Perspective taking has been studied extensively using a wide variety of experimental tasks. The theoretical constructs that are used to develop these tasks and interpret the results obtained from them, most notably theory of mind (ToM), have conceptual shortcomings from a behavior-analytic perspective. The behavioral approach to conceptualizing and studying this class of behavior is parsimonious and pragmatic, but the body of relevant research is currently small. The prominent relational frame theory (RFT) approach to derived perspective taking asserts that "deictic framing" is a core component of this class of behavior, but this proposal also appears to be conceptually problematic. We suggest that in many cases perspective taking is problem solving; when successful, both classes of behavior involve the emission of context-appropriate precurrent behavior that facilitates the appropriate response (i.e., the "solution"). Conceptualizing perspective taking in this way appears to have many advantages, which we explore herein.Keywords deictic framing . mind reading . precurrent behavior . stimulus control . theory of mind . visual perspective taking Perspective taking is an ability of critical importance that helps us establish and maintain relationships, negotiate deals, predict the actions of others, and achieve a wide variety of other valuable outcomes. This ability has been studied extensively by psychologists, who have approached the topic using many different theoretical constructs and experimental procedures. In this work, we present some common theoretical and experimental approaches to perspective taking, followed by a description of a behavioral approach to perspective taking and problem solving. In brief, problem solving relies on the emission of overt or covert behaviors that produce supplementary stimuli that in turn evoke

No abstract

The behavioral processes underlying perspective taking have not been studied extensively. One approach to understanding and enhancing perspective taking, deictic framing, has been proposed. Proponents of this approach have suggested that deictic framing is a core property of perspective taking. A training protocol based on deictic framing has been developed and tested, but researchers generally evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol using tasks that have a similar format to the training protocol. Little research has examined the protocol’s effectiveness for improving performance in different perspective-taking tasks. We investigated generalization of the performance of three groups of university students trained with a deictic-framing protocol (or not) and tested with two other perspective-taking tasks: a visuospatial perspective taking using a cupboard containing a range of objects and a version of the implicit relational assessment procedure specifically designed to measure perspective taking. The first group was trained with the original verbal protocol with deictic expressions; the second group with the same protocol involving nondeictic words; and the third group was merely exposed to deictic expressions as a control condition. The results suggested that deictic framing is not fundamental to perspective taking, as the performance of the two experimental groups was not significantly different from the control group’s performance. Identification of specific stimulus functions involved in successful perspective taking and how those functions can be established should be addressed in future research.

response latency, are revealing "brief and immediate relational responses" (BIRRs) that are learned through multiple exemplar training in which certain stimuli are directly associated (e.g., "obese is unhealthy; unhealthy is bad"), so they occur within a few seconds and precede "extended and elaborated relational responses (EERRs)" ([9], p.102). Though there is no distinct boundary between BIRRs and EERRs, the REC model proposes that EERRs take longer to occur than BIRRs because they are produced as a result of the activation of larger, more complex, and indirectly conditioned relational networks, including those involved in settling on a socially appropriate or experiment-appropriate response, which may not correspond with the more directly conditioned response [9][10][11].The person is "covertly doing more" if they find stimuli, such as "a hairy worm is pleasant, " to be inconsistent with their historically coherent relational network but are asked to respond in the affirmative ([12], p. 111).Recently, researchers have proposed the DAARRE (differential arbitrarily applicable relational responding effects) model, which aims to clarify the role of three key factors that are likely to affect responding in IRAP trials: contextual control of relational responses associated with the labels and target stimuli, stimulus control by the label and target stimuli, and functions associated with response options (e.g., true, false) [13][14][15][16][17]. The scores applied to each factor can be summed up to predict differences in D-IRAP scores associated with each trial type.Because the goal with implicit measurement is to obtain an unedited response from the individual, the degree to which responses

No abstract