Describe what evolutionary psychologists mean when they employ the term 'theory of mind'. Use examples and research studies from Book 1, Chapter 2 to show why this theory is important in evolutionary psychology.

How has life in community contributed to the evolution of the mind-reading ability?  Living within a social structure allows for benefits to be gained through cooperation and competition.  Distinguishing which action will be more beneficial requires the ability to perform a variety of intellectual calculations, for which, on many occasions, only ‘ambiguous cues’ will be available (Smith and Stevens, 2002). These calculations include balancing the benefits to be obtained through working together against those of out-manoeuvring others, as well as detecting if others are likely to cheat.  In order to predict cheating by others we need to be able to understand not only somebody else’s overt behaviour but also their feelings, intentions and desires.  In other words, we need to posses a theory of mind.  Humphrey saw theory of mind as an art of ‘putting oneself’ in the position that the other is in, and predicting how they might feel and act (1976, cited by Smith and Stevens, 2002).  Theory of mind is an adaptive feature, which promotes the survival of those who excel at predicting the variables of social interactions.

The position of the theory of mind within the perspective of evolutionary psychology has been stressed by other research studies.  These include the studies conducted by the creators of the term: Premack and Woodruff.  In 1978, Premack and Woodruff (cited by Smith and Stevens, 2002) used the concept of theory of mind to relate to the human-like ability possessed by animals like chimpanzees.  In a study undertaken by Premack in 1988 (cited by Smith and Stevens, 2002), an adult chimpanzee was shown photographs depicting possible actions to be taken to ‘solve’ the ‘problems’ experienced by a human actor performing in videotaped footage.  The chimpanzee participant chose the correct ‘solutions’ often enough to eliminate the possibility that the positive scores were just due to chance.  These findings prompted Premack to reach the conclusion that chimps were capable of understanding the intentions of an another individual.  More light has also been shed on theory of mind by the Baron-Cohen’s research (1990, cited by Smith and Stevens, 2002) which involved children with autism.  Autism is seen as a lack of the mind-reading ability, which affects many taken-for-granted communication and interaction abilities, such as understanding jokes or ‘reading between the lines’ (Smith and Stevens, 2002).  Both studies of Premack and Baron-Cohen show that the ownership of theory of mind has played a central role in the evolution of human mind.  The elements of the mind-reading abilities displayed by chimps suggest that theory of mind forms a part of adaptations which were possessed by our shared ancestors and have been developed through the process of evolution.  As the autism investigation has shown, these abilities are still crucial today because their absence makes successful human interactions more difficult.  

Theory of mind as a key feature of human mind, and at the same time a product of evolutionary process, has been of a great interest to evolutionary psychologists.  The research studies into the subject clarify that this unique quality is an adaptation of mankind which has derived from an existence heavily reliant on interaction with others.  Theory of mind is an ability which has been very useful for human beings throughout the ages and has its ramifications in modern day society. The spheres of the contemporary human involvement, such as marketing, advertising and predicting the trends of economics utilise the intricate competencies of theory of mind.

Word count: 1,090

REFERENCES

Smith, B. and Stevens, R. (2002) Evolutionary Psychology, in Miell, D., Phoenix, A. and Thomas, K. (eds) Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Part II: Methods exercises

Question 1

i

1. The design of the experiment was within-participant.  Each of the participants took part in each of the conditions (before and after a game of football).
2. The effect of the situation (before and after a game of football) was the independent variable which the researchers concentrated on in this study.  The belonging to one team and not the other was another independent variable.  The study was based on the original social identity experiment conducted by Tajfel et al (1971, cited by Phoenix, 2002) where the group belonging was the only independent variable.  The original experiment was modified to examine additionally the effects of the competitive situation.
3. The independent variable was manipulated by the introduction of a game of football between the two teams of participants (‘blue team’ and ‘red team’).  The game of football was used as a competitive situation as opposed to the earlier neutral, pre-competitive situation condition.  Hence, this produced the before-the-game-of-football condition and the after-the-game-of-football condition.
4. Number-pairs ‘allocation’ choices were the dependent variable.
5. ‘Allocations’ of the participants’ choices between the three number-pairs (’50 and 40’, ’60 and 60’, and ’40 and 10’) which corresponded to participants’ ingroup-outgroup favour strategies were looked at.  The higher amount of each pair of numbers represented a monetary reward given to their own team.  The choices before the game were compared with those after the game. The continuous type of data was recorded.  The participants’ preferences were operationalised as the numbers representing the amount of monetary award.  This data was measured using three defined categories of scale, which had an ordered, comparative relationship between each other.

ii

1. Demand characteristics is the possible variable that could affect this study.  Research participants might try to infer the hypothesis from cues provided by the experimental situation, and their opinions about expectations of the experiment, not their real feelings, would dictate their responses.  This can happen especially in situations like this one where the design of the experiment was within-participants.  By taking part in the both conditions, participants might guess what the researcher wants them to do and give answers that they think are expected from them.  For example, some participants might presume that the desire of the experimenter is to see that the game of football has made them favour their team more, and reflect this, rather than their own attitudes, in their responses.
2. One of the controls that are used to limit demand characteristics involving different participants in each condition.  This is, however, not always applicable and can potentially introduce other confounding variables.  Dyer (1995) recommends honesty as the possible solution.  Being honest about the nature and the purpose of the experiment helps the participants to feel more natural and to concentrate on addressing their own feelings.

Question 2

i

1. The design of the experiment was between-participant.  Different participants took part in each condition.
2. The type of a video watched (depicting either a ‘skilful’ or a ‘conflict’ game of football) was the independent variable.
3. The independent variable was manipulated through the use of two types of video (video A and video B).  Groups of participants were shown two different types of video of their favourite football team in action: one containing great footballing skill and the other containing a great deal of conflict between the teams.  This produced the ‘skilful’ game condition and the ‘conflict’ game condition.
4. The enjoyment rating (value from a 20-point scale) was the dependent variable.
5. The participants allocated a value from a 20-point scale corresponding to their game-watching satisfaction.  Values allocated by the participants of each condition were compared.  The continuous type of data was recorded. The variables were measured precisely using a scale and the numbers produced had a definite and ordered relationship between them.

ii

1. The combined effects of the experimenter effect and the so-called ‘social desirability’ effect could affect this study.  An experiment is a social situation where experimenter enters into social relationship with participants.  Things, like non-verbal cues given by a certain type of behaviour, or even personal characteristics, such as sex, age, or perceived competence and authority of the researcher, are all the possible factors that can affect participants’ behaviour.  In this study, the participants might not want to give responses reflecting that they favour conflict and violence, which are not socially desirable types of behaviour.  This could be further intensified by the sex, age or perceived authority of the experimenter and anybody who acts on their behalf.
2. A possible control that could limit this confounding variable would involve reducing the interaction between the participants and the experimenter to a minimum.  Standardising and determining the nature of the interaction in advance would be a part of it.  For example, use of standardised written or recorded instructions would eliminate the possibility that the participants scores might be affected by the way that they perceive the researcher.  Reassuring the participants about the confidentiality of the experiment might also make them more relax about their responses.

Question 3

i

1. 4 chimps made correct choices in 5 of the situations.
2. 3 children made correct choices in 6 of the situations.
3. 2 ‘correct choices’ were made by one chimp.
4. 6 ‘correct choices’ were made by three children.

ii

1. The ‘mode’ score for the chimps is 6. (The highest number of chimps (5) made 6 correct choices.)
2. The ‘mode’ score for the children is 4. (The highest number of children (5) made 4 correct choices.)
3. The ‘range’ of scores recorded for the chimps is 6:

2,3,4,5,6,7,8;  

8 – 2 = 6.

4. The ‘range’ of scores recorded for the children is 6:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7;

7 – 1 = 6.

iii

1. For the chimps, the mean ‘number of correct choices’ is 5.4 and the associated standard deviations value is 1.66.
2. For the children, the mean ‘number of correct choices’ is 4.1 and the associated standard deviations value is 1.55.
3. The chimps performed more accurately.  Higher ‘mean’, ‘mode’ and ‘median’ (5.5, the chimps as opposed to the 4, the children) scores were achieved by the chimps.  The overall score of correct choices is: 107 for the chimps and 82 for the children.

REFERENCES

Dyer, C. (1995) Beginning Research in Psychology, A Practical Guide to Research Methods and Statistics, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Phoenix, A. (2002) Evolutionary Psychology, in Miell, D., Phoenix, A. and Thomas, K. (eds) Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.