Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 123–131 | Cite as

Perspective Taking as a Continuum

  • Genevieve M. DeBernardisEmail author
  • Linda J. Hayes
  • Mitch J. Fryling
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

In recent years, behavior analysts have given an increasing amount of attention to the topic of perspective taking. However, the construct of perspective taking refers to a number of behaviors that vary along a continuum of complexity. Moreover, it is possible that verbal behavior plays a special participatory role in perspective taking. The current paper proposes a continuum of perspective taking behavior, ranging from relatively simple to complex types. After describing this continuum, the role of verbal behavior in perspective taking is considered. The implications of our analysis and avenues for further research are provided.

Keywords

Perspective taking Verbal behavior Relational responding Interbehaviorism Interbehavioral psychology 

References

  1. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21, 37–46. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. (2000). Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children—egocentrism or empathy. Developmental Psychology, 5, 263–269. doi: 10.1037/h0031267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63, 1–143. doi: 10.2307/1166214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, M. J., & Greenspan, S. (1972). Ersatz egocentrism: a reply to H. Borke. Developmental Psychology, 7, 104–106. doi: 10.1037/h0033145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video modeling to teach perspective taking to children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 12–21. doi: 10.1177/10983007030050010101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clayton, M. C., Hayes, L. J., & Swain, M. A. (2005). The nature and value of scientific system building: the case of interbehaviorism. The Psychological Record, 55, 335–359.Google Scholar
  9. Dixon, J. A., & Moore, C. F. (1990). The development of perspective taking: understanding difference in information and weighing. Child Development, 61, 1502–1513. doi: 10.2307/1130759.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fryling, M. J. (2012). Relational responding as a psychological event. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 12, 85–96.Google Scholar
  11. Fryling, M. J., & Hayes, L. J. (2009). Psychological events and constructs: an alliance with Smith. The Psychological Record, 59, 133–142.Google Scholar
  12. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould, E., Tarbox, J., O’Hora, D., Noone, S., & Bergstrom, R. (2011). Teaching children with autism a basic component skill of perspective-taking. Behavioral Interventions, 26, 50–66. doi: 10.1002/bin.320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffin, D. W., Dunning, D., & Ross, L. (1990). The role of construal processes in overconfident predictions about the self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1128–1139. doi: 10.1002/bin.320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, L. J. (1992a). Equivalence as process. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 97–108). Reno: Context Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, L. J. (1992b). The psychological present. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 139–145.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes, L. J. (1993). Reality and truth. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese, & T. Sarbin (Eds.), Varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 35–44). Reno: Context Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hayes, L. J. (1994). Thinking. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 149–164). Reno: Context Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, L. J. (1998). Remembering as a psychological event. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 18, 135–143. doi: 10.1037/h0091180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, L. J., & Fredericks, D. W. (1999). Interbehaviorism and interbehavioral psychology. In W. O’Donohue & R. Kritchener (Eds.), Handbook of behaviorism (pp. 71–94). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2009). Overcoming the pseudo-problem of private events in the analysis of behavior. Behavior and Philosophy, 37, 39–57.Google Scholar
  22. Hayes, L. J., Adams, M. A., & Dixon, M. R. (1997). Causal constructs and conceptual confusions. The Psychological Record, 46, 97–111.Google Scholar
  23. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post Skinnerian account of language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heagle, A. I., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2006). Teaching perspective-taking skills to typically developing children through derived relational responding. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 3, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kantor, J. R. (1921). Association as a fundamental process of objective psychology. The Psychological Review, 28(6), 385–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kantor, J. R. (1924). Principles of psychology (Vol. I). Chicago: Principia Press. doi: 10.1037/10752-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kantor, J. R. (1953). The logic of modern science. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kantor, J. R. (1957). Constructs and events in psychology: philosophy: banished and recalled. The Psychological Record, 7, 55–60.Google Scholar
  29. Kantor, J. R. (1958). Interbehavioral psychology. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kantor, J. R., & Smith, N. W. (1975). The science of psychology: An interbehavioral survey. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  31. Keysar, B., Lin, S. H., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25–41. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00064-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Krauss, R. M., & Glucksberg, S. (1969). The development of communication: competence as a function of age. Child Development, 40, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LeBlanc, L. A., Coates, A. M., Daneshvar, S., Charlop-Christy, M. H., Morris, C., & Lancaster, B. M. (2003). Using video modeling and reinforcement to teach perspective taking to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 253–257. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-253.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McHugh, L., & Stewart, I. (2012). The self and perspective taking: Contributions and applications from modern behavioral science. Oakland: Context Press.Google Scholar
  35. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: a developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 115–144.Google Scholar
  36. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2006). Understanding false belief as generalized operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 56, 341–364.Google Scholar
  37. Midgley, B. D., & Morris, E. K. (Eds.). (2006). Modern perspectives on J. R. Kantor andinterbehaviorism. Reno: Context Press.Google Scholar
  38. Novak, G. (2012). Precursors to perspective taking. In L. McHugh & I. Stewart (Eds.), The self and perspective-taking: Contributions and applications from modern behavioral science (pp. 89–105). Oakland: Context Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pack, A. A., & Herman, L. M. (2004). Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncates) comprehend the referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 160–171. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.2.160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Parrott, L. J. (1983). Similarities and differences between Skinner’s radical behaviorism and Kantor’s interbehaviorism. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 9, 95–115.Google Scholar
  41. Parrott, L. J. (1986). On the role of postulation in the analysis of inapparent events. In H. W. Reese & L. J. Parrott (Eds.), Behavior science: Philosophical, methodological, and empirical advances (pp. 35–60). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Pelaez, M. (2009). Joint attention and social referencing in infancy as precursors of derived relational responding. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities (pp. 63–78). Oakland: Context Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pitman, C. A., & Shumaker, R. W. (2009). Does early care affect joint attention in great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Pongo abelii, Pongo pygmaeus, Gorilla gorilla)? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123, 334–341. doi: 10.1037/a0015840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a “theory of mind”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rehfeldt, R. A., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M., & Kowalchuk, R. K. (2007). Assessing relational learning deficits in perspective-taking in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. The Psychological Record, 57, 23–47.Google Scholar
  46. Schlinger, H. D. (2009). Theory of mind: an overview and behavioral perspective. The Psychological Record, 59, 435–448.Google Scholar
  47. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, N. W. (2007). Events and constructs. The Psychological Record, 57, 169–186.Google Scholar
  49. Taylor, M., Cartwright, B. S., & Bowden, T. (1991). Perspective taking and theory of mind: do children predict interpretive diversity as a function of differences in observers’ knowledge? Child Development, 62, 1332–1351. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01609.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Törneke, N. (2011). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical application. Oakland: New Harbinger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Genevieve M. DeBernardis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Linda J. Hayes
    • 1
  • Mitch J. Fryling
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada-RenoRenoUSA
  2. 2.California State University, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations