only capable of comprehending p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowledge in other people. The m a j o r i t y of the q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n , by c o n t r a s t , TABLE 6 H i g h e s t L e v e l of Knowledge Understood by Presumptive E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l Level H i g h e s t Level of Knowledge Understood Presumpt1ve Ep1stemo1og i ca1 Le v e l Log i co- Ful l y Phys1ca11st i c Mathemat i c a l R e l a t i v i s e d Copy- 34 7 0 Theoret i c Ouas i - 3 29 2 C o n s t r u c t i v 1 s t i c 95 were capable of comprehending both p h y s i c a l i s t i c and l o g i c o -mathmatical knowledge i n others ( i . e . , due to the c l e a r nature of the scalogram a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s above, each t a b l e entry i n c l u d e s only those c h i l d r e n who evidenced an understanding of a l l the types of knowledge up to and i n c l u d i n g that which i s represented by the t a b l e column in which they appear). The proposed upper l i m i t on c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of other's type of knowledge was confirmed as none of the c o p y - t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n and only two of the q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n evidenced an understanding of f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d knowledge i n o t h e r s . The t h e o r e t i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n that the a b i l i t y to understand a p a r t i c u l a r type of knowledge may only be s u f f i c i e n t f o r c h i l d r e n to act upon that understanding when presented with such knowledge in i t l e a s t e l a b o r a t e form may be seen to set l i m i t s upon what may stand as a d i s c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e f o r the proposed model. Given t h i s , only c h i l d r e n who evidence an understanding of knowledge types hypothesised to be too complex for them to grasp may be t r e a t e d as d i s c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e s . The two c e l l s of Table 6 which c o n t a i n such i n s t a n c e s are those i n v o l v i n g c o p y - t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n and logico-mathmatical knowledge (there are 7 such c h i l d r e n ) and q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n and f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d f knowledge (there are 2 such c h i l d r e n ) . While i t was hypothesised that a mature c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c view of the world would be r e q u i r e d f o r a c h i l d to s u c c e s s f u l l y comprehend f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d knowledge i n others no measure 96 of t h i s type of epistemology was i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study. As such i t i s not p o s s i b l e to determine whether of not these two c h i l d r e n represent c o n f i r m i n g or d i s c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e s f o r the proposed model ( i . e . , these c h i l d r e n may i n f a c t h o l d mature c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c e p i s t e m o l o g i e s ) . If t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s accepted, at l e a s t f o r the moment, i t leaves only the seven c o p y - t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n who evidenced an understanding of logico-mathematical knowledge i n others as i n s t a n c e s which are d i s c o n f i r m i n g of the proposed t r a n s a c t i o n a l model. These c h i l d r e n represent only 9% of the t o t a l sample of c h i l d r e n . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that had a more s t r i n g e n t c r i t e r i o n been a p p l i e d i n determining whether c h i l d r e n understood l o g i c o - m a t h m a t i c a l knowledge, by r e q u i r i n g that they passed both the P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning and the P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning tasks the number of c o p y - t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n meeting the new c r i t e r i o n drops from 7 to 1. Using the same c r i t e r i o n , the number of q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n counted as understanding of t h i s type of knowledge would only drop by 1 from 29 to 28. O v e r a l l , these r e s u l t s are seen to s t r o n g l y c o n f i r m the hypotheses generated by the t r a n s a c t i o n a l model and thus, to demonstrate, a f o r t i o r i , the u t i l i t y of the model i n p r e d i c t i v e l y accounting f o r c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g performances. In the d i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n which f o l l o w s , the i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s f o r the s p e c i f i c hypotheses i n q u e s t i o n w i l l be e v a l u a t e d . F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the r a m i f i c a t i o n s 97 of these r e s u l t s for the study of the concept of r o l e t a k i n g as reviewed in the above i n t r o d u c t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . F i n a l l y , an attempt w i l l be made to sketch the p o s s i b l e f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area as i m p l i e d by the present t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l e f f o r t . 98 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION In the f o r e g o i n g study, support was c l e a r l y found f o r the n o t i o n that c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g performances c o u l d be p r e d i c t e d through a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of both the type of knowledge in others to be known and the s p e c i f i c nature of the c h i l d r e n ' s own b e l i e f s about the nature of knowledge ( i . e . , t h e i r presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s ) . The o v e r a l l f i n d i n g s were summarized i n Table 6. C o p y - t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n . As was hypothesised, i t was c l e a r from t h e i r performance that the c h i l d r e n who were s a i d to maintain b e l i e f s about the nature of knowledge grounded i n a c o p y - t h e o r e t i c view of the world were only capable of understanding p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowl.edge in others ( i . e . , that which i s p e r c e p t u a l l y g i v e n ) . They were seen to f a i l i n a l l other tasks which r e q u i r e d an understanding that some aspects of meaning are not p e r c e p t u a l l y given, but r a t h e r , t h e i r meaning e x i s t s only i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the m a t e r i a l s at hand and the meaning a p p l i e d to them ( i . e . , the manner i n which they are construed) by an a c t i v e knower. Thus the data at hand support the c o n t e n t i o n that c o p y - t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n may be expected to t r e a t a l l such r e l a t i v i s e d meaning s i t u a t i o n s as i n s t a n c e s of a simpler c l a s s or type of s i t u a t i o n and thus act as i f the meaning they i n v o l v e i s somehow p e r c e p t u a l l y g i v e n . Q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n . The major f a c t o r which was hypothesised to d i s t i n g u i s h a q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c view of the world from a l e s s developmentally mature copy-» 99 t h e o r e t i c one i s an understanding on c h i l d r e n ' s part that meaning does not e x i s t i n the world but rather i n the knowing r e l a t i o n s h i p between the world and people as a c t i v e c o n s t r u c t e r s of meaning. Thus while a l l c h i l d r e n i n the present view are seen to be c o n s t r u c t i v i s t s , only those c h i l d r e n c l a s s i f i e d as q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t s are deemed to be aware of t h i s i n at l e a s t a rudimentary way. The hypothesis that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n engenders with regards to the performance of these q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n was c l e a r l y supported. They were found to be capable of a d j u s t i n g t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n s as to the nature of another's knowledge in those types of r o l e - t a k i n g s i t u a t i o n s where the other person was l i k e l y to a t t a c h a d i f f e r e n t meaning to the task m a t e r i a l s than the c h i l d r e n themselves h e l d at that p o i n t i n time. The hypothesised upper l i m i t to t h i s kind of understanding of the nature of knowledge was a l s o confirmed. The q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n , as expected, f a i l e d to a p p r e c i a t e the f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d nature of knowledge inherent in s i t u a t i o n s ( i . e . , the T h i r d Person R e l a t i v i s e d Meaning task) which r e q u i r e an understanding of the f a c t that a second person may know that a t h i r d person c o u l d a s s i g n meaning to a s i t u a t i o n i n a manner d i f f e r e n t than themselves. With the support f o r the s p e c i f i c hypotheses of t h i s study i n hand, the more important task of d i c u s s i n g the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the r e s u l t s of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the present model f o r the study of r o l e t a k i n g may be pursued. 1 00 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r other r o l e - t a k i n g t y p o l o g i e s . To begin with, any simple a t h e o r e t i c a l statement such a s — c h i l d r e n get b e t t e r at r o l e t a k i n g as they get older--would not be supported by the present f i n d i n g s . Any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s would have to account for the f a c t that the o l d e r p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n were s u c c e s s f u l on more tasks than were the k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n d e s p i t e t h e i r being o l d e r (mean age of 4-10 as opposed to 5-9 y e a r s ) . While s u b t l e sample d i f f e r e n c e s might be used to e x p l a i n why the younger c h i l d r e n seem to be wise beyond t h e i r years, no such complex performance f u n c t i o n was seen to e x i s t when the sample of c h i l d r e n was c l a s s i f i e d as to t h e i r e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l b e l i e f s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s supports, a f o r t i o r i , the n o t i o n that age alone e x p l a i n s l i t t l e and that i t i s only when a t h e o r e t i c a l concept such as e p i s t e m o l o g i a l l e v e l i s put i n p l a c e that c h i l d r e n ' s d i f f e r e n t i a l r o l e - t a k i n g performances may be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y p r e d i c t e d . Given t h i s statement, i t i s c l e a r that some d i s c u s s i o n i s r e q u i r e d as to the u t i l i t y of the typology being proposed i n t h i s t h e s i s r e l a t i v e to others p r e v i o u s l y r a i s e d i n the r o l e - t a k i n g domain. While the p e r c e p t u a l / c o n c e p t u a l r o l e - t a k i n g typology, o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r , does o f f e r a p o t e n t i a l l y h e u r i s t i c way to d i s t i n g u i s h among v a r i o u s r o l e - t a k i n g tasks i t does not, i n and of i t s e l f , c o n t a i n a p r e d i c t i v e - t h e o r e t i c a l o u tlook. By c o n t r a s t , i f r o l e - t a k i n g tasks are d e s c r i b e d i n terms of the types of knowledge they represent i n others the present model allows f o r s p e c i f i c a p r i o r i p r e d i c t i o n s to be made about 101 c h i l d r e n ' s subsequent performances on such t a s k s . The important p o i n t i s that while both of the p h y s i c a l i s t i c meaning tasks i n the present study c o u l d be seen to be p e r c e p t u a l i n nature ( j u s t as both l o g i c o - m a t h m a t i c a l tasks may be seen to be conceptual i n nature) there i s no l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y that t h i s be the case. F u r t h e r , simply knowing whether a task i s p e r c e p t u a l or c o n c e p t u a l i n nature does not get one n e a r l y as f a r i n terms of theory-based p r e d i c t i o n s of performance as does knowing whether the task i n v o l v e s p h y s i c a l i s t i c or logico-mathmatical knowledge on the p a r t of the other person. Thus, i f adopted, the present model would provide a r i c h e r p r e d i c t i v e - t h e o r e t i c a l framework w i t h i n which both r o l e - t a k i n g s i t u a t i o n s and the c h i l d r e n who encounter them may be c l a s s i f i e d . The p r e c i s e nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between F l a v e l l ' s typology of L e v e l 1/Level 2 knowledge i s l e s s c l e a r . The r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y a n a l y s i s (Table 3) suggests t h a t , as p r e d i c t e d by the present model, both of these types of tasks may be s i m i l a r l y grouped under the heading of p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowledge in others and are thus seen to be d i s t i n c t from logico-mathmatical and f u l l y r e l a t i v i s e d knowledge tasks (as i n d i c a t e d by c h i l d r e n ' s r e l a t i v e performances on these t a s k s ) . The f a i l u r e of the present study to y i e l d a s i g n i f i c a n t performance d i f f e r e n c e on these two tasks may have been due to the ages of the samples used as a l l c h i l d r e n who f a i l e d the R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n task were i n the p r e s c h o o l sample. I t i s t e n t a t i v e l y suggested that a 1 0 2 q u a l i t a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n does not e x i s t between these two tasks given the view of the nature of the c o n s t r u c t of r o l e -t a k i n g c u r r e n t l y being proposed. Rather, the more important and c l e a r l y q u a l i t a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n i s that which was shown to e x i s t between the l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of how something i s seen ( i . e . , as e x e m p l i f i e d by F l a v e l l ' s L e v e l 2 type of task) and the metaphorical meaning of" how ( i . e . , as e x e m p l i f i e d by tasks which access logico-mathematical knowledge in others) not r e f e r r e d to d i r e c t l y i n the work of F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g u e s . To be a c c e p t a b l e a new typology of r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s would have to account f o r the e x i s t i n g data i n the domain as w e l l : as suggesting important new i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and d i r e c t i o n s i n the study of the c o n s t r u c t of r o l e t a k i n g . The present typology of c h i l d r e n ' s presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s and i t s e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrated r e l a t i o n s h i p to the types of knowledge to be known i n others has been show to be capable of a ccounting f o r the t y p o l o g i e s proposed p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s a r e a . I t has done so not by merely i n c l u d i n g them w i t h i n i t s framework but by p r e s e n t i n g a more general t h e o r e t i c a l l y grounded model for p r e d i c t i n g the nature of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e -t a k i n g performances. Young c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e t a k i n g and the present model. The u t i l i t y of the proposed approach may be evidenced by a p p l y i n g i t to to the q u e s t i o n of j u s t when i t i s that young c h i l d r e n may be seen to a c q u i r e r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . The type of performances of which the present q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c 103 c h i l d r e n were seen to be capable of are c l e a r l y the c l o s e s t to what Piaget and Inhelder intended by non-egocentric r o l e t a k i n g . The present approach has been intended as a l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n of t h e i r e a r l y work and given t h i s i t should not be s u r p r i s i n g that the younger c h i l d r e n i n the sample had d i f f i c u l t i e s with tasks i n v o l v i n g logico-mathematical knowledge in o t h e r s . Thus, while the age of q u a s i -c o n s t r u c t i v i s t c mastery in the present sample was lower than the 7- to 9-year o l d boundary suggested by Piaget i t i s not d r a s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . The performances of the very young c h i l d r e n i n Lemper et a l . (1977) study are e x p l a i n a b l e under the .present framework in that the tasks they employed may a l l be seen, upon i n s p e c t i o n , to i n v o l v e p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowledge i n others and as such were a l l w i t h i n the range of t h e i r young, presumably, c o p y - t h e o r e t i c c h i l d r e n . Thus a q u a l i t a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n may be drawn between the nature of Lemper and F l a v e l l ' s 1- to 3-year o l d s and that of the o l d e r q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t s i n the present study (due to the d i f f e r i n g nature of t h e i r presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s ) . The more s p e c i f i c attempts to uncover e a r l i e r evidence of r o l e - t a k i n g , competence may be s i m i l a r l y accounted f o r by the present model. Mossier et a l . (1976) and Marvin et a l . (1976) in t h e i r attempts to f i n d evidence of conceptual r o l e - t a k i n g i n young c h i l d r e n may be seen to have s h i f t e d q u a l i t a t i v e l y the nature of the c o n s t r u c t they were a s s e s s i n g . The format of t h e i r e y e s - c l o s e d - g u e s s i n g game and sound-off video p r e s e n t a t i o n 104 may be seen to have allowed the c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r s t u d i e s the opp o r t u n i t y to respond c o r r e c t l y on the b a s i s of a copy-t h e o r e t i c understanding of the world. T h i s i s i n c o n t r a s t to the s t o r y sequence task of Chandler and Greenspan (1972), with which the guessing game and video p r e s e n t a t i o n were meant to be s t r u c t u r a l l y isomorphic, but which may be seen to r e q u i r e at l e a s t a q u a s i - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t i c understanding f o r a c o r r e c t performance. The p o t e n t i a l f o r such s h i f t s i n the aspect of the r o l e - t a k i n g c o n s t r u c t • r e f e r e n c e d by new r o l e -t a k i n g tasks i s more s a l i e n t i n the present model due to the two-fold nature of i t s focus on both the nature of r o l e -t a k i n g tasks and the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l understanding of the c h i l d r e n exposed to them. It has not been the i n t e n t of the arguments advanced i n t h i s t h e s i s to suggest that any such p r o c e d u r a l refinements or s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s i n r o l e - t a k i n g task m a t e r i a l s are i n h e r e n t l y wrong or m i s d i r e c t e d . S e v e r a l important i n s i g h t s i n t o the nature of the r o l e - t a k i n g competencies of young c h i l d r e n have been brought to l i g h t through the use of such methodological refinements (e.g., most notable among these i s the work of F l a v e l l and h i s c o l l e a g u e s i n t o the e a r l y rudiments of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s as t h e i r f i n d i n g s may be see to have been i n f l u e n t i a l i n the present f o r m u l a t i o n of the nature of p h y s i c a l i s t i c knowledge). The main p o i n t to be made i s that while the r o l e - t a k i n g task focus i n recent years has f i l l e d an important v o i d i n our understanding of the area, the j o i n t c h i l d and task focus of 1 0 5 the t h e o r e t i c a l model f o r r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s proposed and t e s t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s may be seen to provide a more adequate developmentally-based t h e o r e t i c a l account of the key aspects of the c o n s t r u c t of r o l e - t a k i n g . Future d i r e c t i o n s . Beyond the obvious goal of e v e n t u a l l y t e s t i n g the p r e d i c t i o n s of the model f o r the r o l e - t a k i n g performances of mature c o n s t u c t i v i s t i c c h i l d r e n and a d o l e s c e n t s , there are two ways i n which t h i s model might be u t i l i z e d i n the f u t u r e study of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g competencies. The f i r s t i s r e t r o s p e c t i v e i n nature i n that the model prov i d e s a t h e o r e t i c a l framework w i t h i n which any of the p r e v i o u s l y i n t r o d u c e d r o l e - t a k i n g tasks may be eva l u a t e d in terms of the types of other's knowledge which must be grasped before s u c c e s s f u l performances on such tasks are p o s s i b l e . As may be seen from the above d i s c u s s i o n of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the present typology f o r p r e v i o u s l y p o s i t e d t y p o l o g i e s of r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s , t h i s s o r t of r e - a n a l y s i s holds the p o t e n t i a l f o r producing a new developmental-t h e o r e t i c a l understanding of c h i l d r e n ' s r o l e - t a k i n g e f f o r t s . The second way i n which the present model may prove u s e f u l i n v o l v e s f u t u r e r e s e a r c h d i r e c t i o n s in the r o l e - t a k i n g domain. The demonstrated manner i n which the model may be seen to cut across task-content based based t y p o l o g i e s of r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s suggests that the model may be a p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l adjunct to the more t r a d i t i o n a l forms of non-construct r e l a t e d task a n a l y s i s . Thus while any newly c o n s t r u c t e d t e s t of r o l e - t a k i n g should s t i l l be analysed i n 1 06 terms of the demands i t e n t a i l s which are not d i r e c t l y r e l e v e n t to the c o n s t r u c t of r o l e - t a k i n g ( i . e . , i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g demands), i t i s now p o s s i b l e to analyse i t a l s o i n terms of the types of knowledge in other people i t r e q u i r e s the s u b j e c t to comprehend. In t h i s way the model would enable r e s e a r c h e r s to make s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s as to how c h i l d r e n are l i k e l y to perform on the task i n q u e s t i o n . Beyond t h i s , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o the nature of c h i l d r e n ' s presumptive e p i s t e m o l o g i e s c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y enable r e s e a r c h e r s to d e t a i l the developmental course of r o l e - t a k i n g competencies from i n f a n c y to adulthood. 1 07 REFERENCE NOTES 1. Pressen, C.C. S p a t i a l egocentrism and the e f f e c t of an  a l t e r n a t i v e frame of r e f e r e n c e . Paper presented at the • meeting of the S o c i e t y f o r Research in C h i l d Development, San F r a n c i s c o , 1979. 2. Lemare, L. Construct v a l i d i t y of r o l e - t a k i n g measures. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Montreal, June, 1982. 3. Chandler, M.S. I n t r o d u c t i o n to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s c o r i n g  of Chandler's t e s t s . Unpublished manual, U n i v e r s i t y of Rochester, 1973. 4. Chandler, M.J., & Helm, D. Knowing the s o r t of h e l p that  i s r e a l l y needed. Paper presented at the meeting of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , New Orleans, September, 1974. 108 REFERENCES Abrahams, B.A. An i n t e g r a t i v e approach to the study of the  development of p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. Acr e d o l o , L.P. Developmental changes i n the a b i l i t y to c o o r d i n a t e p e r s p e c t i v e s of a l a r g e - s c a l e space. Developmental Psychology, 1977, J_3, 1-8. Borke, H. I n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n of young c h i l d r e n : Egocentrism or empathy? Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5, 263-269. Brandt, M.M. R e l a t i o n s between c o g n i t i v e r o l e - t a k i n g performance and age, task p r e s e n t a t i o n , and response requirements. Developmental Psychology, 1978, L4, 206-213. Brodzinsky, D.M., Jackson, J.P., & Overton, W.F. E f f e c t s of p e r c e p t u a l s h i e l d i n g i n the development of s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . C h i l d Development, 1972, 43, 1041-1046. Burns, N., & Cavey, L. Age d i f f e r e n c e s i n empathic a b i l i t y among c h i l d r e n . Canadian J o u r n a l of Psychology, 1957,. JJ_, 227-230. Chandler, M.J. Egocentrism and a n t i s o c i a l behavior: The assessment and t r a i n i n g of s o c i a l p e r s p e c i v e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 326-332. Chandler, M.J. S o c i a l c o g n i t i o n : A s e l e c t i v e review of c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h . In W. Overton, & J . G a l l a g h e r (Eds.), Knowledge and development; Volume 1, Advances i n theory 109 and research.'New York: Plenum Press, 1977. Chandler, M.J., & Greenspan, S. E r s a t z egocentrism: A r e p l y to H. Borke. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 7, 104-106. Coie, J.D., Costanzo, P.R., & F a r n h i l l , D. S p e c i f i c t r a n s i t i o n s i n the development of s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g . Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 167-177. Cox, M.V. The other observer i n a p e r s p e c t i v e task. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1975, 45, 83-85. Cox, M.V. P e r s p e c t i v e a b i l i t y : The r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of the other observer's v i e w p o i n t s . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1977, 24, 254-259. Cox, M.V. Order of the a c q u i s i t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . Developmental Psychology, 1978, J_4, 421-422. Cox, M.V. V i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g i n c h i l d r e n . In M.V. Cox (Ed.), Are young c h i l d r e n e g o c e n t r i c ? London: B i l l i n g & Son, 1980. DeVries, R. The development of r o l e - t a k i n g as r e f l e c t e d by the behavior of b r i g h t , average, and r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n i n a s o c i a l guessing game. C h i l d Development, 1970, 41, 759-770. Dodwell, P. E i s e r , C. R e c o g n i t i o n and i n f e r e n c e i n the c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1974, 44' 309-312. E l k i n d , D. P i a g e t ' s conceptions of r i g h t and l e f t : Piaget r e p l i c a t i o n study IV. J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1961, 99, 269-276. 1 10 E n r i g h t , R. D., & Lap s l e y , D. K. S o c i a l r o l e - t a k i n g : A review of the c o n s t r u c t s ; measures, and measurement p r o p e r t i e s . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1 980, 5_0, 647-674. F e f f e r , M.H. The c o g n i t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s of r o l e - t a k i n g behavior. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 1959, 2_7, 152-168. F e f f e r , M.H. Develpmental a n a l y s i s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1970, 77, 197-214. F e f f e r , M.H., & G o v r e v i t c h , V. C o g n i t i v e aspects of r o l e -t a k i n g i n c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 1960, 28, 383-397. Fehr, L.A. Meth o d o l o g i c a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n the measurement of s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g : A cause f o r concern. Human Development, 1978, 2J_, 302-315. Fehr, L.A., & F i s h b e i n , H.D. The e f f e c t s of an e x p l i c i t landmark on s p a t i a l judgements. In P. Suedfeld & J . R u s s e l l (Eds.), The b e h a v i o r a l b a s i s of desi g n . Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1976. Fehr, L.A., McMahon, P., & Fehr, K.M. C o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e s : O r i e n t a t i o n s of the other observer. J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1982, 140, 151-152. F i s h b e i n , H.D., Lewis, S., & K e i f f e r , D. C h i l d r e n ' s understanding of s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s : C o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e s . Developmental Psychology, 1972, 7, 21-33. F l a v e l l , J.H. The development of i n f e r e n c e s about o t h e r s . i n T. M i s c h e l (Ed.), Understanding other persons, Oxford: B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1974. F l a v e l l , J.H. The development of knowledge about v i s u a l 111 p e r c e p t i o n , in H.E. Howe, & C.B. Keasey (Eds.), Nebraska  Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n ( V o l . 25). L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1977. F l a v e l l , J.H., B o t k i n , P.T., Fry, C.L., Wright, J.W., & J a r v i s , P.T. The development of r o l e - t a k i n g and communication s k i l l s i n c h i l d r e n . Toronto: Wiley, 1968. F l a v e l l , J.H., E v e r e t t , B., C r o f t , K., & F l a v e l l , E.R. Young c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n : Further evidence f o r the L e v e l 1 — L e v e l 2 d i s t i n c t i o n . Developmental Psychology, 1981, _T7, 99-103. F l a v e l l , J.H., F l a v e l l , E.R., Green, F.L., & Wilcox, S,A. Young c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n : E f f e c t of observer's d i s t a n c e from t a r g e t on p e r c e p t u a l c l a r i t y of t a r g e t . Developmental Psychology, 1980, 16, 10-12. F l a v e l l , J.H., F l a v e l l , E.R., Green, F.L., & Wilcox, S.A. The development of three s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g r u l e s . C h i l d Development, 1981, 52, 356-358. F l a v e l l , J.H., Omanson, R.C, & Latham, C. S o l v i n g s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g problems by r u l e vs. computation: A developmental study. Developmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 462-473. F l a v e l l , J.H., Shipstead, S.G., & C r o f t , K. Young c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n : H i d i n g o b j e c t s from o t h e r s . C h i l d Development, 1978, 49, 1208-1211. Ford, M.E. The c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of egocentrism. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86, 1169-1188. 1 1 2 Garner, J . , & P l a n t , E.L. On the measurement of egocentrism: A r e p l i c a t i o n and extension of A e b l i ' s f i n d i n g s . B r i t i s h  J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1 9 7 2 , 4 2 , 7 9 - 8 3 . Goldschmid, M.L., & B e n t l e r , P.M. Concept assessment k i t - C o n s e r v a t i o n : ManuaDlTB . San Diego: E d u c a t i o n a l and  I n d u s t r i a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , 1 9 6 8 . H i g g i n s , E.T. Role t a k i n g and s o c i a l judgement. In J.H. F l a v e l l & L. Ross (Eds.), S o c i a l c o g n i t i v e development:  F r o n t i e r s and p o s s i b l e f u t u r e s . New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 1 . H i g g i n s , E.R., Feldman, N.S., & Ruble, D.N. Accuracy and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in s o c i a l p r e d i c t i o n : A developmental p e r s p e c t i v e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 1 9 8 0 , 48^, 5 2 0 - 5 4 0 . Hudson, L.M. On the coherence of r o l e - t a k i n g a b i l i t i e s : An a l t e r n a t i v e to c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . C h i l d  Development, 1 9 7 8 , 4 9 , 2 2 3 - 2 2 7 . Hughes, M. Egocentrism in p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Edinburgh, 1 9 7 5 . Hughes, M. S e l e c t i n g p i c t u r e s of another person's view. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1 9 7 8 , 4 8 , 2 1 0 - 2 1 9 . H u t t e n l o c h e r , J . , & Presson, C.C. Mental r o t a t i o n and the p e r s p e c t i v e problem. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1 9 7 5 , 4, 2 7 7 -2 9 9 . Kurdek, L.A. Convergent v a l i d a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g : A one-year follow-up study. Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 7 , J_3' 1 7 2 - 1 7 3 . 1 1 3 Kurdek, L.A., & Rodgon, M.M. P e r c e p t u a l , c o g n i t i v e , and a f f e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g i n k i n d e r g a r t e n through s i x t h - g r a d e c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 5 , J_1_, 6 4 3 - 6 5 0 . Laurendeau, M., & P i n a r d , A. The development of the concept. of space in the c h i l d . New York: I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s Press, 1 9 7 0 . L a p s l e y , D.K., Fehr, L.A., & E n r i g h t , R.D. C o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e s : The c o m p a r a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s . J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1 9 8 1 , 1 3 8 , 3 1 1 - 3 1 2 . Lemare, L. R e l a t i o n s h i p between t e s t s of r o l e t a k i n g . B.A. Honours T h e s i s , Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 8 2 . Lempers, J.D., F l a v e l l , E.R., & F l a v e l l , J.H. The development in young c h i l d r e n of t a c i t knowledge concerning v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n . Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1 9 7 7 , 8 5 , 3 -5 3 . L i b e n , L.S. P e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g s k i l l s i n young c h i l d r e n : Seeing the world through r o s e - c o l o u r e d g l a s s e s . Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 8 , 1 4 , 8 7 - 9 2 . Marvin, R.S., Greenberg, M.T., & Mossier, D.G. The e a r l y development of conceptual p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g : D i s t i n g u i s h i n g among m u l t i p l e p e r s p e c t i v e s . Chi Id  Development, 1 9 7 6 , 4 7 , 5 1 1 - 5 1 4 . Masangkay, Z.S., McCluskey, K.A., Mclntyre, C.W., Sims-Knight, J . , Vaughn, B.E., & F l a v e l l , J.H. The e a r l y development of i n f e r e n c e s about the v i s u a l percepts of o t h e r s . C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 4 , _45, 3 5 7 - 3 6 6 . 1 1 4 M i l l e r , P.H., K e s s e l , F.S., & F l a v e l l , J.H. T h i n k i n g about people t h i n k i n g about people t h i n k i n g about...: A study of s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e development. C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 0 , 41_, 6 1 3 - 6 2 3 . Minnigerode, F.A., & Carey, R.N. Development of mechanisms u n d e r l y i n g , s p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 4 , 4 5 , 4 9 6 - 4 9 8 . Mossier, D.G., Marvin, R.S., & Greenburg, M.T. Conceptual p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g i n - 2-6 year o l d c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , J_2, 8 5 - 8 6 . N i g e l , A.J., & F i s h b e i n , H.D. C h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to c o o r d i n a t e p e r s p e c t i v e s : C o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s . In W.F.E. P r e i s e r (Ed.), Environmental design r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 2). Stroudsburg, Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1 9 7 3 . N i g e l , A.J., & F i s h b e i n , H.D. P e r c e p t i o n and conception i n c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e s . Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 4 , _ 0 , 8 5 8 - 8 6 6 . O'Connor, M. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of s p a t i a l and conceptual r o l e t a k i n g i n young c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1 9 7 7 , __3J_, 3 1 9 - 3 2 0 . P i a g e t , J . The language and thought of the c h i l d . New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1 9 2 6 . P i a g e t , J . Judgement and reasoning i n the c h i l d . New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1 9 2 8 . P i a g e t , J . , & Inhelder, B. The c h i l d ' s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1 9 5 6 . P r i c e , R. Droodles. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1 9 5 3 . 1 1 5 Rubin, K.H. Egocentrism in c h i l d h o o d : A u n i t a r y c o n s t r u c t ? C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 3 , 4 4 , 1 0 2 - 1 1 0 . Rubin, K.H. Role t a k i n g i n c h i l d h o o d : Some methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . C h i l d Development, 1.978, 4 9 , 4 2 8 - 4 3 3 . S a l a t a s , H., & F l a v e l l , J.H. P e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g : The development of two components of knowledge. Chi Id Development, 1 9 7 6 , 4 7 , 1 0 3 - 1 0 9 . Schachter, D., & G o l l i n , E.S. S p a t i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g i n young c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1 9 7 4 , 2_7, 4 6 7 - 4 7 8 . Schatzow, M.D., Kahane, D.C, & Youniss, J . The e f f e c t s of movement on p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g and the c o o r d i n a t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e . Developmental Psychology, 1 9 8 0 , J_6, 5 8 2 -5 8 7 . Selman, R.L. Taking another's p e r s p e c t i v e : R o l e - t a k i n g development i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d . C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 1 , 4 2 , 1 7 2 1 - 1 7 3 4 , Selman, R.L., & Byrne, D.F. A s t r u c t u r a l - d e v e l o p m e n t a l a n a l y s i s of l e v e l s of r o l e t a k i n g i n middle c h i l d h o o d . C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 4 , 4 5 , 8 0 3 - 8 0 6 . Shantz, C U . The development of s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n . In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of c h i l d development re s e a r c h , V o l . 5. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1 9 7 5 . Shantz, C U . , & Watson, J.S. Assessment of s p a t i a l egocentrism through expectancy v i o l a t i o n . Psychonomic  Science, 1 9 7 0 , J_8, 8 3 - 9 3 . 1 1 6 Shantz, C.U., & Watson, J.S. S p a t i a l a b i l i t i e s and s p a t i a l egocentrism i n the young c h i l d . C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 1 , 4 2 , 1 7 1 - 1 8 1 . Urberg, K.A., & Docherty, E.M. Development of r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s i n young c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , J_2, 1 9 8 - 2 0 3 . Walker, L.D., & G o l l i n , E.S. P e r s p e c t i v e r o l e - t a k i n g in young c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1 9 7 7 , 2 4 , 3 4 3 - 3 5 7 . Weatherford, D.L., & Cohen, R. I n f l u e n c e of p r i o r a c t i v i t y on p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g . Developmental Psychology, 1 9 8 0 , 16, 2 3 9 - 2 4 0 . Zahn-Waxler, C , Radke-Yarrow, M., & Brady-Smith, J . P e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g and p r o s o c i a l behavior. Developmental  Psychology, 1 9 7 7 , j_3' 8 7 - 8 8 . 1 1 7 APPENDIX A Sample Task Recording Forms Recording Form: R e l a t i v e View Task Stimulus Set (1)You see? . Order I see? . (2) I see? . S's POV R e a l i t y = R e a l i t y = You see? . 118 Stimulus Set j_ (1)You see? . I see? _^ (2) I see? You see? . R e a l i t y = R e a l i t y = Stimulus Set (1)You see? . I see? _j_ (2) I see? You see? . R e a l i t y = R e a l i t y = 119 Recording Form: R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n Task Order _j_ P r e t e s t with toy _^ Stimulus p i c t u r e (1) How look to S? . How look to E? . S h i f t p i c t u r e 180 degrees. (2) How look to E? How look to S? . Stimulus p i c t u r e (1 ) How look to S? How look to E? . S h i f t p i c t u r e 180 degrees, (2) How look to E? . How look to S? . Stimulus p i c t u r e (1) How look to S? How look to E? . S h i f t p i c t u r e 180 degrees (2) How look to E? How look to S? . R e a l i t y S's POV USD RSU USD RSU R e a l i t y S's POV USD RSU USD RSU R e a l i t y S's POV USD RSU USD RSU Record Form: P r i v e l e d g e d Droodle Meaning Task Order Stimulus P i c t u r e . (a) Subject's f i r s t impression: (b) Subject"s r e v i s e d impression: (c) Subject's i n f e r e n c e as to Puppet's impression Recording Form: P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning Task Order Stimulus Set _. (a) Subject's f i r s t impression: (b) Subject's r e a c t i o n to new p i e c e : (c) Subject's response to P's impression: 122 APPENDIX B Role-Taking Task S c r i p t s 123 N A M E . D A T E OF B I R T H . SCHOOL E X A M I N E R . C O M M E N T S . CONCEPT ASSESSMENT KIT-CONSERVATION Marcel l_ Gokhchmid and Peter M. Bentler RECORDING F O R M F O R M C - A G E -- D A T E . - S E X _ - G R A D E . SCORES Task Behavior Explanation Total A 1 A II A III B 1 B II B III Total (A) AREA ITEM (a) Presentation of boards S . (b) 1 cow in each field, 1 bam in left field S w' (c) 1 cow in each field 1 bam in each field S w' a E b 2 bams vs. 2 bams S c ? w ' a E b DIRECTIONS Place the 2 boards before S with the long sides parallel, about 2 inches apart, saying: Superimpose the boards for a moment, saying: Then, replace boards as before. Place one cow in the center of each board, saving: Place a bam on left field, 2 inches from upper left corner, saying: Then, ask: Depending on subject s response, say: V E R B A L INSTRUCTIONS Let's pretend that these boards are two fields of grass. See, thev are the same size. RESPONSE Hand a barn to S, saying: Give help if necessary, then, say: If we put a cow in each field, each cow has just as much grass to eat as the other cow. Now, Fanner Jones builds a barn on this* field. He has to take some of the grass •way to make room for the barn. Now, show me which cow has more grass to eat. Yes (or no), thai (point /</ b) cow has more grass to eat, because the barn covers up part of this cow's grass. Taking up a barn in each hand, place a second barn in each field On the left board, put second bam close beside first one. On right board put second barn in diagonally opposite comer from the first, saying: When finished, ask: Record, and ask: Record Take this bam. and put ii in the field so this cow has just as much grass to eat as thai one. Now, every time I put a bam in one field, I will also put a bam in the other field. Watch what 1 do. Now, does this cow have just as much grass to eat as that one, or does one have more grass to eat? Why? SCORE Same D a has more Q b has more i—i •When saying the first underlined word, point to (a); when saying the second underlined word, point to <b). Follow this procedure for all underlined words. COPYRIGHT <£> 1968 by E D U C A T I O N A L & INDUSTRIAL TESTING SERVICE. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92107 REPRODUCTION O F THIS F O R M B Y A N Y M E A N S STRICTLY PROHIBITED 124 DIRECTIONS V E R B A L INSTRUCTIONS RESPONSE II 6 vs. 6 bams Place 4 bams, one at a time on each board simulta-neously, picking up one with your left, and one with your right hand. On left board, place barns next to each other in two rows of 3 barns each. On right board, scatter barns over entire area except near edges, as in graph, saying: When finished, ask: Record, and ask: Watch what I do. You see, 1 am putting •ome more bams in each field. Now, does this cow have as much grass to eat as that one, or does one have more grass to eat? Why? Same • a has more Q b has more Q III 12 vs 12 barns _ _ - \ \ V .1 Place 6 more barns in each field, following the same procedure as in item (II), saying: When finished, ask: Record, and ask: Watch what 1 do. I am putting some more barns in each field. Now, does this cow have as much grass to eat as that one, or does one have more grass to eat? Why? Same D a has more • b has more r~| <B) LENGTH I blue vs. red stick a 1 red ~1  b I blue " 1 red- I Present the blue and red stick to the subject mak-ing sure that he sees that they are of equal length, that the 2 ends at both sides correspond, saying: Then, put them parallel to each other in front of the child. Move the blue stick by one inch to the right, and say: Record, and ask: You see these two sticks, they are both the same length. Is the red stick as long as the blue stick, or is it longer or shorter? Now, is the red stick as long as the blue stick, or is it longer or shorter? Why? Same • a is longer Q b is longer f~J Record. II red vs. blue stick a c: b r blue J red ZEE! I red 1 Put the sticks again parallel to each other and make sure the S can see that they are of identical length. Then, move the red stick to the right by one inch, and ask: Record, and ask: Record. Now, is the blue stick as long as the red stick. or is it longer or shorter? Why? Same D • a is longer Q b is longer Q III blue stick with arrow vs. red stick Put the sticks again parallel to each other, and show him that they are of equal length. Then, put the blue stick between the arrowheads, so that the points of the arrows are exactly super-imposed on the ends of the stick, ask: Record, and ask: Watch what I do. Now, is the red stick as long as the blue stick, or is it longer or shorter? . Why? Same _ a is longer [_ b is longer (~~) Record. 125 R e l a t i v e View Task S c r i p t (Set up with the two s i n g l e t o n c h a r a c t e r p i c t u r e s from the p i c t u r e p u z z l e s p l a c e d back to back and c l i p p e d to the d i s p l a y board). We're going to play a l o o k i n g game. You see there i s a d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e on each s i d e of t h i s board. On t h i s s i d e (show) there i s a (dog) On t h i s s i d e (show) there i s a (cat) Now I'm going to put the board up on the t a b l e between us l i k e t h i s (place baord with p i c t u r e s attached u p r i g h t between E and S with board faces being p e r p e n d i c u l a r to both E and S Now f o r the game q u e s t i o n s ; What do (can). You/I see from there/here? What do (can) I/you see fron here/there? Now we're going to switch the board around and pl a y again. (Rotate board 180 degrees) Now f o r the game quest i o n s again; What do (can) I/you see fron here/there? What do (can) You/I see from there/here? Repeat f o r each set of m a t e r i a l s . 1 2 6 R e l a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n Task S c r i p t Now we're going to play another l o o k i n g game. What i s t h i s ? (Show toy) If we put i t on i t s f e e t l i k e t h i s then i t s r i g h t - s i d e - u p i s n ' t i t ? But i f we put i t l i k e t h i s (Place toy on i t s back) the i t s up-side-down i s n ' t i t ? (Give toy to c h i l d ) Now you take t h e - ( t o y ) and put i t r i g h t - s i d e - u p ( C o r r e c t i f wrong) Good.... Now i t s r i g h t - s i d e - u p . Now can you put the toy so i t s up-side-down? (Correct i f needed) Good now the (toy) i s up-side-down. Repeat the above i f needed to e s t a b l i s h unerstanding of terms. Now we're going to play t h i s game again but t h i s time we are going to u s e . p i c t u r e s i n s t e a d of t o y s . what i s t h i s a p i c t u r e of? (Show) Good. Now we w i l l put i t on the t a b l e between us l i k e t h i s (Place p i c t u r e on t a b l e ) Now... does the (animal) look up-side-down to you/me or does i t look r i g h t - s i d e - u p ? (Reverse order of U.S.D. and R.S.U. pro b e s ) . (Rotate p i c t u r e 180 degrees and repeat) 1 2 7 P r i v i l e d g e d Droodle Meaning Task S c r i p t Now we're going to play a (another) guessing game We need someone e l s e to play t h i s game too so I'm going to b r i n g out a f r i e n d of mine to p l a y the game with us ( B r i n g out puppet and introduce to S) T h i s i s . he l i v e s i n h i s n i c e q u i e t house ( i n d i c a t e box) When he i s i n h i s house he can't hear anything t h a t s going on o u t s i d e Now I ' l l put him back i n h i s house. Bye-bye... Now I'm going to show you some t h i n g s and I want you to t r y and guess what they a r e . (Place Droodle face down on t a b l e i n f r o n t of E and S. S should be seated beside E. Now what do you think t h i s i s ? ( I n d i c a t e the Droodle and prompt i f needed) (Record S's response and repeat i t ) Now l e t s t urn i t over and see what i t i s (see i f you guessed r i g h t ) (Turn Droodle over.... i f S does not spontaneously r e p o r t what i t ' r e a l l y ' i s then probe/prompt.) Now comes the next p a r t of the game... w e ' l l t u r n t h i s over again l i k e t h i s (do so) and now w e ' l l l e t _. L (Puppet) come out of h i s house and have a look at i t . He's been in h i s q u i e t house and hasn't heard what we've been t a l k i n g about. L e t ' s be very q u i e t while he looks at i t so he can c o n c e n t r a t e . Here he comes (Bring puppet out and have i t look at the Droodle) Now comes the next part of the game... I want you to t e l l me what _. ._ (Puppet) t h i n k s t h i s i s a p i c t u r e o f . (RECORD) (If no response or response u n c l e a r then ask) If we asked _. (Puppet) what he t h i n k s t h i s i s what do you th i n k he'd say? (RECORD) (Repeat f o r each Droodle) 1 2 9 P r i v i l e d g e d Puzzle Meaning Task Now we're going to play (another) guessing game. We need someone e l s e to h e l p us p l a y t h i s game so I'm going to b r i n g out a f r i e n d of mine to p l a y i t with us (Bri n g out puppet and introduce i t to the c h i l b ) T h i s i s _. .. he l i v e s i n h i s n i c e q u i e t box and decided to come along with me to h e l p out today because I t o l d him he c o u l d p l a y with the boys and g i r l s . H i s house i s very q u i e t and when he's i n h i s house he can't here us t a l k i n g . Now I ' l l put him back in h i s house, Bye-bye. Now we're going to put some p u z z l e s together and as we do I want you to t e l l me what the p i c t u r e s are and what you think i s happening i n the puzzle p i c t u r e s . (Show f i r s t two p i e c e s ) Now l e t s put these two p i e c e s t o g e t h e r . (Allow S to assemble a s s i s t only i f needed) (ASK) What's in t h i s p u z z l e p i c t u r e ? What are they- doing? What i s happening? (Be more s p e c i f i c i n probing i f needed to c l a r i f y S's o p i n i o n ) Here's another p i e c e that I think i s supposed to go with t h i s p u z z l e can you see i f i t f i t s with the other p i e c e s ? (ASK) Now what's i n the p u z z l e ? What are they doing? What's going on? Now l e t ' s do the next part of the game...Lets take t h i s l a s t p i e c e away (cover i t up). Now l e t ' s l e t my f r i e n d ._ come out of h i s house and have a look at t h i s ( i n d i c a t e remaining p u z z l e ) . L e t ' s be r e a l q u i e t while he's l o o k i n g at i t so he can concentrate 1 30 ( B r i n g out puppet and allow i t to l e i s u r e l y puruse the puzzle) And he's had h i s look and there he goes (Put puppet back i n box) Now comes the next p a r t . . . I want you to t e l l me what _. t h i n k s t h i s i s a p i c t u r e of ( t h i n k s i s going on in t h i s p i c t u r e ) . (I f no response) If we aked _. ._ what i s going on i n t h i s p u z z l e / p i c t u r e what do you think he'd say ( t e l l us) (Repeat f o r each puzzle set) 131 T h i r d Person R e l a t i v i s e d Meaning Task S c r i p t Now we're going to play a d i f f e r e n t game with some of my f r i e n d s . (Show d o l l s ) T h i s i s George and t h i s i s Lucy, they are goind to p l a y t h i s game with us, but they w i l l wait here i n t h i s box on the f l o o r u n t i l we set up the game (place d o l l s i n box, c l o s e and place on f l o o r ) . (Set up f u l l p u z z l e i n f r o n t of s u b j e c t and experimenter) We're going to set up the puzzle l i k e t h i s , now we're going to put these d i v i d e r s up between the p i c t u r e s l i k e t h i s . (Set up d i v i d e r s such that they d i v i d e the puz z l e up i n t o i t s 3 p i c t u r e p i e c e s ) . Now we're going to cover up George's eyes so he can't see where he i s going and put him here l i k e t h i s (Place f i n g e r over d o l l ' s eyes and put i t to the r i g h t of the r i g h t hand d i v i d e r such that when you uncover h i s eyes he can only "see" one p i c t u r e ; that i s , e i t h e r the r a b b i t or the dog). Now we're going to cover up Lucy's eyes and put her here l i k e t h i s (place f i n g e r over second d o l l ' s eyes and p l a c e i t with i t s nose near the edge of the r i g h t hand d i v i d e r such that when i t s eyes are uncovered i t w i l l "see" both the r a b b i t and the wolf or the dog and the c a t ) . Now what can George see from where he i s standing? (If c h i l d responds c o r r e c t l y continue i f not say...) Do you see where the d i v i d e r i s ? Put your head r i g h t behind George's; what does he see? Now what can Lucy see (repeat above procedure i f needed). What can you and I see from where we are? ( a s s i s t i f needed). Now I want to ask Lucy a q u e s t i o n and I'd l i k e you to answer i t f o r her. I want to ask Lucy why her f r i e n d George t h i n k s the r a b b i t (or dog) i s running. What w i l l she say? (If no response or u n c l e a r . . . ) If we ask her what George t h i k s about why the r a b b i t i s running what would she say? Responses may be recorded on p l a i n paper. APPENDIX C Role-Taking Task M a t e r i a l s 1 3 3 The Puzzles are e n t i t l e d , i n order of appearance i n t h i s appendix, Wolf/Rabbit, Dog/Cat, Tugs, and C i r c u s . The Droodles are e n t i t l e d , i n order of appearance i n t h i s appendix, Witch, Bear, Trombone, and E l e p h a n t s . Dog/Cat P u z z l e (Piece 1) 138 140 Witch Droodle Elephants Droodle 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095567/manifest

Comment

Related Items