Advertisement

The closing of the theory of mind: A critique of perspective-taking

  • Geoff G. ColeEmail author
  • Abbie C. Millett
Theoretical Review

Abstract

Theory of mind (ToM) is defined as the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others and is often said to be one of the cornerstones of efficient social interaction. In recent years, a number of authors have suggested that one particular ToM process occurs spontaneously in that it is rapid and outside of conscious control. This work has argued that humans efficiently compute the visual perspective of other individuals. In this article, we present a critique of this notion both on empirical and theoretical grounds. We argue that the experiments and paradigms that purportedly demonstrate spontaneous perspective-taking have not as yet convincingly demonstrated the existence of such a phenomenon. We also suggest that it is not possible to represent the percept of another person, spontaneous or otherwise. Indeed, the perspective-taking field has suggested that humans can represent the visual experience of others. That is, going beyond assuming that we can represent another’s viewpoint in anything other than symbolic form. In this sense, the field suffers from the same problem that afflicted the “pictorial” theory in the mental imagery debate. In the last section we present a number of experiments designed to provide a more thorough assessment of whether humans can indeed represent the visual experience of others.

Keywords

Automaticity Gaze cueing Mental imagery Mental rotation Perspective-taking Social cognition Theory of mind Visual cognition 

Notes

References

  1. Amorim, M. A. (2003). “What is my avatar seeing?”: The coordination of “out-of-body” and “embodied” perspectives for scene recognition across views. Visual Cognition, 10(2), 157–199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713756678 Google Scholar
  2. Apperly, I., & Butterfill, S. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review 116, 953–970.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016923 Google Scholar
  3. Baker, L. J., Levin, D. T., & Saylor, M. M. (2016). The extent of default visual perspective taking in complex layouts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(4), 508.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000164 Google Scholar
  4. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1992). Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(2), 145–162.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212239 Google Scholar
  5. Becchio, C., Del Giudice, M., Dal Monte, O., Latini-Corazzini, L., & Pia, L. (2013). In your place: Neuropsychological evidence for altercentric remapping in embodied perspective taking. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(2), 165–170.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr083 Google Scholar
  6. Bertamini, M., & Soranzo, A. (2018). Reasoning about visibility in mirrors: A comparison between a human observer and a camera. Perception, 47, 821–832.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006618781088 Google Scholar
  7. Block, N. J. (1981). Imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bukowski, H., Hietanen, J.K., & Samson, D. (2015). From gaze cueing to perspective taking: Revisiting the claim that we automatically compute where or what other people are looking at. Visual Cognition, 23, 1020–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2015.1132804 Google Scholar
  9. Capozzi, F., Cavallo, A., Furlanetto, T., & Becchio, C. (2014). Altercentric intrusions from multiple perspectives: Beyond dyads. PLOS ONE, 9(12), e114210.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114210 Google Scholar
  10. Cole, G. G., Atkinson, M., Le, A. T., & Smith, D. T. (2016). Do humans spontaneously take the perspective of others? Acta Psychologica, 164, 165–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.01.007 Google Scholar
  11. Cole, G. G., Atkinson, M. A., D’Souza, A. D., & Smith, D. T. (2017). Spontaneous perspective taking in humans? Vision, 1(2), 17.  https://doi.org/10.3390/vision1020017 Google Scholar
  12. Cole, G. G., Smith, D. T., & Atkinson, M. A. (2015). Mental state attribution and the gaze cueing effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(4), 1105–1115.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0780-6 Google Scholar
  13. Conway, J. R., Lee, D., Ojaghi, M., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2017). Submentalizing or mentalizing in a Level 1 perspective-taking task: A cloak and goggles test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 454.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000319 Google Scholar
  14. Curcio, C. A., Sloan, K. R., Kalina, R. E., & Hendrickson, A. E. (1990). Human photoreceptor topography. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 292(4), 497–523.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902920402 Google Scholar
  15. Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327 Google Scholar
  16. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267 Google Scholar
  17. Erle, T. M., & Topolinski, S. (2017). The grounded nature of psychological perspective-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 683.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000081 Google Scholar
  18. Finke, R. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Mental imagery acuity in the peripheral visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 126.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.6.1.126 Google Scholar
  19. Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002800
  20. Flavell, J. H., Everett, B. A., Croft, K., & Flavell, E. R. (1981). Young children’s knowledge about visual perception: Further evidence for the Level 1–Level 2 distinction. Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 99–103.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.99 Google Scholar
  21. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.18.4.1015 Google Scholar
  22. Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208827 Google Scholar
  23. Furlanetto, T., Becchio, C., Samson, D., & Apperly, I. (2016). Altercentric interference in Level 1 visual perspective taking reflects the ascription of mental states, not submentalizing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 158.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000138 Google Scholar
  24. Gardner, M., Bileviciute, A., & Edmonds, C. (2018). Implicit mentalising during Level-1 visual perspective-taking indicated by dissociation with attention orienting. Vision. 2(1), 3.  https://doi.org/10.3390/vision2010003 Google Scholar
  25. Gardner, M. R., Hull, Z., Taylor, D., & Edmonds, C. J. (2018). ‘Spontaneous’ visual perspective-taking mediated by attention orienting that is voluntary and not reflexive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 1020–1029.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1307868 Google Scholar
  26. Green, M. (1986). What determines correspondence strength in apparent motion? Vision Research, 26(4), 599–607.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(86)90008-8 Google Scholar
  27. Hietanen, J. K. (2002). Social attention orienting integrates visual information from head and body orientation. Psychological Research, 66(3), 174–179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0091-8 Google Scholar
  28. Hietanen, J. K., & Leppanen, J. M. (2003). Does facial expression affect attention orienting by gaze direction cues? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 29(6), 1228–1243.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1228 Google Scholar
  29. Holmes, A., Richards, A., & Green, S. (2006). Anxiety and sensitivity to eye gaze in emotional faces. Brain and Cognition, 60(3), 282–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2005.05.002 Google Scholar
  30. Huttenlocher, J., & Presson, C. C. (1973). Mental rotation and the perspective problem. Cognitive Psychology, 4(2), 277–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90015-7 Google Scholar
  31. Kessler, K., & Rutherford, H. (2010). The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 213.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213 Google Scholar
  32. Kosslyn, S. M. (1981). The medium and the message in mental imagery: A theory. Psychological Review, 88(1), 46.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.46 Google Scholar
  33. Kossyln, S. M., Pinker, S., Smith, G. E., & Shwartz, S. P. (1979). The how, what, and why of mental imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(4), 570–581.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00064530 Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn, G., Vacaityte, I., D’Souza, A. D., Millett, A. C., & Cole, G. G. (2018). Mental states modulate gaze following, but not automatically. Cognition, 180, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.020 Google Scholar
  35. Lamme, V. A. (2003). Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(1), 12–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00013-X Google Scholar
  36. Marshall, J., Gollwitzer, A., & Santos, L. R. (2018). Does altercentric interference rely on mentalizing?: Results from two level-1 perspective-taking tasks. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0194101.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194101 Google Scholar
  37. Mathews, A., Fox, E., Yiend, J., & Calder, A. (2003). The face of fear: Effects of eye gaze and emotion on visual attention. Visual Cognition, 10(7), 823–835.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000095 Google Scholar
  38. Maylor, E. A. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Morin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 189–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Michael, J., & D’Ausilio, A. (2015). Domain-specific and domain-general processes in social cognition: A complementary approach. Consciousness and Cognition 18, 434–437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.009 Google Scholar
  40. Michael, J., Wolf, T., Letesson, C., Butterfill, S., Skewes, J., & Hohwy, J. (2018). Seeing it both ways: Using a double-cueing task to investigate the role of spatial cueing in Level-1 visual perspective-taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 693–702.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000486 Google Scholar
  41. Michelon, P., & Zacks, J. M. (2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 327–337.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193680 Google Scholar
  42. Millett A. C., D'Souza, A. D. C., & Cole, G.G. (2019). Attribution of vision and knowledge in 'spontaneous perspective taking'. Psychological Research, in press.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01179-1
  43. Milliken, B., & Tipper, S. P. (1998). Attention and inhibition. Attention, 191–221.Google Scholar
  44. Moll, H., & Kadipasaoglu, D. (2013). The primacy of social over visual perspective-taking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 558.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00558 Google Scholar
  45. Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297 Google Scholar
  46. Moors, P., Germeys, F., Pomianowska, I., & Verfaillie, K. (2015). Perceiving where another person is looking: The integration of head and body information in estimating another person’s gaze. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 909.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00909 Google Scholar
  47. Morgan, E. J., Freeth, M., & Smith, D. T. (2018). Mental state attributions mediate the gaze cueing effect. Vision, 2(1), 11.  https://doi.org/10.3390/vision2010011 Google Scholar
  48. Nielsen, M. K., Slade, L., Levy, J. P., & Holmes, A. (2015). Inclined to see it your way: Do altercentric intrusion effects in visual perspective taking reflect an intrinsically social process? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(10), 1931–1951.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1023206 Google Scholar
  49. Nuku, P., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Joint attention: Inferring what others perceive (and don’t perceive). Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 339–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.06.014 Google Scholar
  50. O’Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A., & Clark, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of ‘mudsplashes’. Nature, 398(6722), 34.  https://doi.org/10.1038/17953 Google Scholar
  51. Osterberg, G. (1935). Topography of the layer of rods and cones in the human retina. Acta Ophthalmologica (Supp. 6), 11–97.Google Scholar
  52. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  53. Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain sciences, 1(4), 515–526.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512 Google Scholar
  55. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 341–365.Google Scholar
  56. Pylyshyn Z. W. (2002) Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 157–238.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000130 Google Scholar
  57. Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 849–860.Google Scholar
  58. Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. J., & Bodley Scott, S. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1255.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018729 Google Scholar
  59. Santiesteban, I., Catmur, C., Hopkins, S. C., Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2014). Agents and arrows: Implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 929.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035175 Google Scholar
  60. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701–703.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3972.701 Google Scholar
  61. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(7), 261–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01080-2 Google Scholar
  62. Slezak, P. (1995). The “philosophical” case against visual images. In P. Slezak, T. Caelli, & R. Clark (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive science, Volume 1: Theories, experiments, and foundations. New York, NY: Ablex.Google Scholar
  63. Stephenson, B., & Wicklund, R. A. (1983). Self-directed attention and taking other’s perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 58–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90005-7
  64. Surtees, A., Samson, D., & Apperly, I. (2016). Unintentional perspective-taking calculates whether something is seen, but not how it is seen. Cognition, 148, 97–105Google Scholar
  65. Teufel, C., Alexis, D. M., Clayton, N. S., & Davis, G. (2010). Mental-state attribution drives rapid, reflexive gaze following. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(3), 695–705.  https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.695 Google Scholar
  66. Torralva, T., Kipps, C. M., Hodges, J. R., Clark, L., Bekinschtein, T., Roca, M., . . . Manes, F. (2007). The relationship between affective decision-making and theory of mind in the frontal variant of fronto-temporal dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45(2), 342–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.031
  67. Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110(1), 124–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008 Google Scholar
  68. Ward, E., Ganis, G., & Bach, P. (2019). Spontaneous vicarious perception of the content of another’s visual perspective. Current Biology, 29, 874–880.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, C. J., Soranzo, A., & Bertamini, M. (2017). Attentional interference is modulated by salience not sentience. Acta Psychologica, 178, 56–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.05.010 Google Scholar
  70. Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 Google Scholar
  71. Zhao, X., Cusimano, C. J., & Malle, B. F. (2015). In search of triggering conditions for spontaneous visual perspective taking.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Brain ScienceUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations