آیا ذهن خوانی به واسطه‌ی نوع دیدگاه‌ دیگران محدود می‌شود؟

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری روانشناسی تربیتی دانشگاه تبریز

2 دانشیار دانشکده روانشناسی دانشگاه تبریز

3 کارشناس کامپیوتر دانشگاه صنعتی ارومیه

چکیده

مقدمه: تحقیقات اخیر نظریه ذهن بیان داشته‌اند که افراد در برخی موقعیت‌های اجتماعی بدون ضرورت، دیدگاه دیگران را محاسبه می‌کنند. برخی نیز به‌پیش فرض بودن دیدگاه خود اشاره کرده‌اند. بحث خودکاری ذهن‌خوانی مدتی مورد مناقشه تحقیقات بود وهم اکنون نیز فرایندهای درگیر در ذهن‌خوانی موردتوجه محققان است. در این تحقیق هدف ما بررسی محدودیت‌های ذهن‌خوانی خودکار با توجه به نوع دیدگاه دیگران است. روش: به همین منظور یک طرح عاملی درون‌گروهی طراحی گردید و از بین دانش‌آموزان دبیرستانی شاغل به تحصیل در سال 1392 ـ 93 شهر سهند، 25 آزمودنی به شیوه در دسترس انتخاب شد. آزمودنی‌ها به‌واسطه ابزار ساخته شده توسط محقق برای سرعت و صحت ذهن‌خوانی مورد سنجش قرار گرفتند. یافته‌ها: نتایج حاصل از تحلیل واریانس مکرر نشان داد که اثرات اصلی نوع دیدگاه (007/0P=)، نوع قضاوت (001/0P=)و همچنین اثر تعاملی این دو(001/0P=)معنادار است. همچنین نتایج آزمون تی همبسته نشان می‌دهد که قضاوت‌ها در موقعیت دیدگاه مساوی نسبت به دیدگاه ناقص (02/0P=) و مشابه (005/0P=)سریع‌تر است. نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به این یافته‌ها به نظر می‌رسد که دیدگاه مساوی یک موقعیت بهینه برای ذهن‌خوانی باشد. نتایج چالش‌هایی را برای فرضیه آپلی به همراه داشت.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Is the Mind Reading Limited by Others’ Perspective?

نویسندگان [English]

  • saeed farmani 1
  • Rahim Badri 2
  • Zahra Shafiei 3
1 Ph.D. Student in Educational Phycology, Tabriz University
2 Associate Professor in Psychology, Tabriz University
3 Ms. Computer Science, Urmia University of Technology
چکیده [English]

Aims: Recent research suggests that in some conditions people process others’ perspective without any necessity. Also, some studies indicatethat we compute our perspective initially during mindreading. The automatic mindreading led to some dispute and the processes involved in mindreading are these days the focus of attention of researchers. This study aimed at determining the limitations of automatic mindreading with respect to others’ perspective. Method: For this purpose, a within subject project was performed. By accessible sampling method, 25 high school students were selected from Sahand Cityin 2013-2014 academic year. The Participants were tested by an instrument made by authors that measuredthe speed and accuracy of mind reading. Results: The results from repeated measure revealed that the main effects of perspective type (P=0.007), judgment type (P=0.001) and the interactive effect of these two (P=0.001) are significant. Furthermore, the results of pairwise comparisons showed that judgments in equal perspective situation are faster than similar (P=0.02) and incomplete (P=0.005) situations. Conclusion: According to the results, itseems that equal perspective is an optimized situation for mindreading. The results have some challenges for Apply’s theory.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Theory of Mind
  • Visual Perspective Taking
  • Mind Reading

- Apperly, I.A.; Warren, F.; Andrews, B.J.; Grant, J. and Todd, S. (2011). “Error patterns in the belief-desire reasoning of 3- to 5-year-olds recur in reaction times from 6 years to adulthood: evidence for developmental continuity in theory of mind”.Child Development,­82(5), Pp1691-703.

- Apperly, I.A.; Riggs, K.J.; Simpson, A.; Chiavarino, C. and Samson, D. (2006). “Is belief reasoning automatic?”.Psychological Science, 17(10), Pp841-844.

- Apperly, I.A.; Carroll, D.J.; Samson, D.; Humphreys, G.W.; Qureshi, A. and Moffitt, G. (2010). “Why Are There Limits On Theory Of Mind Use? Evidence from Adults' Ability to Follow Instructions froman Ignorant Speaker”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 (6), Pp 1201-1217.

- Back, E. and Apperly, I.A. (2010). “Two sources of evidence on the non-automaticity of true and false belief ascription”.Cognition,115(1), Pp 54-70.

- Baillargeon, R.; Scott, R.M. and He, Z. (2010). “False-belief understanding in infants”.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, Pp110-118.

- Butterfill, S. andApperly I.A. (2013). “How to construct a minimal theory of mind”. Mindand Language.28 (5),Pp 606-637.

- Cohen, A.S. and German, T.C. (2009). “Encoding of others' beliefs without overt instruction”. Cognition, 111,Pp 356-363.

- Converse, B.A.; Lin, S.; Keysar, B. andEpley, N. (2008). “In the mood to get over yourself: Mood affects theory-of-mind use”. Emotion, 8, Pp725 730.

- Dumontheil, I.; Küster, O.; Apperly, I. A.; Blakemore, S.J.(2010). “Taking perspective into account in a communicativetask” .NeuroImage, 52, Pp1574-1583.

- Epley, N.; Morewedge, C. and Keysar, B. (2004). “Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, Pp760-768.

- Epley, N. (2004). A Tale of Tuned Decks? Anchoring As Accessibility AndAnchoringAs Adjustment. In D. Koehler and N. Harvey (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (Pp. 240-257).Malden, Ma: Blackwell.

- German, T.P. and Hehman, J.A. (2006) “Representational and executive selection resources in “theory of mind”: Evidence from compromised belief-desire reasoning in old age”. Cognition, 101, Pp 129-152.

- Keysar, B.; Barr, D.J.; Balin, J.A. andBrauner, J.S. (2000). “Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension”. Psychological Sciences, 11,Pp 32-38.

 - Kovács, Á.M.; Téglás, E. And Endress, A.D. (2010). “The social sense: susceptibly to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults”. Science, 330, Pp1830-1834.

- Lin, S.; Keysar, B. andEpley, N. (2010). “Reflexivelymindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, Pp551-556.

- Leslie, A.M.; German, T.P. and Polizzi, P. (2005). Belief-desire reasoning as a process of selection. Cognitive Psychology, 50, Pp45-85.

- Leslie, A.M. and  Thaiss, L. (1992). “Domain specificity inconceptual development: Neuropsychological evidencefromautism ”. Cognition, 43,Pp 225-251.

- McCleery, J.P.; Surtees, A.D.R.; Graham, K.A.; Richards, J.E. and Apperly, I.A. (2011). “The Neural and Cognitive Time Course of Theory of Mind”.The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(36), Pp12849-12854.

- McKinnon, M.C. andMoscovitch, M. (2007). “Domain-general contributions to social reasoning: Theory of mind and deontic reasoning re-explored”. Cognition, 102(2), Pp 179-218.

- Newton, A.M. and de Villiers, J.G. (2007). Thinking while talking: Adults fail nonverbal false belief reasoning. PsychologicalScience, 18 (7), Pp574-579.

- Onishi, K.H. and Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do15 - month - old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, Pp255-258.

 - Phillips, L.H.; Bull, R.; Allen, R.; Insch, P.; Burr, K. and Ogg, W. (2011). “Lifespan aging and belief reasoning: Influences of executive functions and social cue detection”. Cognition, 120, Pp 236-247.

- Qureshi, A.; Apperly, I.A. and Samson, D. (2010). “Executive function is necessary for perspective-selection, not Level-1 visual perspective -calculation: Evidence from a dual-task study of adults”. Cognition, 117(2), Pp230-236.

- Ramsey, R.; Hansen, P.; Apperly, I. and Samson, D. (2013). “Seeing It My Way or Your Way: Frontoparietal Brain Areas Sustain Viewpoint-independent Perspective Selection Processes”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), pp 670-684.

- Samson, D.; Apperly, I.A.; Braithwaite, J.; Andrews, B. And Bodley Scott (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),Pp 1255-1266.

- Surtees, A. andApperly, I.A. (2012). “Egocentrism and automatic perspective-taking in children and adults”.Child Development, 83 (2), Pp452-460.

- Shelton, A. and Mcnamara, T.P. (1997). “Multiple Views ofSpatial Memory”. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, Pp 102-106.

- Shelton, A.L. and Mcnamara, T.P. (2001). “Systems of Spatial Reference in Human Memory”. Cognitive Psychology, 43, pp 274-310.

- Surtees, A.; Butterfill, S. andApperly, I.A. (2012). “Cognitive features of Level-2 Perspective-taking in Children and Adults”. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 30(1), Pp 75-86.