Skip to main content

Exploring the Evocation of Verbal Perspective Taking Using a Linguistic Relational Triangulation Questionnaire (RTQ-MST9)

The Psychological Record volume 72, pages 429–447 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

The present article exhibits the use of a linguistic multiple-choice questionnaire format for evoking relational triangulation performances while examining whether between-subject variability in such performances might be adequate to relate to variability in other perspective-taking performances and proclivities. Verbally competent adults (N = 32) were administered a pilot nine-item linguistic relational triangulation questionnaire (RTQ-MST9) with three three-item subscales pertaining to triangulations of material, spatial, and temporal perspectives. Nonlinguistic behavioral measures of perspective-taking training fluency and derivation performances were drawn from an operant, match-to-sample (MTS), visuospatial relational triangulation perspective-taking protocol (RT-PTP). Participants also completed the linguistic Barnes-Holmes Perspective Taking Protocol (BH-PTP) to evoke verbal perspective taking performances in terms of deictic relational framing. Participants furthermore completed the linguistic Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), a widely used self-report measure of general perspective taking proclivities. Whereas the material subscale of the RTQ-MST9 did not evidence associations in correlational analyses, the spatial and temporal subscales were associated with certain aspects of perspective taking on the RT-PTP, BH-PTP, and IRI. The number of observed significant correlations was reliably above what would be expected on the basis of chance alone. However, it must be cautioned that the particular correlational results of this study should be held lightly as the present sample size is limited and there were no corrections for familywise error rate. Instead, the findings suggest in general terms that linguistic questionnaires of relational triangulation may be a viable methodology for evoking and measuring variable performances in verbal perspective taking in future studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Data Availability

Data and materials are available from the first author upon request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. The RT framework is here refined to posit that any two sides of a perfect relational triangle jointly entail the third, such that a person with a relational triangulation repertoire can derive an unknown side (e.g., spontaneously take someone’s perspective) with exact specification given any two known sides (e.g., one’s own perspective and one’s relationship with the other whose perspective is to be taken). In an imperfect relational triangle, two sides will jointly entail a third, whereas a different two sides may not jointly entail the remaining third or only partially jointly entail the remaining third, limiting possible derivations. For example, in the bottom panel of Fig. 1, knowing that “The relationship between Apples and Fruit is hierarchy” and knowing that “The Cat–Fruit relationship is different from the Apple–Fruit relationship” does not fully specify an exact Cat–Fruit relationship (e.g., distinction, at least in some contexts); all that can be derived is that this relationship is not hierarchy. All other relational triangles in Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are perfect relational triangles.

  2. Interpersonal alignment can be thought of as being one’s perspective on another person. In general, interpersonal alignments and perspectives can be attributed to nonsentient animals and nonbehaving objects (e.g., a toy doll, a plant, DNA) during acts of anthropomorphization.

  3. Accurate verbal perspective taking through relational triangulation is an inherently probabilistic endeavor, meaning triangulations can be coherent without being accurate. Consider the relational network inherent in the propositions and conclusion “Schnauzers are a kind of cat. All cats chirp. Do schnauzers chirp?—Yes.” Allowing for a bit of ontology (cf. behavior analytic treatments of “true vs. false memory”; Guinther & Dougher, 2010, 2014), this network is perfectly coherent but unsound, because the premises and hence conclusion do not correspond to reality (i.e., we would accurately track that schnauzers are a kind of dog rather than a kind of cat, and that cats meow rather than chirp, and then reach a different conclusion as to whether schnauzers chirp). Likewise, relational triangulations can proceed with coherence without producing accurate perspective taking if stimulus control is inadequate or inappropriate. That is, sometimes we are wrong about what another person is thinking even if our conclusions about the other person’s perspective were based on (contingencies that control) valid reasoning. Indeed, a child may receive reinforcement for concluding that a toy doll “thinks” something, when in fact inanimate objects do not behave. Relational triangulation need only probabilistically produce reinforcement or cohere with other verbal networks to be maintained as a repertoire, and sometimes this reinforcement may come from accurately predicting the behavior of others.

References

  • Alterman, A. I., McDermott, P. A., Cacciola, J. S., & Rutherford, M. J. (2003). Latent structure of the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index in methadone maintenance patients. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 25, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025936213110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldner, C., & McGinley, J. J. (2014). Correlational and exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of commonly used empathy questionnaires: New insights. Motivation & Emotion, 38, 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9417-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D., Hegarty, N., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: A relational framing model of complex human functioning. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392916

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2001). Analysing relational frames: Studying language and cognition in young children. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. National University of Ireland Maynooth

  • Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Cullinan, V. (2001). Education. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 181–196). Plenum Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind?”. Cognition, 21(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, K. (1934). The deictic field of language and deictic words. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action (pp. 9–30). Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, B. (1991). Spatial deixis: The use of spatial co-ordinates in spoken language. Lund University Department of Linguistics. Working Papers, 38, 19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. (1994). Past, space, and self. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

  • Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Journal Supplement Abstract Service: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickins, T. E., & Dickins, D. W. (2001). Symbols, stimulus equivalence, and the origins of language. Behavior & Philosophy, 29, 221–244 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759429

    Google Scholar 

  • Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., Fink, B. C., & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. (2005). Examining egocentric and allocentric frames of reference in virtual space systems. Sprouts: Working Papers on. Information Systems, 5(16), 49–63 https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/102

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinther, P. M. (2017). Contextual influence over deriving others’ true beliefs using a relational triangulation perspective taking protocol (RT-PTP-M1). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 108(3), 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guinther, P. M. (2018a). Contextual influence over deriving another’s false beliefs using a relational triangulation perspective taking protocol (RT-PTP-M2). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110(3), 500–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guinther, P. M. (2018b). Derived social modeling of spatial perspective via relational triangulation [Conference presentation]. ACBS World Conference 16, Montréal, Québec, Canada

  • Guinther, P. M. (2021). Deictic relational frames and relational triangulation: An open letter in response to Kavanagh, Barnes-Holmes, and Barnes-Holmes (2020). The Psychological Record, 72(1), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00471-0

  • Guinther, P. M., & Dougher, M. J. (2010). Semantic false memories in the form of derived relational intrusions following training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2010.93-329

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Guinther, P. M., & Dougher, M. J. (2014). Partial contextual control of semantic false memories in the form of derived relational intrusions following training. The Psychological Record, 64, 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0012-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Plenum Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21–49). Plenum Press

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., & Grundt, A. M. (1997). Metaphor, meaning and relational frame theory. In C. Mandell & A. McCabe (Eds.), The problem of meaning: Behavioral and cognitive perspectives (pp. 117–146). Elsevier Science B.V.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heagle, A. I., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2006). Teaching perspective-taking skills to typically developing children through derived relational responding. Journal of Early & Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2020). The study of perspective taking: Contributions from mainstream psychology and behavior analysis. The Psychological Record, 70, 581–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00356-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibrik, A. A., & Prozorova, E. V. (2007). Referential choice in signed and spoken languages. In Proceedings of 6th discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution colloquium (pp. 41–46). Centro de Linguística da Universidade do Porto.

  • Klein, W. (1982). Local deixis in route directions. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 161–182). Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–169). MIT press

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (2004). Deixis. In The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97–121). Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. Psychological Record, 54, 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, S., & Stewart, I. (2017). Empirical advances in studying relational networks. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melchers, M., Montag, C., Markett, S., & Reuter, M. (2015). Assessment of empathy via self-report and behavioural paradigms: data on convergent and discriminant validity. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 20(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2014.991781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montoya-Rodríguez, M. M., Molina, F. J., & McHugh, L. (2017). A review of relational frame theory research into deictic relational responding. The Psychological Record, 67(4), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0216-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premack, D. G., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Authors Cooperative.

  • Spradlin, J. E., & Brady, N. (2008). A behavior analytic interpretation of theory of mind. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 8(3), 335–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Understanding metaphor: A relational frame perspective. The Behavior Analyst, 24(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392030

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T., & Edwards, T. L. (2021). What can we learn by treating perspective taking as problem solving? Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44(2-3), 59–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00307-w

  • Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

General umbrella funding of the Psychology Department and IRB was provided by the National University of Ireland, Galway. There was no grant funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anchor and Arrow Behavioral Health, Portland, OR, USA

    Paul M. Guinther

  2. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Vasileios Vlachodimos & Ian Stewart

Authors
  1. Paul M. Guinther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vasileios Vlachodimos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Paul Guinther, PhD, made conceptual contributions, conducted final data analyses, wrote revisions, and wrote the final article. Vasileios Vlachodimos, MSc, collected data, conducted preliminary data analyses and wrote a manuscript. Ian Stewart, PhD, made conceptual contributions and supervised the research activities of his graduate student, Vasileios Vlachodimos, MSc.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul M. Guinther.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

National University of Ireland, Galway

Consent to Participate

Participants were consented and signed written consent forms per IRB-approved standard methods.

Consent for Publication

All authors consent to publication

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

None

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

RTQ-MST9

  1. 1.

    You, Lindsay, and Paul are tasting different candies. You like the first candy, Lindsay likes the first candy, and Paul dislikes the first candy. You dislike the second candy, Lindsay dislikes the second candy, and Paul likes the second candy. Lindsay tells you she likes the third candy. You dislike the fourth candy. Given what you know about Paul’s likes and dislikes, which candy or candies should you recommend to Paul?

  1. a.

    Only the third candy

  2. b.

    Only the fourth candy

  3. c.

    Both the third and fourth candies

  4. d.

    Neither the third nor fourth candies

  1. 2.

    You are sitting at a square table that seats four, one person per side. Brian is seated to your right. There is a candle and matches on the table. Brian says “Elizabeth is seated to my right.” Brian also says, “The matches are behind the candle.” Where will Elizabeth say the matches are?

  1. a.

    “The matches are to the left of the candle.”

  2. b.

    “The matches are to the right of the candle.”

  3. c.

    “The matches are in front of the candle.”

  4. d.

    “The matches are behind the candle.”

  1. 3.

    The local events page in an old newspaper reports that “The opera will have its opening night tomorrow.” Today’s newspaper says that the opening night was three days ago, and that there was a record setting hailstorm four days ago. What does the old newspaper report about the hailstorm?

  1. a.

    “There was a record setting hailstorm two days ago.”

  2. b.

    “There was a record setting hailstorm yesterday.”

  3. c.

    “There was a record setting hailstorm today.”

  4. d.

    “There will be a record setting hailstorm tomorrow.”

  1. 4.

    Colleen, Sarah, Tom, and Zack are watching a football game between two rival teams, the Timbers and the Sounders. Colleen cheers and Sarah boos when the Timbers defense is playing well. Tom cheers and Zach boos when the Sounders offense is playing well. When the Timbers score a goal, who will cheer?

  1. a.

    Colleen and Zack

  2. b.

    Colleen and Sarah

  3. c.

    Tom and Zack

  4. d.

    Sarah and Tom

  1. 5.

    Scott, Shadee, and Melissa sit down at a square table that seats four, one person per side. Shadee sits to Scott’s left. Shadee says, “Melissa is sitting across from me.” Melissa says “I see the back of the kettle.” What side of the kettle does Scott see?

  1. a.

    The front side

  2. b.

    The back side

  3. c.

    The right side

  4. d.

    The left side

  1. 6.

    Luke says “Tomorrow Mac is going to announce that he will be hosting a party three days from today.” What will Mac’s announcement be?

  1. a.

    “I’m having a party today.”

  2. b.

    “I’m having a party tomorrow.”

  3. c.

    “I’m having a party in two days.”

  4. d.

    “I’m having a party in three days.”

  1. 7.

    You and David try on some clothes at the store that come in the colors red, blue, green, and yellow. You like the red and blue jackets, and David likes the green and yellow jackets. You like the red and green pants, and David likes the blue and yellow pants. You like the blue and green pants, and David likes the red and yellow pants. You like the green and yellow hats. What color hats does David like?

  1. a.

    Green and yellow

  2. b.

    Blue and green

  3. c.

    Red and yellow

  4. d.

    Red and blue

  1. 8.

    James, Nick, and Scott are sitting at a square table that seats four, one person per side. There is a pencil and a book on the table. James says “The pencil is further than the book.” Nick says, “The pencil is to the left of the book.” Scott says “The pencil is to the right of the book.” Where is Scott seated?

  1. a.

    On James’s right

  2. b.

    On James’s left

  3. c.

    On Nick’s right

  4. d.

    On Nick’s left

  1. 9.

    An entry in Pamela’s diary says Jennifer’s birthday is in two weeks. Jennifer’s birthday was three weeks ago. When did Pamela make her diary entry?

  1. a.

    Two weeks ago

  2. b.

    Three weeks ago

  3. c.

    Four weeks ago

  4. d.

    Five weeks ago

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guinther, P.M., Vlachodimos, V. & Stewart, I. Exploring the Evocation of Verbal Perspective Taking Using a Linguistic Relational Triangulation Questionnaire (RTQ-MST9). Psychol Rec 72, 429–447 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-022-00520-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-022-00520-2

Keywords

  • perspective taking
  • theory of mind
  • deixis
  • relational triangulation
  • derived relations
  • relational frame theory