tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/theory-of-mind-7434/articlesTheory of mind – The Conversation2023-10-30T11:56:45Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2145952023-10-30T11:56:45Z2023-10-30T11:56:45ZWhy humans aren’t as egocentric as you might think – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552555/original/file-20231006-26-44u3ff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C5455%2C3637&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-head-shot-side-view-calm-1486445402">fizkes/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve read much about psychology or evolution, it’s easy to get the idea that <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-selfish-gene-9780198788607?cc=gb&lang=en&">humans are hardwired</a> to act as if the world revolves around themselves.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-19813-001.html">my team’s new study</a> joins a growing body of research showing that humans are highly attuned to other people and what they think. Indeed, our findings suggest people are sometimes so sensitive to the beliefs of others that it can challenge their own beliefs about events they have witnessed.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.181355">common claim in psychology</a> is that humans are egocentric creatures, fundamentally biased towards our own beliefs. Indeed, one explanation of why children <a href="https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00304">until around the age of four</a> don’t readily understand that other people can have different beliefs to them, is that ignoring their own beliefs is just <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00328.x">too difficult for pre-schoolers</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, adults understand that others can have different beliefs to our own. Yet we sometimes <a href="https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12110">make mistakes</a> in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027703000647?via%3Dihub">straightforward social situations</a>, appearing to wrongly assume that others <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01909.x">share the same beliefs as we do</a>, even when it is clear they do not.</p>
<p><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.87.3.327">Many psychologists</a> <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00328.x">interpret these mistakes</a> as evidence that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5619768/">humans of all ages</a> are “egocentrically biased”, because we have a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mila.12099">a default assumption</a> that others share the same beliefs as us. My team’s latest research, however, tells a different story. </p>
<h2>Being sensitive</h2>
<p>Adult participants in our study viewed videos in which one character moved a set of keys between two boxes while a second character, the “witness”, watched. </p>
<p>In some videos, the witness did not see the final movement of the keys. By the end of these particular videos, the participant correctly believed the keys were in their final location, whereas the witness incorrectly believed that the keys were elsewhere. In these critical cases, the participant and the witness had different beliefs.</p>
<p>Every day, we experience situations like this, where others do not share the same beliefs about the world as we do.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two men sit at a table drinking coffee and talking" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552556/original/file-20231006-17-wpjdas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552556/original/file-20231006-17-wpjdas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552556/original/file-20231006-17-wpjdas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552556/original/file-20231006-17-wpjdas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552556/original/file-20231006-17-wpjdas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552556/original/file-20231006-17-wpjdas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552556/original/file-20231006-17-wpjdas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People may not be as egocentric as you think.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/men-sitting-front-table-near-window-524728705">SG Shot/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Thinking about the beliefs of others, when they are different from our own, may require ignoring our own beliefs. But if humans are egocentrically biased, then ignoring our own beliefs should not be easy.</p>
<p>To test this, we asked participants a question after every video. Some questions were about where the witness thinks the keys are (“belief” questions), while others were about the final location of the keys (“reality” questions).</p>
<p>Participants took the questions on a computer and used a mouse to choose from two answers. For some questions, the correct answer reflected the witness’s belief. For others, the correct answer reflected the reality as witnessed by the participant.</p>
<p>We <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00059/full">tracked how participants moved the mouse</a> when they answered the questions, to give us an idea for how attracted they were to each option. If adults are egocentrically biased, then they should show an attraction towards answers reflecting their own beliefs. </p>
<p>In other words, in cases where the participant and witness had different beliefs, when answering belief questions we would expect participants to initially move the mouse towards the incorrect answer (reflecting their own belief) before answering correctly. Whereas for reality questions, they should move straight for the correct answer, reflecting their own belief.</p>
<p>But this is not what we found. In our first study, with 76 participants, there was no evidence that participants were attracted to their own beliefs when answering the belief questions.</p>
<p>What’s more, when answering reality questions, participants showed the opposite of an egocentric bias. They showed an attraction towards answers reflecting the witness’s incorrect belief. We carried out two further studies, with another 76 participants each, and found similar results.</p>
<p>Our data suggests that our participants couldn’t help but consider the belief of the witness, even when they knew it to be wrong.</p>
<h2>Human nature</h2>
<p>Other studies have found evidence for similar effects. What <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190792">another person sees or believes</a> appears to affect what <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0018729">participants report they</a> can see, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0018729">believe</a> or <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxlm0000622">remember about a situation</a>. Indeed, over the last decade, a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661320302175?via%3Dihub">large volume of research</a> has shown how our cognition is influenced by the presence of others. </p>
<p>What we don’t know is why adults <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027703000647?via%3Dihub">sometimes appear to be egocentric</a>, and in other situations show such sensitivity to others. But we do know that the claim that humans are fundamentally egocentric does not match the data from our and other studies.</p>
<p>This offers a perhaps more hopeful account of human nature. We are not a mere collection of individuals trapped in our own heads, but a community of ultrasocial beings who influence, and are influenced by, each other.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214595/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard O'Connor receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Sometimes we can’t help but consider the beliefs of others.Richard O'Connor, Lecturer in Psychology, University of HullLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2096192023-07-13T17:20:12Z2023-07-13T17:20:12ZWant to collaborate better? Pick your partner wisely and learn how to read them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537261/original/file-20230713-17-vpmcde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=62%2C7%2C5114%2C3422&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We've all been there...</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/couple-putting-together-self-assembly-furniture-165133466">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you ever tried to build IKEA furniture with your partner only for it to go horribly wrong? How about planning a wedding or other big party and realising you have wildly different visions of the event? </p>
<p>In my research, I investigate what it takes to successfully work together as a pair. And as reported in my new paper, <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001268">published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition</a> , deciphering what other people are thinking is crucial when it comes to communication and cooperation. </p>
<p>When people at a dinner party find out I’m a psychology researcher, it’s only a matter of time until someone asks if I can read their mind. They say this with a wink and a nudge – and they laugh it off. But humans do have “mind-reading” abilities. This ability to read other people’s mental states is known as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/theory-of-mind">“theory of mind”</a>.</p>
<p>What this really involves is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes – predicting their actions and reading their emotions. And my research shows that great collaboration requires both partners to be good at this.</p>
<h2>Experimental setup</h2>
<p>In my study, I measured theory of mind (aka mind-reading abilities) using a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-006-0107-0">well known assessment</a>. Over 400 participants watched video clips and were asked questions about the mental states and emotions of the characters. The more questions participants got right on this test, the higher their theory of mind abilities. </p>
<p>I paired participants up and they joined a Zoom call (I conducted my research during the pandemic) with me, the experimenter. During the Zoom call, the two participants completed a communication game together. Each participant, or player, had a subset of visual clues – such as arrows, shapes or Greek letters – on their screen. But they couldn’t see the other player’s screen.</p>
<p>The players had to communicate about their different sets of clues, then combine them together to solve a puzzle task. This required one player to verbally describe a set of symbols to the other, who then had to find these symbols on their screen among many others and tell the initial player which order to click them. The roles of the players alternated throughout the experiment.</p>
<p>Participants were challenged by a whole series of these tasks. If they managed to complete the game within the time limit, they were successful. If they couldn’t solve it in time or made a mistake, they were unsuccessful. Their combined score across these tasks formed the measure of their cooperation ability.</p>
<p>I found that the mind-reading abilities of both players predicted how well they would cooperate with one another. Pairs in which both players had high theory of mind abilities cooperated better compared to pairs where both players have low theory of mind abilities.</p>
<p>So, when you are trying to cooperate with someone, pick your partner wisely. Even if you have excellent mind-reading abilities yourself, it will be advantageous for you to cooperate with someone who also scores highly. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Business people on seminar training discussing in pairs making tasks together using laptops." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537262/original/file-20230713-25-fn0yq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537262/original/file-20230713-25-fn0yq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537262/original/file-20230713-25-fn0yq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537262/original/file-20230713-25-fn0yq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537262/original/file-20230713-25-fn0yq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537262/original/file-20230713-25-fn0yq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537262/original/file-20230713-25-fn0yq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pick your collaborators carefully.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/business-people-on-seminar-training-discussing-2259101721">Studio Romantic/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Researchers have previously linked mind-reading abilities and intelligence (more precisely “<a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/jan/brain-area-necessary-fluid-intelligence-identified">fluid intelligence</a>”, which is about problem solving and reasoning. So, isn’t it the case that cooperation levels simply depend on how intelligent you are? </p>
<p>I couldn’t leave this question unanswered, so I also tested scores for fluid intelligence. I found that fluid intelligence was not enough to explain the cooperation scores. Above and beyond fluid intelligence, it is the mind-reading abilities that drive cooperation skills. </p>
<h2>Improving cooperation in everyday life</h2>
<p>My study is a stepping stone for future research that focuses on improving cooperative behaviours in children and adults. Several previous studies have shown that mind-reading abilities can be improved through training programmes (often aimed at children as this is when theory of mind abilities develop) or older adults (as theory of mind abilities decline with ageing).</p>
<p>For example, a study found that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15248372.2011.573514">one year of acting</a> – compared with one year of other arts training – enhanced theory of mind abilities in children. Another such intervention study among older adults showed that training people to have conversations about mental states – as opposed to about physical states – <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167494314001800">improved theory of mind skills</a>.</p>
<p>If better mind-reading leads to better cooperation, mind-reading training should be employed in work places and educational settings. While schools commonly involve group work, theory of mind training may further help improve academic and social outcomes for children by way of ultimately improving their cooperation skills. </p>
<p>And that should come in handy throughout life – whether you’re facing a challenging work task or just some weekend DIY with your partner.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209619/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roksana Markiewicz has received funding from the Hilary Green studentship</span></em></p>‘Mind-reading’ requires the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, predicting their actions and reading their emotions.Roksana Markiewicz, PhD candidate in Psychology/ Neuroscience, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2043712023-04-26T20:03:17Z2023-04-26T20:03:17ZCan machines be self-aware? New research explains how this could happen<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522919/original/file-20230426-26-lzouy1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C160%2C1011%2C656&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Timothy Bennett/Generated using Midjourney</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To build a machine, one must know what its parts are and how they fit together. To understand the machine, one needs to know what each part does and how it contributes to its function. In other words, one should be able to explain the “mechanics” of how it works.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_%28philosophy%29">philosophical approach</a> called mechanism, humans are arguably a type of machine – and our ability to think, speak and understand the world is the result of a mechanical process we don’t understand.</p>
<p>To understand ourselves better, we can try to build machines that mimic our abilities. In doing so, we would have a mechanistic understanding of those machines. And the more of our behaviour the machine exhibits, the closer we might be to having a mechanistic explanation of our own minds.</p>
<p>This is what makes AI interesting from a philosophical point of view. Advanced models such as GPT4 and Midjourney can now mimic human conversation, pass professional exams and generate beautiful pictures with only a few words.</p>
<p>Yet, for all the progress, questions remain unanswered. How can we make something self-aware, or aware that others are aware? What is identity? What is meaning? </p>
<p>Although there are many competing philosophical descriptions of these things, they have all resisted mechanistic explanation.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://michaeltimothybennett.com/research">sequence of papers</a> accepted for the <a href="https://agi-conf.org/2023/">16th Annual Conference in Artificial General Intelligence</a> in Stockholm, I pose a mechanistic explanation for these phenomena. They explain how we may build a machine that’s aware of itself, of others, of itself as perceived by others, and so on.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-google-software-engineer-believes-an-ai-has-become-sentient-if-hes-right-how-would-we-know-185024">A Google software engineer believes an AI has become sentient. If he’s right, how would we know?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Intelligence and intent</h2>
<p>A lot of what we call intelligence boils down to making predictions about the world with incomplete information. The less information a machine needs to make accurate predictions, the more “intelligent” it is.</p>
<p>For any given task, there’s a limit to how much intelligence is actually useful. For example, most adults are smart enough to learn to drive a car, but more intelligence probably won’t make them a better driver.</p>
<p>My papers describe <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/The_Optimal_Choice_of_Hypothesis_Is_the_Weakest_Not_the_Shortest/21965675">the upper limit of intelligence</a> for a given task, and what is required to build a machine that attains it.</p>
<p>I named the idea Bennett’s Razor, which in non-technical terms is that “explanations should be no more specific than necessary”. This is distinct from the popular interpretation of Ockham’s Razor (and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/ockhams-razors/probabilistic-turn/9300737059AC6AFB1E7F12414FD27FD5">mathematical descriptions thereof</a>), which is a preference for simpler explanations. </p>
<p>The difference is subtle, but significant. In an <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/The_Optimal_Choice_of_Hypothesis_Is_the_Weakest_Not_the_Shortest/21965675">experiment</a> comparing how much data AI systems need to learn simple maths, the AI that preferred less specific explanations outperformed one preferring simpler explanations by as much as 500%. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522620/original/file-20230424-1294-gp5xyg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hypothetical patent filing for a self-aware machine, generated by an artificial intelligence from just a few words.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Timothy Bennett / Generated using MidJourney</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Exploring the implications of this discovery led me to a mechanistic explanation of meaning – something called “<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/#Far1">Gricean pragmatics</a>”. This is a concept in philosophy of language that looks at how meaning is related to intent.</p>
<p>To survive, an animal needs to predict how its environment, including other animals, will act and react. You wouldn’t hesitate to leave a car unattended near a dog, but the same can’t be said of your rump steak lunch. </p>
<p>Being intelligent in a community means being able to infer the intent of others, which stems from their feelings and preferences. If a machine was to attain the upper limit of intelligence for a task that depends on interactions with a human, then it would also have to correctly infer intent. </p>
<p>And if a machine can ascribe intent to the events and experiences befalling it, this raises the question of identity and what it means to be aware of oneself and others.</p>
<h2>Causality and identity</h2>
<p>I see John wearing a raincoat when it rains. If I force John to wear a raincoat on a sunny day, will that bring rain? </p>
<p>Of course not! To a human, this is obvious. But the subtleties of cause and effect are more difficult to teach a machine (interested readers can check out <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Book-Why-Science-Cause-Effect/dp/046509760X">The Book of Why</a> by Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie). </p>
<p>To reason about these things, a machine needs to learn that “I caused it to happen” is different from “I saw it happen”. Typically, we’d <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_model">program</a> this understanding into it.</p>
<p>However, my work explains how we can build a machine that performs at the upper limit of intelligence for a task. Such a machine must, by definition, correctly identify cause and effect – and therefore also infer causal relations. <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/Emergent_Causality_the_Foundation_of_Consciousness/22014347">My papers</a> explore exactly how. </p>
<p>The implications of this are profound. If a machine learns “I caused it to happen”, then it must construct concepts of “I” (an identity for itself) and “it”.</p>
<p>The abilities to infer intent, to learn cause and effect, and to construct abstract identities are all linked. A machine that attains the upper limit of intelligence for a task must exhibit all these abilities. </p>
<p>This machine does not just construct an identity for itself, but for every aspect of every object that helps or hinders its ability to complete the task. It can then <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/On_the_Computation_of_Meaning_Language_Models_and_Incomprehensible_Horrors/22216753">use its own preferences</a> as a <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9495946/">baseline to predict</a> what others may do. This is similar to how <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085">humans tend to ascribe</a> intent to non-human animals. </p>
<h2>So what does it mean for AI?</h2>
<p>Of course, the human mind is far more than the simple program used to conduct experiments in my research. My work provides a mathematical description of a possible causal pathway to creating a machine that is arguably self-aware. However, the specifics of engineering such a thing are far from solved. </p>
<p>For example, human-like intent would require human-like experiences and feelings, which is a difficult thing to engineer. Furthermore, we can’t easily test for the full richness of human consciousness. Consciousness is a broad and ambiguous concept that encompasses – but should be distinguished from – the more narrow claims above.</p>
<p>I have provided a mechanistic explanation of <em>aspects</em> of consciousness – but this alone does not capture the full richness of consciousness as humans experience it. This is only the beginning, and future research will need to expand on these arguments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Timothy Bennett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>if a machine can ascribe intent to the events and experiences befalling it, this raises the question of identity and what it means to be aware of oneself and othersMichael Timothy Bennett, PhD Student, School of Computing, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1992002023-04-23T20:04:18Z2023-04-23T20:04:18ZAutistic people often feel they’re ‘doing love wrong’ – but there’s another side of the story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520979/original/file-20230414-20-jxr5zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C2%2C1497%2C1073&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kay Kerr</span> </figcaption></figure><p>“Love has always intrigued me,” writes autistic author Kay Kerr, “in part because I have carried for a long time a feeling that I am doing love wrong.” </p>
<p>Kerr is the author of two young adult novels with autistic protagonists. In her third book, <a href="https://www.panmacmillan.com.au/9781761266447/">Love and Autism</a>, she returns to her journalist foundations to explore how love and autism shape each other.</p>
<p>The book is supported by a significant amount of research, but its heft is in the life stories of five autistic Australians: Jess, Chloe, Noor, Tim and Michael. While the book shows they all have experiences in common, each has a cultural point of difference from the others: Jess is a lesbian, Noor is from Malaysia, Chloe has an autistic partner, Tim is nonspeaking, and Michael is from a regional area. </p>
<p>Three of the five might already be known to readers. Noor <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/health/article/2021/11/15/i-am-autistic-not-someone-autism">writes</a> about being autistic and Muslim. Tim has given <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woy-XzC-UVs">a TED Talk</a> and published a book, <a href="https://www.timhchan.com/product-page/tim-s-book">Back from the Brink</a>. And Michael appeared in the first series of <a href="https://www.netflix.com/au/title/81265493">Love on the Spectrum</a>. Through interviews with Kerr, each narrates their experience of the many types of love that have inflected their daily lives, from childhood through to adulthood.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mVsC-7V3XPY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Michael Theo, one of five autistic people profiled in Love and Autism, appeared on the first series of Love on the Spectrum.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Exploding myths</h2>
<p>For me, as an autistic reader, a whole book of autistic people’s experiences of love is both thrilling and saddening. It is thrilling because it is even more thoughtful, practical and delightful than I imagined it could be. It is saddening because, as far as I’m aware, such a book has not been written before. This shows how deeply the myth that autistic people are incapable of love is ingrained. </p>
<p>So many autistic people feel, like Kerr, they’re “doing love wrong”. We are the children who don’t hug their parents, the friends who don’t attend the milestone birthday party, and the partners who don’t offer comfort when their partner is upset. </p>
<p>There is another side to these situations: Mum just put her strong-scented perfume on; going to the shopping centre to buy the perfect birthday gift was exhaustingly overwhelming; and we thought our partner meant it when they said they wanted to be alone. </p>
<p>But this side often remains unacknowledged, and autistic people continually receive the message that, in every situation involving any type of love, our communication is flawed – and, by extension, so are we. </p>
<p>As Kerr writes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The feedback I received on a loop from childhood through to becoming a young adult was that, nope, that is not how it is done. You are doing it wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/real-life-autism-disclosures-are-complex-and-reactions-can-range-from-dismissal-to-celebration-199869">Real-life autism disclosures are complex – and reactions can range from dismissal to celebration</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Refrigerator mothers’ and other misinterpretations</h2>
<p>Since the 1940s when autism was first designated as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-to-your-child-about-their-autism-diagnosis-the-earlier-the-better-193942">diagnosis</a>, the causes of our communication differences compared with non-autistic people have been continually debated. </p>
<p>Leo Kanner changed his mind a few times before concluding <a href="https://www.verywellhealth.com/why-refrigerator-mothers-were-blamed-for-autism-260135">“refrigerator” parents were to blame</a>; especially women who attended university, or who worked after they married. (He finally retracted his theory in 1969, but by then Bruno Bettelheim’s redeveloped version of it was already more popular.) </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0ayzc6_DzI8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This documentary tells the stories of earlier generations of women labelled ‘refrigerator mothers’ and blamed for their children’s disabilities, including autism.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By the 1980s, as parents strengthened their advocacy against these untrue portrayals of their parenting skills, researchers shifted their attention from them to their autistic children. If autism wasn’t a “normal” mind destroyed by outside influences, perhaps there was no mind, or awareness of mind, to destroy, they speculated. </p>
<p>David Premack and Guy Woodruff had recently coined the phrase “<a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/theory-of-mind.html">theory of mind</a>” to describe the ability to attribute mental states – emotions, beliefs, intent – to ourselves and others. Simon Baron-Cohen, Alan Leslie and Uta Frith believed <a href="https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/theory-of-mind-in-autism-a-research-field-reborn/">a lack of theory of mind</a> would explain autistic children’s “failure to develop normal social relationships” and their “poverty of pretend play”.</p>
<p>To <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/jan/23/sally-anne-task-psychological-experiment-post-truth-false-beliefs">test this hypothesis</a>, they asked preschool-aged children to answer a question about a doll’s understanding of a particular situation, using “normal children and those with Down’s syndrome” as control groups. </p>
<p>They stated that the results proved: “Even though the mental age of the autistic children was higher than that of the controls, they alone failed to impute beliefs to others.” But four of the autistic children gave the correct answer, while four of the “normal” children gave the incorrect answer (in groups of only 20 and 27, respectively).</p>
<p>Research groups have since been unable to replicate the <a href="http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-alan-leslie/publications/Baron-Cohen%20Leslie%20&%20Frith%201985.pdf">1985 study</a> (or other theory of mind studies) on humans. Also, many other groups of children give the incorrect answer in this type of task. These groups include children who are blind, or deaf, or epileptic, as well as children who have fewer siblings, or fewer adult relatives living close by, or whose family has a lower socio-economic status. </p>
<p>In fact, as Morton Gernsbacher and Remi Yergeau <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31938672/">point out</a>, and as anyone familiar with the many problems with IQ testing might have guessed, a significant predictor of theory of mind test results is language skills. Yet the myth that autistic people lack theory of mind remains unjustifiably popular.</p>
<p>The parents of both Tim and Michael, the only two subjects of Love and Autism who were diagnosed autistic as infants, were told their children would never show love and empathy for anyone. It’s lucky these parents knew better than to believe this, but when Kerr’s daughter was diagnosed autistic 20 years later, little had changed. </p>
<p>She writes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>No doctor ever told me: “Sometimes your child will be so happy her squeals will pour out of her like golden light. Her body will not be able to contain the energy and will move in motions of the purest freedom you have ever witnessed. She will draw more happiness from feathers than you would have thought was possible from anything. She will learn more about what she likes than you could ever dream of knowing, and you will find yourself loving those things, be they dragons or fairies or Pokemon or crystals, with more enthusiasm than you thought your mind contained.” No doctor ever told me this, but I wish they had.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/disabled-people-were-holocaust-victims-too-they-were-excluded-from-german-society-and-murdered-by-nazi-programs-198298">Disabled people were Holocaust victims, too: they were excluded from German society and murdered by Nazi programs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The double empathy problem</h2>
<p>It’s true that autistic people sometimes struggle to understand non-autistic communication. Yet it’s equally true that non-autistic people sometimes struggle to understand autistic communication. In 2012, autistic researcher Damien Milton published <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008">his own theory</a> of autistic and non-autistic communication differences (one that has been replicated): the “<a href="https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/double-empathy-explained/">double empathy problem</a>”, which explains these differences as cultural. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1647967815956148226"}"></div></p>
<p>Milton’s model emphasises that neither group – autistic or non-autistic – lacks the ability to communicate. They simply communicate better within their own group. As Jess explains: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>With someone <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/neurotypical">neurotypical</a>, I’ll have to explain how I got from point A to point B, because they don’t understand the connections. And then I have to backtrack and think, “How did I connect those two thoughts?” Because I won’t know. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>When autistic people are labelled as lacking theory of mind, they are made entirely responsible for the success of something that is supposed to be reciprocal.</p>
<p>The solution to the double empathy problem is for both cultures to be accommodated, rather than autistic people being expected to conform to non-autistic culture. This is also Kerr’s conclusion about herself: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I was doing love wrong […] because I was intent on acting like a neurotypical person, and in order to do that I needed to smother, bury, deny and hide my autistic tendencies and needs.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rediscovering and affirming one’s autistic needs is a long process. For Kerr, writing Love and Autism helped.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-make-workplaces-work-for-autistic-people-189572">How do we make workplaces work for autistic people?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A ‘proudly autistic’ book</h2>
<p>Structurally, too, this book is proudly autistic. Nobody’s story dominates. It is divided into five sections, which feature experiences from the same period of life of all five subjects. Yet although the sections are in chronological order, the order of the subjects within each section is different each time. In this way, the book as a whole charts a leisurely, meandering path, with additional digressions into research – and stories from Kerr and others – as it goes.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, as you read, you’ll find many connections between all five stories. Kerr says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>My brain adores patterns, finding them in the way I imagine neurotypical people might find something inconsequential to add to a light conversation: with ease. As I pored over the notes from my interviews, the patterns started to emerge. The stories are all so different, but familiar too.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520983/original/file-20230414-16-2rtui.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The five subjects of the book each describe their own versions of discovering and affirming their autistic needs. All were stifled by the expectation to perform non-autistically, and they share the tremendous effort <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-masking-and-camouflaging-in-the-context-of-autism-and-adhd-193446">masking</a> (or acting non-autistically) entailed. When they learned to understand autism as a characteristic rather than a deficit, they began to thrive.</p>
<p>At school, Chloe was both bullied and ostracised due to her talent for maths and her direct communication style. As a result she spent most of her schooling alone, and did not skip a grade as her teachers suggested, because she thought the bullying would then increase. As a university student, however, maths led her to engineering, and her direct communication led her to becoming an advocate for disabled students. </p>
<p>Now, she is determined to find a workplace that values her autistic characteristics: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In engineering, I want to be hired as a disabled engineer, not in spite of, not without acknowledging my disabilities, and to work with a company that is willing to invest in innovation in terms of accessibility, that sees it as part of sustainability and wants to spend the money there, rather than sticking to minimum standards.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/black-inc-has-stumbled-with-its-anthology-of-neurodivergent-writing-the-term-is-not-a-diagnosis-it-is-part-of-a-political-movement-201168">Black Inc. has stumbled with its anthology of neurodivergent writing. The term is not a diagnosis – it is part of a political movement</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Authentically loving ourselves and others</h2>
<p>The five autistic people profiled share a range of ideas for how to authentically – which for them, means autistically – love themselves and others. </p>
<p>Chloe explains about her relationship with her partner Jacob, who is also autistic: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have a lot of fun that maybe neurotypical couples don’t, really. You know, there’s this stereotype of the childish joy autistic people can still hold on to, and I think we can find that. Like for Easter I will still do an Easter Egg hunt for Jacob, and make a big thing of wrapping presents to put under the tree at Christmas, because I really enjoy doing that, and Jacob gives me incredible reactions when I do. Just little joyous moments like that. We also echo each other, like whatever echolalia we have picked up for the day we will bounce back and forth.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are also examples of how autistics and non-autistics can complement each other in relationships. Michael, who was ignored for most of school, reflects on the friendship he developed with schoolmate Briana, which continued after they graduated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>She is like a grasshopper; she bounces around from one place to another. I think, if she didn’t have me in her life there would be more chaos, and if I didn’t have her, my horizons would not have been expanded.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The creativity and vibrancy of the autistic community features in each person’s story. Tim experienced a lot of discrimination throughout his schooling. He says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are so many challenges in a world that doesn’t understand, acknowledge or accept diversity I won’t be able to list them all. Because of these challenges, I find autistic people learn to be resilient and to navigate the world with our strengths of mind, heart and purpose.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For Jess, connecting with the autistic community made it possible for her to relate to her diagnosis and understand its complexity: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>When it’s somebody talking about it from the inside, instead of cold, clinical, diagnostic language … it’s no wonder I looked at my initial diagnosis and thought that can’t be me, because it was all looking from the outside, not exploring how when X happens you react like Y because of Z […] So yeah, sharing and connecting with community has been really good.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Woy-XzC-UVs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Tim Chan, one of the autistic people profiled in Love and Autism, says autistic people learn to be resilient. His TED talk is about turning impediments into opportunities.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Navigating discrimination</h2>
<p>Noor wants to teach her autistic daughter to value the strength of her autistic brain: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I will definitely say to her that it’s the way Allah created you and me. And there’s nothing ever wrong in that. Even if the wider world or people who are not very kind say that [it is], don’t ever believe it. I will tell her: I’m your biggest ally, and you’re perfect as you are. Basically, all the things I wish I had heard from my parents when I was growing up.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As an autistic woman who navigates being both Muslim and Australian, she explains: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s really complicated as well. I’m not an out-and-proud autistic Muslim woman of colour. I’d like to be at some stage, when it’s safer, because I don’t ever want my daughter to feel ashamed of who she is, or who I am.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Her observation highlights the reality that <a href="https://theconversation.com/real-life-autism-disclosures-are-complex-and-reactions-can-range-from-dismissal-to-celebration-199869">disclosing an autism diagnosis</a> carries real risks of discrimination, particularly when you belong to other minority groups. </p>
<p>And perhaps this is part of the reason for the absence of one element that I had hoped to find in a book featuring autistic Australians: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, I don’t believe Kerr herself is responsible for this omission. Part of that responsibility belongs to the research community.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1362361319894829">first research</a> specifically focusing on First Nations autistic people was only published in 2020. And I have not been able to find Australian research on autism that ensures First Nations people are among those surveyed. </p>
<p>Equally importantly, the entire Australian community is responsible for creating a society where it is safe for any Australian to identify as autistic. Love and Autism works towards this society by presenting autism as a human condition to be understood, rather than a medical condition to be pathologised. </p>
<p>It also reminds autistic people – especially those who cannot safely identify as autistic to the people around them – that understanding and acceptance is available within the autistic community.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199200/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Tink does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s a too-common myth that autistic people are incapable of, or inept at, love. Autistic writer Kay Kerr explores 5 autistic people’s experiences of familial, friend and romantic love.Amanda Tink, PhD Candidate, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1959322022-12-14T00:19:13Z2022-12-14T00:19:13ZIs it OK to prank your kids? Do they get it? And where’s the line?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500649/original/file-20221213-6755-pi89ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C998%2C666&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We all lie to our kids. Some lies – telling them their artwork is wonderful, or that Wiggles band-aids are infused with anaesthetic – benefit the child. Others are just a bit of fun.</p>
<p>Take the Tiktok trend of telling your kids this weird little gnome is a picture of them as a baby:</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-804" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/804/3aed4435296f4dc8aa2c5a3058c44e970194c3f2/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>Or <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/parenting/article-11501319/American-mum-five-slammed-cutting-kids-hair-Elf-Shelf-prank.html#comments">cutting off bits of their hair</a> and pretending it was a naughty elf-on-a-shelf. </p>
<p>Playing tricks on our kids can be a bit of fun for them as well as us, but there are a few golden rules to make sure everyone enjoys the prank. </p>
<h2>First, do kids ‘get’ pranks?</h2>
<p>From a cognitive point of view, a prank firstly involves an attempt to implant a false belief in the mind of another. For example, I’m about to safely sit on a chair. Then it involves a surprising upending of that belief to reveal a different and typically silly scenario: as I sit, I realise a whoopee cushion has been put on my chair. </p>
<p>Implanting a false belief, or lying, requires a well-developed “theory of mind”. <a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/theory-of-mind.html#:%7E:text=Theory%20of%20mind%20(ToM)%20is,interpret%20the%20behavior%20of%20others">Theory of mind</a> is the ability to understand other people have a different mental state and perspective to your own. You understand the other person is not expecting to sit on a whoopee cushion, and you believe the fart sound it makes will cause a funny surprise to them and those around them. </p>
<p>Children’s brains are undergoing an extraordinary metamorphosis as they grow, with some predictable stages along the way. </p>
<p>Most kids develop a recognisable theory of mind around ages three to four. Parents may notice their child suddenly realises they need to actually communicate their needs (as opposed to chucking tantrums because they’re angry you’re not responding to what they want). This frustration helps to push along the development of theory of mind, language and other social communication skills.</p>
<p>Around four to five years, kids may start to tell lies themselves (albeit badly) and experiment with tricks or pranks of their own as they take their newly formed theory of mind for a spin. So kids over the age of four or five should be able to understand a prank, if you’ve witnessed this change in their theory of mind capacity.</p>
<p>Prior to about the age of 12 when their frontal lobe kicks in, children lack the capacity for <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001293">critical reasoning</a>. </p>
<p>They are yet to be able to analyse multiple options, assess credibility or reliability and make a reasoned decision. This leaves them quite gullible, relying almost completely on what their parents or trusted carers tell them. So between four and 12, kids are ripe to be pranked and may even pull a few of their own.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Child laying on floor" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500650/original/file-20221213-22-ue3d6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Before children have developed theory of mind, they don’t know you don’t know what they want and think.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Can pranks damage trust? Or might they teach something?</h2>
<p>A good prank requires a well-developed theory of mind and a thorough understanding of the mind in which you intend to implant the false belief. You have to know precisely what is required to ensure this specific person will fall for your trick, and how to mask your true intentions every step of the way. You also need to be confident they will respond positively.</p>
<p>In this context, pranking done well can be a sophisticated social interaction and you can both equally get a laugh out of it. It can assist with development of theory of mind and humour and even improve the bond between like-minded people.</p>
<p>Most children don’t bear grudges once Santa and the tooth-fairy are outed. As their brains and understanding grow, so does their empathy and ability to see multiple intentions. </p>
<p>By the time children are around 12, the age of reason will be upon them and they will slowly lose interest in supernatural stories and pretend play, as their understanding of reality improves. </p>
<p>Their mature theory of mind makes it easier to realise their parents were trying to make their life a little bit more fun and magical as a child, and most will go on to do the same for their own kids.</p>
<p>So if pranks are done with humour in mind, most children will be able to see this intention and won’t have feelings of mistrust towards their parents. In other words, they’re probably not going to think “they lied about the whoopee cushion, what else are they lying about?”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Children looking at presents under the tree" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500651/original/file-20221213-6751-l8gt7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Once children can reason, they understand why you lied about Santa.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Things to bear in mind when pranking kids</h2>
<ol>
<li><p>Know the prankee well. You need to be sure they will find your particular prank funny, and understand their developmental stage and associated interests. It’s worth noting autism typically involves an <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.567401/full">impaired or atypical theory of mind</a>, meaning people with autism may struggle with this form of humour. Rather than finding it funny they may feel hurt and confused they were lied to</p></li>
<li><p>be mindful of the power imbalance. “Punching down,” or playing a prank that makes the prankee look foolish or causes them embarrassment might not be taken well. And it might look distasteful to onlookers. Choose a prank you know you will both find funny, or that makes you the butt of the joke as well as the child.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Pranking can spectacularly backfire, especially if the intention is to humiliate the prankee. Many downright nasty and malicious tricks that have no other purpose are sometimes excused as a prank. If this happens, ask the pranker a simple question: “what about this was funny to me? Break it down and explain it to me”.</p>
<p>Should you accidentally cause someone hurt by a poorly targeted prank, it may be wise to hone another social skill: <a href="https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_three_parts_of_an_effective_apology">a genuine apology</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195932/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachael Sharman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Elf-on-a-shelf and the ‘this is you as a baby’ Tiktok trend both involve tricking our kids. Can tricking your kids damage trust, or can it actually teach them something? And why do they believe us?Rachael Sharman, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of the Sunshine CoastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1632842021-06-23T15:40:18Z2021-06-23T15:40:18ZIQ tests can’t measure it, but ‘cognitive flexibility’ is key to learning and creativity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407965/original/file-20210623-15979-1ydf8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C12%2C2048%2C1578&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Einstein thought imagination was crucial.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/43531522@N00/17083401791">Robert and Talbot Trudeau/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>IQ is often hailed as a crucial driver of success, particularly in fields such as science, innovation and technology. In fact, many people have an <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-40-smartest-people-of-all-time-2015-2?r=US&IR=T">endless fascination</a> with the IQ scores of famous people. But the truth is that some of the greatest achievements by our species have <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewfrancis/2018/05/08/no-scientists-are-not-smarter-than-non-scientists/?sh=6e16a5d128d9">primarily relied on</a> qualities such as creativity, imagination, curiosity and empathy. </p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/iq-tests-cant-measure-it-but-cognitive-flexibility-is-key-to-learning-and-creativity-163284&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Many of these traits are embedded in what scientists call “cognitive flexibility” – a skill that enables us to switch between different concepts, or to adapt behaviour to achieve goals in a novel or changing environment. It is essentially about learning to learn and being able to be flexible about the way you learn. This includes changing strategies for optimal decision-making. In our ongoing research, we are trying to work out how people can best boost their cognitive flexibility.</p>
<p>Cognitive flexibility provides us with the ability to see that what we are doing is not leading to success and to make the appropriate changes to achieve it. If you normally take the same route to work, but there are now roadworks on your usual route, what do you do? Some people remain rigid and stick to the original plan, despite the delay. More flexible people adapt to the unexpected event and problem-solve to find a solution.</p>
<p>Cognitive flexibility may have affected how people coped with the pandemic lockdowns, which produced new challenges around work and schooling. Some of us found it easier than others to adapt our routines to do many activities from home. Such flexible people may also have changed these routines from time to time, trying to find better and more varied ways of going about their day. Others, however, struggled and ultimately became more rigid in their thinking. They stuck to the same routine activities, with little flexibility or change. </p>
<h2>Huge advantages</h2>
<p>Flexible thinking is key to creativity – in other words, the ability to think of new ideas, make novel connections between ideas, and make new inventions. It also supports academic and work skills such as problem solving. That said, unlike working memory – how much you can remember at a certain time – it is largely independent of IQ, or “<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01681.x?casa_token=Yq62iS_OEOcAAAAA:9sUHau1I_ByZ3GJ8s7blJYVmFRAcdsqMTtPjLKrzh5Vo3Gdbz3ZgxpM_LHUbnVqEdhkFwIL5MdNygg">crystallised intelligence</a>”. For example, many visual artists may be of average intelligence, but highly creative and have produced masterpieces. </p>
<p>Contrary to many people’s beliefs, creativity is also important in science and innovation. For example, we have discovered that entrepreneurs who have created multiple companies <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/456168a">are more cognitively flexible</a> than managers of a similar age and IQ.</p>
<p>So does cognitive flexibility make people smarter in a way that isn’t always captured on IQ tests? We know that it leads to better “<a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/cold-cognition">cold cognition</a>”, which is non-emotional or “rational” thinking, throughout the lifespan. For example, for children it leads to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24959155">better reading abilities</a> and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220671.1971.10884185">better school performance</a>. </p>
<p>It <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886919300285">can also help protect</a> against a number of biases, such as confirmation bias. That’s because people who are cognitively flexible are better at recognising potential faults in themselves and using strategies to overcome these faults. </p>
<p>Cognitive flexibility is also associated with higher resilience to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21432680/">negative life events</a>, as well as <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20359355/">better quality of life</a> in older individuals. It can even be beneficial in emotional and social cognition: studies have shown that cognitive flexibility has a strong link to the ability <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15248372.2014.888350?casa_token=NkwyJ_idHqMAAAAA:cZPvD81u_5EGnecSvpHjfCVvg139zdLN06-qDIEa15N7XyjO2V8fEfnrmHM7TPguONR3xj04H-ZI">to understand the emotions</a>, thoughts and intentions of others. </p>
<p>The opposite of cognitive flexibility is cognitive rigidity, which is found in a number of mental health disorders including <a href="https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(16)32670-1/fulltext">obsessive-compulsive disorder</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17825802/">major depressive disorder</a> and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004867417708610?journalCode=anpa">autism spectrum disorder</a>.</p>
<p>Neuroimaging studies have shown that cognitive flexibility <a href="https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/jnnp/early/2020/10/30/jnnp-2020-324104.full.pdf">is dependent on</a> a network of frontal and “striatal” brain regions. The frontal regions are associated with higher cognitive processes such as decision-making and problem solving. The striatal regions are instead linked with reward and motivation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of brain scans." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407909/original/file-20210623-15-l9bnm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=53%2C0%2C6000%2C3970&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407909/original/file-20210623-15-l9bnm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407909/original/file-20210623-15-l9bnm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407909/original/file-20210623-15-l9bnm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407909/original/file-20210623-15-l9bnm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407909/original/file-20210623-15-l9bnm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407909/original/file-20210623-15-l9bnm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some people have more flexible brains.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pet-ct-scan-human-brain-axial-1410637847">Utthapon wiratepsupon/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are a number of ways to objectively assess people’s cognitive flexibility, including the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159">Wisconsin Card Sorting Test</a> and the <a href="https://www.cambridgecognition.com/cantab/cognitive-tests/executive-function/intra-extra-dimensional-set-shift-ied/">CANTAB Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shift Task</a>.</p>
<h2>Boosting flexibility</h2>
<p>The good news is that it seems you can train cognitive flexibility. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), for example, is an evidence-based psychological therapy which <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2011183">helps people change</a> their patterns of thoughts and behaviour. For example, a person with depression who has not been contacted by a friend in a week may attribute this to the friend no longer liking them. In CBT, the goal is to reconstruct their thinking to consider more flexible options, such as the friend being busy or unable to contact them.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/37/35/8412.full.pdf">Structure learning</a> – the ability to extract information about the structure of a complex environment and decipher initially incomprehensible streams of sensory information –
is another potential way forward. We know that this type of learning involves similar frontal and striatal brain regions as cognitive flexibility. </p>
<p>In a collaboration between the University of Cambridge and Nanyang Technological University, we are currently working on a “real world” experiment to determine whether structural learning can actually lead to improved cognitive flexibility.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r4ez0LktV20?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Studies have shown the <a href="https://prc.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41155-017-0069-5">benefits of training</a> cognitive flexibility, for example in children with autism. After training cognitive flexibility, the children showed not only improved performance on cognitive tasks, but also improved social interaction and communication. In addition, cognitive flexibility training has been shown to be <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01040/full#h5">beneficial for children</a> without autism and in <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00529/full">older adults</a>.</p>
<p>As we come out of the pandemic, we will need to ensure that in teaching and training new skills, people also learn to be cognitively flexible in their thinking. This will provide them with greater resilience and wellbeing <a href="https://twitter.com/britishacademy_/status/1395752200631169028">in the future</a>. </p>
<p>Cognitive flexibility is essential for <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/4551057a">society to flourish</a>. It can help maximise the potential of individuals to create innovative ideas and creative inventions. Ultimately, it is such qualities we need to solve the big challenges of today, including global warming, preservation of the natural world, clean and sustainable energy and food security.</p>
<p><em>Professors <a href="https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/directory/profile.php?Trevor">Trevor Robbins</a>, <a href="https://www.ntu.edu.sg/cradle/our-people/annabel-chen-shen-hsing">Annabel Chen</a> and <a href="https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/directory/profile.php?zkourtzi">Zoe Kourtzi</a> also contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163284/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, the Leverhulme Foundation and the Lundbeck Foundation. Her research is conducted within the NIHR MedTech and In vitro diagnostic Co-operative (MIC) and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes. She consults for Cambridge Cognition.
The University of Cambridge and Nanyang Technological University Centre for Lifelong Learning and Individualised Cognition (CLIC) research project is funded by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christelle Langley is funded by the Wellcome Trust.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Victoria Leong receives funding from the Ministry of Education, Singapore and the Centre for Lifelong Learning and Individualised Cognition (CLIC). CLIC is supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme.</span></em></p>Are you good at changing perspectives? If so, it may benefit you in more ways than you imagine.Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of CambridgeChristelle Langley, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cognitive Neuroscience, University of CambridgeVictoria Leong, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Nanyang Technological UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1555282021-03-17T12:14:27Z2021-03-17T12:14:27ZSelfish or selfless? Human nature means you’re both<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389862/original/file-20210316-22-nwmjbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=91%2C118%2C3362%2C2166&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Even young children are very aware of whether they're getting their fair share.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/24028496-royalty-free-image/87803233">Jupiterimages/PHOTOS.com via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Looking out for number one has been important for survival for as long as there have been human beings.</p>
<p>But self-interest isn’t the only trait that helped people win at evolution. Groups of individuals who were predisposed to cooperate, care for each other and uphold social norms of fairness tended to survive and expand relative to other groups, thereby allowing these <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2020.12.009">prosocial motivations to proliferate</a>.</p>
<p>So today, concern for oneself and concern for others both contribute to our sense of fairness. Together they facilitate cooperation among unrelated individuals, something ubiquitous among people but uncommon in nature.</p>
<p>A critical question is how people balance these two motivations when making decisions. </p>
<p>We investigate this question in our work at the <a href="https://voices.uchicago.edu/scnl/">Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory</a> at the University of Chicago, combining behavioral economics tasks with neuroimaging methods that let us watch what’s happening in the brains of adults and children. We’ve found evidence that people care about both themselves and others – but it’s the self that takes precedence.</p>
<h2>Learning to be equitable</h2>
<p>Children are sensitive to fairness from a very early age.</p>
<p>For instance, if you give two siblings different numbers of cookies, the one who receives fewer will likely throw a fit. Very young children, between 3 and 6 years of age, are highly sensitive to concerns about equality. Splitting resources is “fair” if everyone gets the same amount. By 6 years old, <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0025907">children will even throw resources away</a> rather than allocate them unequally.</p>
<p>As they grow, children develop abilities to <a href="https://theconversation.com/children-understand-far-more-about-other-minds-than-long-believed-72711">think about the minds of others</a> and care about social norms. Soon, they begin to understand the principle of “equity” – a “fair” distribution can be unequal if it takes into account people’s need, effort or merit. For instance, a sibling who does more chores may be entitled to more cookies. This shift toward equity appears to be universal in humans and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12729">follows similar patterns across cultures</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, it <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-fundamental-sense-of-fairness/">takes several years of development</a> before children’s own behavior catches up with their understanding of fairness – for instance, by opting to share resources more equally rather than prioritizing their own payoffs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Child wearing a EEG cap" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers fitted children with EEG caps to monitor their brains’ electrical activity as they watched an adult distribute treats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To investigate how children’s developing brains guide their understanding of fairness, we invited kids ranging from age 4 to 8 into our lab. We gave them four candies to divide between two other people. After they decided how many (if any) to share, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000813">we measured their brain activity</a> using <a href="https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/brain-imaging-techniques/">noninvasive electroencephalography</a> while they watched an adult split 10 rewards – like candies, coins or stickers – between two other people. The distributions could be fair (5:5), slightly unfair (7:3) or very unfair (10:0).</p>
<p>At first, kids’ brain activity looked the same whether they were observing a slightly unfair or very unfair distribution of the treats. After 400 milliseconds, the brain electrical activity for kids who saw the slightly unfair 7:3 split changed to look like the brain response of kids who saw the completely fair 5:5 division.</p>
<p>Our interpretation is that the young brains used that short lag time to consider why an adult might have handed out the treats in a slightly unfair way and then resolved that it may actually have been fair.</p>
<p>Further, children whose brain activity patterns were the most different when viewing fair versus unfair distributions were the most likely to have used merit and need when they originally divided up their candies, before they watched the adults.</p>
<p>So the EEG recordings indicate that even 4-year-old children expect distributions to be perfectly equal, which makes sense given their natural preference for equality. When children, especially after age 5, watch an adult make a completely unfair distribution, they work to try to understand why this might be the case.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman with fruit spilling out of ripped grocery bags" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How do you prioritize assisting someone else if it would come at a cost to yourself, like missing your bus to help pick up spilled items?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-dropping-groceries-on-sidewalk-royalty-free-image/90201027">Chris Ryan/OJO Images via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Me first, then you</h2>
<p>In your everyday adult life, you face decisions that affect not just yourself, but other people around you. Do you help a stranger pick up their spilled bag and miss your bus? Do you take the big piece of cake and leave the small one for the coworker who is coming later?</p>
<p>Put more generally, how do people balance self-interest against fairness for others when those motivations conflict?</p>
<p>To answer this question, we invited participants to play an economic game. In each round, an anonymous proposer would split US$12 among themselves, the participant and another player. The participant could decide to accept the distribution, allowing all three players to keep the money, or reject the distribution, meaning no one got anything. While participants made their decision, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107576">we measured their neural activity</a> using EEG and fMRI. <a href="https://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/health/health-sciences/how-fmri-works">Functional magnetic resonance imaging</a> reveals active areas of the brain by mapping blood flow.</p>
<p>The proposer was actually a computer that let us manipulate the fairness of the offers. We found that both fairness for self and fairness for the other were important for participants’ decisions, but people were more willing to tolerate offers which were unfair to others if they themselves received an unfair offer. </p>
<p>Our design also allowed us to ask whether the same regions of the brain are sensitive to self-interest and concern for other. A popular concept in cognitive science is that we are able to understand other people because we use the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.004">same parts of our brain to understand our self</a>. The idea is that the brain activates and manages these shared representations depending on the task at hand.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="brain with different areas highlighted for 'self' and 'others'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Regions of the brain that were sensitive to fairness for self (red) or other (blue) didn’t overlap in the study.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But in our studies, we found that rather than shared brain areas, distinct brain networks were involved in thinking about fairness for self and other.</p>
<p>We also used machine learning to test whether by looking at the brain signals we could predict what kind of offer a participant had received. We could reliably decode a signal in multiple brain networks that corresponded to fairness for self – that is, “did I get at least a third of the $12?” And this focus on self-interest dominated the early stages of decision-making.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="EEG depicts brain waves when thinking about self and other" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Accuracy of the machine-learning algorithm trained to use EEG data to classify distributions as fair or unfair for the self or other. Darker lines are times when the algorithm was better than chance (50%). It was better at identifying a reliable pattern of brain activity for self fairness.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Overall, these results suggest that people prioritize their own payoffs first and only later integrate how their options affect other people. So while people do care about others, self-interested behavior is alive and well, even in behavioral economics games. Once people get their fair share, then they are willing to be fair to others. You’re more likely to help the stranger with her bag if you know there will be another bus in 10 minutes, rather than an hour.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>Investigating more complicated scenarios</h2>
<p>In daily life, people are rarely just responders, like in the game in our lab. We are interested in what happens when a person must make decisions that involve other people, such as delegating responsibilities among team members, or when an individual has limited power to personally affect the way resources are divided, as in government spending.</p>
<p>One implication from our work is that when people want to reach a compromise, it may be important to ensure that no one feels taken advantage of. Human nature seems to be to make sure you’ve taken care of yourself before you consider the needs of others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cognitive neuroscientists use brain imaging and behavioral economic games to investigate people’s sense of fairness. They find it’s common to take care of yourself before looking out for others.Keith Yoder, Postdoctoral Scholar in Social Cognitive Neuroscience, University of ChicagoJean Decety, Professor of Psychology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1151052019-04-10T10:47:57Z2019-04-10T10:47:57ZEmpathy is the secret ingredient that makes cooperation – and civilization – possible<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268466/original/file-20190409-2909-1xhbhyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=945%2C338%2C2948%2C2154&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What goes into all for one and one for all?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/united-hands-close-up-black-white-333648788?src=f9ZsPuZmwUx5Z9EDJPp8Qg-1-5">Africa Studio/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Human societies are so prosperous mostly because of how altruistic we are. Unlike other animals, people cooperate even with complete strangers. We share knowledge on Wikipedia, we show up to vote, and we work together to responsibly manage natural resources.</p>
<p>But where do these cooperative skills come from and why don’t our selfish instincts overwhelm them? Using a branch of mathematics called <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/game-theory-evolutionary-stable-strategies-and-the-25953132">evolutionary game theory</a> to explore this feature of human societies, my collaborators <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yi-SnYcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">and I</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44269">found that empathy</a> – a uniquely human capacity to take another person’s perspective – might be responsible for sustaining such extraordinarily high levels of cooperation in modern societies.</p>
<h2>Social rules of cooperation</h2>
<p>For decades scholars have thought that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137">social norms and reputation</a> can explain much altruistic behavior. Humans are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301210110">far more likely</a> to be kind to individuals they see as “good,” than they are to people of “bad” reputation. If everyone agrees that being altruistic toward other cooperators earns you a good reputation, cooperation will persist.</p>
<p>This universal understanding of whom we see as morally good and worthy of cooperation is a form of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-norms/">social norm</a> – an invisible rule that guides social behavior and promotes cooperation. A common norm in human societies called “stern judging,” for instance, rewards cooperators who refuse to help bad people, but many other norms are possible.</p>
<p>This idea that you help one person and someone else helps you is called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04131">theory of indirect reciprocity</a>. However, it’s been built assuming that people always agree on each others’ reputations as they change over time. Moral reputations were presumed to be fully objective and publicly known. Imagine, for instance, an all-seeing institution monitoring people’s behavior and assigning reputations, like China’s <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/01/21/chinese-social-credit-score-utopian-big-data-bliss-or-black-mirror-on-steroids/#1cd4ebb748b8">social credit system</a>, in which people will be rewarded or sanctioned based on “social scores” calculated by the government.</p>
<p>But in most real-life communities, people often disagree about each others’ reputations. A person who appears good to me might seem like a bad individual from my friend’s perspective. My friend’s judgment might be based on a different social norm or a different observation than mine. This is why reputations in real societies are relative – people have different opinions about what is good or bad.</p>
<p>Using biology-inspired evolutionary models, I set out to investigate what happens in a more realistic setting. Can cooperation evolve when there are disagreements about what is considered good or bad? To answer this question, I first worked with mathematical descriptions of large societies, in which people could choose between various types of cooperative and selfish behaviors based on how beneficial they were. Later I used computer models to simulate social interactions in much smaller societies that more closely resemble human communities.</p>
<p><iframe id="KKfxG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KKfxG/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The results of my modeling work were not encouraging: Overall, moral relativity made societies less altruistic. Cooperation almost vanished under most social norms. This meant that most of what was known about social norms promoting human cooperation may have been false.</p>
<h2>Evolution of empathy</h2>
<p>To find out what was missing from the dominant theory of altruism, I teamed up with <a href="http://mathbio.sas.upenn.edu/">Joshua Plotkin</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WANIT2oAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">a theoretical biologist</a> at the University of Pennsylvania, and <a href="https://www.alexanderjstewart.org/">Alex Stewart</a> at the University of Houston, both <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Z3-RzE0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">experts in game theoretical approaches</a> to human behavior. We agreed that my pessimistic findings went against our intuition – most people do care about reputations and about the moral value of others’ actions. </p>
<p>But we also knew that humans have a remarkable ability to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373517699267">empathetically include other people’s views</a> when deciding that a certain behavior is morally good or bad. On some occasions, for instance, you might be tempted to judge an uncooperative person harshly, when you really shouldn’t if from their own perspective, cooperation was not the right thing to do.</p>
<p>This is when my colleagues and I decided to modify our models to give individuals the capacity for empathy – that is, the ability to make their moral evaluations from the perspective of another person. We also wanted individuals in our model to be able to learn how to be empathetic, simply by observing and copying personality traits of more successful people.</p>
<p>When we incorporated this type of <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44269">empathetic perspective-taking into our equations</a>, cooperation rates skyrocketed; once again we observed altruism winning over selfish behavior. Even initially uncooperative societies in which everyone judged each other based mostly on their own selfish perspectives, eventually discovered empathy – it became socially contagious and spread throughout the population. Empathy made our model societies altruistic again.</p>
<p><iframe id="BzFQr" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/BzFQr/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Moral psychologists have long suggested that <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wild-connections/201709/cultivating-empathy">empathy can act as social glue</a>, increasing cohesiveness and cooperation of human societies. Empathetic perspective-taking <a href="https://theconversation.com/children-understand-far-more-about-other-minds-than-long-believed-72711">starts developing in infancy</a>, and at least some <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.740">aspects of empathy are learned</a> from parents and other members of the child’s social network. But how humans evolved empathy in the first place remained a mystery.</p>
<p>It is incredibly difficult to build rigorous theories about concepts of moral psychology as complex as empathy or trust. Our study offers a new way of thinking about empathy, by incorporating it into the well-studied framework of evolutionary game theory. Other moral emotions like guilt and shame can potentially be studied in the same way.</p>
<p>I hope that the link between empathy and human cooperation we discovered can soon be tested experimentally. Perspective-taking skills are most important in communities where many different backgrounds, cultures and norms intersect; this is where different individuals will have diverging views on what actions are morally good or bad. If the effect of empathy is as strong as our theory suggests, there could be ways to use our findings to promote large-scale cooperation in the long term – for instance, by designing nudges, interventions and policies that promote development of perspective-taking skills or at least encourage considering the views of those who are different.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115105/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arunas L. Radzvilavicius receives funding from David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the U.S.
Army Research Office. </span></em></p>Where do the cooperative skills that hold together human societies come from and why don’t our selfish instincts overwhelm them? Evolutionary game theory suggests that empathy is a crucial contributor.Arunas L. Radzvilavicius, Postdoctoral Researcher of Evolutionary Biology, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/989482018-07-03T20:11:46Z2018-07-03T20:11:46ZWhy do kids lie, and is it normal?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225647/original/file-20180702-116132-gkls8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">"No, I didn't eat any cake."</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Children typically begin lying in the preschool years, between <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2612240/">two and four years</a> of age. These intentional attempts at deception may worry parents, who fear their child will become a pint-sized social deviant.</p>
<p>But from a developmental perspective, lying in young children is rarely cause for concern. In fact, lying is often one of the first signs a young child has developed a “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26431737">theory of mind</a>”, which is the awareness others may have different desires, feelings, and beliefs to oneself. When a child misleadingly claims “Daddy said I could have an ice cream”, they’re using this awareness of others’ minds to plant false knowledge.</p>
<p>While lying itself may not be socially desirable, the ability to know what others are thinking and feeling is an important social skill. It’s <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27337508">related to</a> empathy, cooperation, and care for others when they’re feeling upset.</p>
<h2>How lying changes with age</h2>
<p>Young children’s first lies are often <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483871/">more humorous than effective</a>. Imagine the child who claims not to have eaten any cake while her mouth is still full, or who blames the family dog for drawing on the wall. Young children may know they can deceive others, but they don’t yet have the sophistication to do so well.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uFlO7lPUeIc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Before age eight, children frequently give themselves away when lying. In one <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01650250143000373">study</a>, children aged three to seven were asked not to peek at a mystery toy (Barney) that had been placed behind them. Nearly all did, and nearly all lied about it later (increasing with age). </p>
<p>But across the group, children also had trouble maintaining the lie. Liars aged three to five were surprisingly good at keeping a straight face but typically gave themselves away by describing the Barney toy by name. Liars aged six and seven had mixed success, with half feigning ignorance and half accidentally saying Barney’s name.</p>
<p>As children get older and their perspective-taking ability develops, they’re increasingly able to understand the kinds of lies that will be believable to others. They also become better at <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483871/">maintaining the lie</a> over time. </p>
<p>Moral development also kicks in. Younger children are more likely to lie for personal gain, while older children increasingly anticipate <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8624.00098">feeling bad about themselves</a> if they lie. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-evolution-of-lying-14254">The evolution of lying</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Older children and teens are also more likely to draw distinctions between different kinds of lies. White lies, to them, are considered <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581483/">more appropriate</a> than <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864928/">harmful or antisocial</a> lies.</p>
<p>While studies that estimate the frequency of lying among children and teens are rare, teenagers are especially likely to lie to parents and teachers about things they consider their own personal business. </p>
<p>One <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000013422.48100.5a">study</a> found 82% of US teenagers reported lying to their parents about money, alcohol, drugs, friends, dating, parties, or sex in the past year. They were most likely to lie about their friends (67%) and alcohol/drug use (65%). Perhaps surprisingly, they were least likely to lie about sex (32%). </p>
<p>When reading short scenarios in which the protagonist lied to his or her parents, the teens were also likely to consider the lying acceptable if it was to help somebody or keep a personal secret, but not if it was to harm or hurt someone.</p>
<h2>Is lying a cause for concern?</h2>
<p>Despite its prevalence, lying among children is rarely cause for concern. It’s important to remember many adults also lie – sometimes for good, as in the case of white lies that protect someone’s feelings, and sometimes for ill. While estimates vary, a <a href="https://msu.edu/%7Elevinet/Serota_etal2010.pdf">study</a> found approximately 40% of US adults reported telling a lie in the past 24 hours.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tHCDnKhppw8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In some instances, chronic lying can become a concern if they occur alongside a cluster of other behaviours that are maladaptive. For example, deceitfulness through lying is often present in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826598/">conduct and oppositional defiant disorders</a> (ODD). </p>
<p>Young people with conduct disorders or ODD cause considerable disruptions in the home or at school through persistent aggression and harm to others or property. But to meet diagnoses, lying would have to occur with a cluster of other symptoms such as refusal to comply with authority figures, persistent violations of rules, and failure to take responsibility for their actions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/truth-is-everyone-lies-all-the-time-6749">Truth is, everyone lies all the time</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another cause for parental concern is if lying serves to mask other mental health problems due to fear or shame. For example, a child or adolescent suffering from severe anxiety may lie chronically to avoid confronting situations that make them afraid (for example, school, parties, germs). </p>
<p>They may also lie to avoid the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904965/">stigma of mental health disorders</a>. In these instances, consulting your doctor or a mental health professional (such as a psychologist or psychiatrist) will help clarify whether lying is indicative of a mental health concern.</p>
<h2>Parents and teachers make a difference</h2>
<p>While lying is developmentally normal, parents and teachers can support children’s truth-telling in three ways.</p>
<p>First, avoid excessive or over-the-top punishments. In a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22023095">study</a> comparing a West African school that used punitive punishments (such as hitting with a stick, slapping, and pinching) and a school that used non-punitive reprimands (such as time outs or scolding), students at the school with punitive punishments were more likely to be effective liars. </p>
<p>Children from families that place a strong emphasis on following the rules and not open dialogue also <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000013422.48100.5a">report lying</a> more frequently. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225835/original/file-20180703-116147-qvqv1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225835/original/file-20180703-116147-qvqv1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225835/original/file-20180703-116147-qvqv1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225835/original/file-20180703-116147-qvqv1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225835/original/file-20180703-116147-qvqv1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225835/original/file-20180703-116147-qvqv1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225835/original/file-20180703-116147-qvqv1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">By figuring out whether your child is trying to deceive you on purpose, you can target your response more effectively.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, discuss emotional and moral scenarios with children. This “emotion coaching” supports children’s understanding of when lies are most harmful, how they affect others, and how they themselves might feel when they lie. Children increasingly <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb03601.x">anticipate pride</a> for telling the truth, and parents can emphasise these positive aspects of truth-telling.</p>
<p>Third, ensure the lie really is a lie. Very young children are prone to blend real life and imagination, while older children and adults frequently remember arguments differently to one another. If a child reports physical or sexual abuse, these allegations must <em>always</em> be investigated. By distinguishing whether or not there is a deliberate attempt at deception, parents and teachers can target their response effectively.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/hows-your-poker-face-why-its-so-hard-to-sniff-out-a-liar-25487">How's your poker face? Why it's so hard to sniff out a liar</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Lying in children is developmentally normal</h2>
<p>Lying is developmentally normal and an important sign other cognitive skills are also developing. </p>
<p>If lying is persistent and is impairing the child’s ability to function effectively in everyday life, it’s worth consulting a mental health expert or your doctor. </p>
<p>But in other situations, remember that lying is just one way children learn to navigate the social world. Open and warm discussions about telling the truth should eventually help to reduce children’s lies as they develop.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98948/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carol Newall is affiliated with the Black Dog Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Penny Van Bergen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Children lying is rarely cause for concern and actually means your child is developmentally normal.Penny Van Bergen, Senior Lecturer in Educational Psychology, Macquarie UniversityCarol Newall, Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/915392018-02-25T21:55:52Z2018-02-25T21:55:52ZThe real way to prevent bullying: Create inclusive homes and classrooms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207566/original/file-20180222-152360-m1lcf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The development of an inclusive environment both at school and at home can help children understand and accept differences and reduce bullying.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Close your eyes. Now imagine your three-year-old self, sitting on the classroom carpet, involved in a large group activity. You and the other children are required to listen and follow along. Some are able to sit quietly and actively participate, but not you. </p>
<p>You need to move. You want to jump in and not wait your turn. You make noises and impulsive movements. You are ridiculed for not participating and being disruptive. Some children ask questions about why you act the way you do. They ask why you’re different. </p>
<p>An early childhood educator can react in many ways. They can create an environment that condemns diversity. Or they can support diversity, <a href="http://www.rootsofempathy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Research-Symposium-Proceedings-2013.pdf">thereby teaching children to care about others</a>. </p>
<p>Children often experience the world as if they are not important, not heard, understood or accepted for who they truly are. This is very painful for humans because <a href="http://www.lfcc.on.ca/mccain/perry.pdf">we are born to connect</a>, and it often leads to bullying among children. </p>
<p><a href="http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10019040/1/WBLResRep34.pdf">Bullies are victims</a>. They are victims of environments that make them feel vulnerable, unimportant, undervalued, unaccepted or unappreciated. A common reaction is to try to make others feel small and insignificant. </p>
<p>On Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018, people across the world will be wearing pink in support of <a href="https://www.pinkshirtday.ca/about/">Pink Shirt Day</a> — to raise awareness about bullying. </p>
<p>To effect change and reduce bullying every day, early childhood professionals and parents can also play a huge role — by creating safe spaces that reflect the children in the classroom and the home and by encouraging them to express how they feel on the inside.</p>
<h2>Developing empathy</h2>
<p>There is a great amount of difference in our society today. This includes differences of ethnicity, religion, culture, gender, identity and disability, as well as personality and behavioural differences. </p>
<p>Difference does not have to be scary for children; rather, it should be discussed with them and they should be encouraged to embrace differences. </p>
<p>The development of empathy and <a href="http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/social-cognition/according-experts/development-theory-mind-early-childhood">theory of mind</a> at an early age can help children understand differences — through sharing feelings with others, and understanding others’ perspectives and experiences of the world. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207568/original/file-20180222-152372-xj8ocq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207568/original/file-20180222-152372-xj8ocq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207568/original/file-20180222-152372-xj8ocq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207568/original/file-20180222-152372-xj8ocq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207568/original/file-20180222-152372-xj8ocq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207568/original/file-20180222-152372-xj8ocq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/207568/original/file-20180222-152372-xj8ocq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parents and educators can support children by teaching them to label feelings, understand differences and repair relationships.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The development of an inclusive environment both at school and at home can help children understand and accept differences. </p>
<p>In an early learning environment, it is easy to see how we are all different: We learn differently, we understand differently, we socialize differently. In fact, it is much easier to see the differences at times than it is to see the similarities in our human condition. </p>
<p>Take yourself back to the carpet, where you cannot sit still and are disengaged. An inclusive environment and a responsive early childhood educator would allow you to sit on something like a hot water bottle or wiggle chair to allow your body to move to support your attention and engagement. </p>
<p>You may also be given a fidget toy to manipulate in your hand to help focus your attention. Imagine yourself wiggling and fidgeting. You’re engaged and focused. </p>
<h2>Inclusion without bias</h2>
<p>The challenge with a responsive and inclusive response from the early childhood educator is that the other children notice that you get to touch and sit on different things and they want them too.</p>
<p>It’s easy to feel it is unfair that some kids get toys and others don’t. What is interesting about creating an <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254351137_Beyond_the_Illusion_of_Diversity_How_Early_Childhood_Teachers_Can_Promote_Social_Justice">inclusive environment</a> is that it is OK that we are all different and we all get different things to support our development and learning. </p>
<p>The important part is that early childhood educators are able to discuss differences openly and thoughtfully to reduce bias. It is important that educators are able to hear and understand each child’s perspective, to be able to say: “Joe needs to hold something in his hand to help him listen.” </p>
<p>The kids can see and experience the difference. They understand that if an accommodation is made for Joe, when they require something, they will get what they need too.</p>
<p>Modelling inclusion is how we can combat discrimination and intolerance in society, and ultimately, bullying among children. It is the only way to effectively create change.</p>
<p>Parents and educators can support children by teaching them to:</p>
<h2><em>1. Label feelings</em></h2>
<p>When <a href="https://books.google.ca/books?id=bMULky6LT_AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Building+healthy+minds:+The+six+experiences+that+create+intelligence+and+emotional+growth+in+babies+and+young+children.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJjZ7GtbfZAhVD1GMKHXP1DdIQ6AEIKTAA#v">children can identify, and understand their own feelings</a> they can understand how others feel. As children get older, parents and teachers can focus on the more difficult emotions including shame, guilt, embarrassment, anger, fear and sadness — in both themselves and in others.</p>
<h2><em>2. Understand differences</em></h2>
<p>Discuss <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254351137_Beyond_the_Illusion_of_Diversity_How_Early_Childhood_Teachers_Can_Promote_Social_Justice">the ways children are different</a> (e.g., taller and shorter) and similar (e.g., we all feel sad at times) to one another. Try not to get anxious when a child mentions a disability or colour of skin. This is an obvious difference and our anxiety indicates that there is something wrong or to be scared of.</p>
<h2>3. <em>Help others</em></h2>
<p>Let children try to help others. When another child is upset, discuss why, and how to help them feel better. Learning through doing is great when developing empathy and perspective-taking skills.</p>
<h2><em>4. Perform acts of kindness</em></h2>
<p>Allow the children <a href="http://cfcc.info/handouts/teachkidshelp.pdf">to experience how it feels to make people feel good</a>. Identify the individual child’s strengths and abilities and how they can use these to help others. Discuss how it makes them feel. Teach that generosity and kindness matter.</p>
<h2>5. <em>Repair relationships</em></h2>
<p>We will always hurt people; this is part of life. When your child hurts someone else either intentionally or unintentionally, help them <a href="http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/childcare/HowLearningHappens.pdf">find a way to genuinely repair the relationship</a> (e.g., with an apology or letter). Encourage the child to take responsibility for their actions.</p>
<h2><em>6. Follow your lead</em></h2>
<p>Model the behaviour you want to see in children. If a parent models bullying or aggressive behaviour, it will be very difficult for a child to engage in caring, empathic behaviour. </p>
<p>If you are working on changing your own behaviours, talk about it with your child. You can explain how it feels and the struggle to change your actions and understanding of the world. Your child can understand. And apologize for yourself when you misstep. We all do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91539/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As Pink Shirt Day approaches, early childhood educators offer practical strategies for parents and teachers to create an inclusive environment and reduce bullying.Nikki Martyn, Program Head of Early Childhood Studies, University of Guelph-HumberElena Merenda, Assistant Program Head of Early Childhood Studies, University of Guelph-HumberLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/802992017-08-03T21:10:27Z2017-08-03T21:10:27ZWatching children learn how to lie<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180884/original/file-20170803-5621-aciu3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's actually a big developmental milestone.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/april-fools-dayclose-female-kid-hand-500339272">BlurryMe/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the liar, telling a lie has obvious costs. Keeping track of the lies one tells and trying to maintain the plausibility of a fictional narrative as real-world events intrude is mentally taxing. The fear of getting caught is a constant source of anxiety, and when it happens, the damage to one’s reputation can be lasting. For the people who are lied to the costs of lying are also clear: Lies undermine relationships, organizations and institutions.</p>
<p>However, the ability to lie and engage in other forms of deception is also a source of great social power, as it allows people to shape interactions in ways that serve their interests: They can evade responsibility for their misdeeds, take credit for accomplishments that are not really theirs, and rally friends and allies to the cause. As such, it’s an important step in a child’s development and there are cognitive building blocks that must be in place in order to successfully lie. </p>
<p>One way research psychologists have sought to understand the
reasoning behind the choice to lie versus tell the truth is to go back to when we first learn this skill in childhood. In some studies, researchers ask children to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.013">play a game</a> in which they can obtain a material reward by lying. In other studies children are faced with social situations in which the more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406073530">polite course of action involves lying</a> instead of telling the truth. For example, an experimenter will offer an undesirable gift such as a bar of soap and ask the child whether he or she likes it. Yet another method is to ask parents to keep a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12139">written record of the lies</a> that their children tell.</p>
<p>In a 2017 study, my colleagues and I <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12566">sought to understand</a> children’s thinking processes when they were first figuring out how to deceive other people, which for most children is around <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12023">age three and a half</a>. We were interested in the possibility that certain types of social experiences might speed up this developmental timeline.</p>
<h2>Watching children discover how to deceive</h2>
<p>We invited young children to play a simple game they could win only by deceiving their opponent: Children who told the truth won treats for the experimenter and those who lied won treats for themselves.</p>
<p>In this game, the child hides a treat in one of two cups while an experimenter covers her eyes. The experimenter then opens her eyes and asks the child where the treat is hidden, and the child responds by indicating one of the two cups. If the child indicates the correct cup, the experimenter wins the treat, and if the child indicates the incorrect one, the child wins the treat.</p>
<p>Children played 10 rounds of this game each day for 10 consecutive days. This method of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.8.769">closely observing children over a short period of time</a> allows for fine-grained tracking of behavioral changes, so researchers can observe the process of development as it unfolds. </p>
<p>We tested children around the time of their third birthday, which is before children typically know how to deceive. We found that, as
expected, when children first started playing the game most of them made no effort to deceive, and lost to the experimenter every time. However, within the next few sessions most children discovered how to deceive in order to win the game – and after their initial discovery they used deception consistently.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180771/original/file-20170802-24116-1wpsxyp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who me? No, I didn’t eat the head off this chocolate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonnyc/3190909851">David Goehring</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Just one developmental milestone</h2>
<p>Not all children figured out how to deceive at the same rate. At one extreme, some figured it out on the first day; at the other
extreme, some were consistently losing the game even at the end
of the 10 days.</p>
<p>We discovered that the rate at which individual children learned to deceive was related to certain cognitive skills. One of these skills – what psychologists call <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1232">theory of mind</a> – is the ability to understand that others don’t necessarily know what you know. This skill is needed because when children lie they intentionally communicate information that differs from what they themselves believe. Another one of these skills, <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031409">cognitive control</a>, allows people to stop themselves from blurting out the truth when they try to lie. The children who figured out how to deceive the most quickly had the highest levels of both of these skills.</p>
<p>Our findings suggest that competitive games can help children gain the insight that deception can be used as a strategy for personal gain – once they have the underlying cognitive skills to figure this out.</p>
<p>It’s important to keep in mind that the initial discovery of deception is not an endpoint. Rather, it’s the first step in a long developmental trajectory. After this discovery, children typically learn when to deceive, but in doing so they must sort through a confusing array of messages about the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.746463">morality of deception</a>. They usually also learn more about how to deceive. Young children often inadvertently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000373">give away the truth</a> when they try to dupe others, and they must learn to control their words, facial expressions and body language to be convincing.</p>
<p>As they develop, children often learn how to employ more nuanced forms of manipulation, such as using flattery as a means to curry favor, steering conversations away from uncomfortable topics and presenting information selectively to create a desired impression. By mastering these skills, they gain the power to help shape social narratives in ways that can have far-reaching consequences for themselves and for others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gail Heyman has received funding from the Chinese Foreign Expert Program. </span></em></p>Psychologists observed young children in real time figuring out how not to tell the truth.Gail Heyman, Professor of Psychology, University of California, San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/727112017-03-22T01:12:08Z2017-03-22T01:12:08ZChildren understand far more about other minds than long believed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161910/original/image-20170321-5384-1wiuxk3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't underestimate what I get about the world around me.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/vintage-photo-baby-girl-pram-fifties-136810409">Baby image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until a few decades ago, scholars believed that young children know very little, if anything, about what others are thinking. Swiss <a href="http://www.piaget.org/aboutPiaget.html">psychologist Jean Piaget</a>, who is credited with founding the scientific study of children’s thinking, was convinced that preschool children cannot consider what goes on in the minds of others.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1004&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1004&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1004&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1262&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1262&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161887/original/image-20170321-5386-fvscs2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1262&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jean Piaget had many insights, but sold kids short in some ways.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Piaget_in_Ann_Arbor.png">Michiganensian</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Psychology_Of_The_Child.html?id=-Dpz05-rJ4gC">interviews and experiments he conducted with kids</a> in the middle of the 20th century suggested that they were trapped in their subjective viewpoints, incapable of imagining what others think, feel or believe. To him, young children seemed oblivious to the fact that different people might hold distinct viewpoints or perspectives on the world, or even that their own perspectives shift over time.</p>
<p>Much of the subsequent research on early childhood thinking was highly influenced by Piaget’s ideas. Scholars sought to refine his theory and empirically confirm his views. But it became increasingly clear that Piaget was missing something. He seemed to have gravely underestimated the intellectual powers of very young kids – before they can make themselves understood by speech or even intentional action. Researchers began to devise ever more ingenious ways of figuring out what goes on in the minds of babies, and the resulting picture of their abilities is becoming more and more nuanced.</p>
<p>Consequently, the old view of children’s egocentric nature and intellectual weaknesses has increasingly fallen out of favor and become replaced by a more generous position that sees a budding sense not only of the physical world but also of other minds, even in the “youngest young.”</p>
<h2>Dark Ages of intellectual development?</h2>
<p>Historically, children didn’t receive much respect for their mental powers. Piaget not only believed that <a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/preoperational.html">children were “egocentric”</a> in the sense that they were unable to differentiate between their own viewpoint and that of others; he was also convinced that their thinking was characterized by systematic errors and confusions.</p>
<p>For example, the children he interviewed seemed unable to disentangle causes from their effects (“Does the wind move the branches or do the moving branches cause the wind?”) and could not tell reality apart from superficial appearances (a stick submerged halfway into water looks, but is not, bent). They also fall prey to magical and mythical thinking: A child might believe that the sun was once a ball that someone tossed up into the sky, where it grew bigger and bigger. In fact, Piaget believed that children’s mental development progresses in the same way historians believe human thought progressed over historical time: from mythical to logical thinking.</p>
<p>Piaget firmly believed kids were focused entirely on their own actions and perceptions. <a href="http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/496/Play.html">When playing with others</a>, they don’t cooperate because they do not realize there are different roles and perspectives. He was convinced that children literally cannot “get their act together”: instead of playing cooperatively and truly together, they play side by side, with little regard for the other. And when speaking with others, a young child supposedly cannot consider the listener’s viewpoint but “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=-Dpz05-rJ4gC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q=talks%20to%20himself%20without%20listening%20to%20the%20others&f=false">talks to himself without listening to the others</a>.”</p>
<p>Piaget and his followers maintained that children go through something like a dark ages of intellectual development before slowly and gradually becoming enlightened by reason and rationality as they reach school age. Alongside this enlightenment develops an ever-growing understanding of other persons, including their attitudes and views of the world.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161913/original/image-20170322-5391-qzgcd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We may know more than we can say.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/four-babies-group-sitting-on-floor-76539934">Babies image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Changing mindset about minds</h2>
<p>Today, a very different picture of children’s mental development emerges. Psychologists continually reveal new insights into the depth of young children’s knowledge of the world, including their understanding of other minds. Recent studies suggest that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.697">even infants are sensitive to others’ perspectives and beliefs</a>.</p>
<p>Part of the motivation to revise some of Piaget’s conclusions stemmed from an ideological shift about the origin of human knowledge that occurred in the second half of the 20th century. It became increasingly unpopular to assume that a basic understanding of the world can be built entirely from experience.</p>
<p>This was in part instigated by theorist Noam Chomsky, who argued that something as complex as the rules of grammar cannot be picked up from exposure to speech, but is supplied by <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/">an innate “language faculty.”</a> Others followed suit and defined further “core areas” in which knowledge allegedly cannot be pieced together from experience but must be innate. One such area is our knowledge of others’ minds. Some even argue that a basic knowledge of others’ minds is not only possessed by human infants, but must be evolutionarily old and hence shared by <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-great-apes-read-your-mind-66224">our nearest living relatives, the great apes</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161886/original/image-20170321-5395-1848gv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Eye tracking technology can follow where infants look and for how long, providing clues to what surprises them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/smieyetracking/5890659238">SMI Eye Tracking</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ingenious new investigation tools</h2>
<p>To prove that infants know more in this realm than had been acknowledged, researchers needed to come up with innovative ways of showing it. A big part of why we now recognize so much more of kids’ intellectual capacities is the development of much more sensitive research tools than Piaget had at his disposal.</p>
<p>Instead of engaging toddlers in dialog or having them execute complex motor tasks, the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1080/15248371003699977">newer methods capitalize on behaviors</a> that have a firm place in infants’ natural behavior repertoire: looking, listening, sucking, making facial expressions, gestures and simple manual actions. The idea of focusing on these “small behaviors” is that they give kids the chance to demonstrate their knowledge implicitly and spontaneously – without having to respond to questions or instructions. For example, children might look longer at an event that they did not expect to happen, or they might show facial expressions indicating that they have empathy with another.</p>
<p>When researchers measure these less demanding, and often involuntary, behaviors, they can detect a sensitivity to others’ mental states at a much younger age than with the more taxing methods that Piaget and his disciples deployed.</p>
<h2>What modern studies reveal</h2>
<p>In the 1980s, these kinds of implicit measures became customary in developmental psychology. But it took a while longer before these tools were employed to measure children’s grasp of the mental lives of others. Recent studies have revealed that even infants and toddlers are sensitive to what goes in others’ minds.</p>
<p>In one series of experiments, a group of Hungarian scientists had six-month-old babies watch an animation of the following sequence of events: A Smurf observed how a ball rolled behind a screen. The Smurf then left. In its absence, the infants witnessed how the ball emerged from behind the screen and rolled away. The Smurf returned and the screen was lowered, showing that the ball was no longer there. The authors of the study recorded the infants’ looks and found that they fixated longer than usual on the final scene in which the Smurf gazed at the empty space behind the barrier – as if they <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190792">understood that the Smurf’s expectation was violated</a>.</p>
<p>In another set of experiments, my colleagues at the University of Southern California and I found evidence that toddlers can even <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12581">anticipate how others will feel when their expectations are disappointed</a>. We acted out several puppet shows in front of two-year-old children. In these puppet shows, a protagonist (Cookie Monster) left his precious belongings (cookies) on stage and later returned to fetch them. What the protagonist did not know was that an antagonist had come and messed with his possessions. The children had witnessed these acts and attentively watch the protagonist return. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N2yPkF689Eg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">In the ‘False Belief’ section, Cookie Monster returns after his cookies were removed; the child’s reaction is a furrowed brow and biting her lip. In the ‘True Belief’ section, the child calmly follows the story with curiosity and interest, but no tension, when a protagonist returns, already in the know about what happened in her absence.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We recorded children’s facial and bodily expressions. Children bit their lips, wrinkled their nose or wiggled in their chair when the protagonist came back, as if they anticipated the bewilderment and disappointment he was about to experience. Importantly, children showed no such reactions and remained calm when the protagonist had seen the events himself and thus knew what to expect. Our study reveals that by the tender age of two, kids not only track what others believe or expect; they can even foresee how others will feel when they discover reality.</p>
<p>Studies like these reveal that there is much more going on in toddlers’ and even infants’ minds than was previously believed. With the explicit measures used by Piaget and successors, these deeper layers of kids’ understanding cannot be accessed. The new investigative tools demonstrate that kids know more than they can say: when we scratch beneath the surface, we find a fledgling understanding of relations and perspectives that Piaget probably did not dream of.</p>
<h2>Old ways have value, too</h2>
<p>Despite these obvious advances in the study of young children’s thinking, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss the careful and systematic analyses compiled by Piaget and others before the new tests dominated the scene. Doing so would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because the original methods revealed essential facts about how children think – facts that the new, “minimalist” methods cannot uncover.</p>
<p>There’s no consensus in today’s community about <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-7687.2007.00563.X">how much we can infer</a> from a look, a grimace or a hand gesture. These behaviors clearly indicate a curiosity about what goes on in the mind of others, and probably a set of early intuitions coupled with a willingness to learn more. They pave the way to richer and more explicit forms of understanding of the minds of other. But they can in no way replace the child’s growing ability to articulate and refine her understanding of how people behave and why.</p>
<p>Piaget may have underestimated infants’ cognitive powers, perhaps for lack of modern tools. But his insights into how a child gradually comes to grasp the world around her and understand that she is a person among a community of other persons remain as inspiring as they were 50 years ago. Today’s challenge for us developmental scholars is to integrate the new with the old, and understand how infants’ sensitivity to other minds gradually develops into a full-blown understanding of other persons as distinct from, and yet similar to, oneself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Henrike Moll receives funding from the Office of Naval Research. </span></em></p>A revolution in the tools and techniques developmental psychologists use to investigate kids’ knowledge and capabilities is rewriting what we know about how and when children understand their world.Henrike Moll, Assistant Professor in Developmental Psychology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/684782017-01-09T19:32:57Z2017-01-09T19:32:57ZDo art and literature cultivate empathy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150910/original/image-20161220-26715-1gsx25i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's argued art helps people cultivate empathy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Heather/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/understanding-others-feelings-33600">understanding others’ feelings</a>. In it we examine empathy, including what it is, whether our doctors need more of it, and when too much may not be a good thing.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>A common argument for the value of the arts is the claim they cultivate empathy. Reading literature, viewing quality cinema and listening to fine music refine our sensibilities and make us better and more humane – or so the argument goes.</p>
<p>By taking us out of ourselves, art and literature make us open to and mindful of others. As the novelist Barbara Kingsolver <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jun/12/life-in-writing-barbara-kingsolver">has written</a>, “literature sucks you into another psyche”.</p>
<p>Whether the arts do in fact enhance empathy – whether they suck us into other minds or just deeper into our own – is moot. What is certain is that highly empathic people tend to have distinctive cultural preferences.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151114/original/image-20161220-26715-4k4lrx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151114/original/image-20161220-26715-4k4lrx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151114/original/image-20161220-26715-4k4lrx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151114/original/image-20161220-26715-4k4lrx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151114/original/image-20161220-26715-4k4lrx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151114/original/image-20161220-26715-4k4lrx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151114/original/image-20161220-26715-4k4lrx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Empathic people may prefer drama and romantic movies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/260148062?src=Rj1lCGi-mpTgaXb4zZhIDQ-1-2&id=260148062&size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Empathy’s dual character</h2>
<p>Research by Cambridge University psychologists <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964424/">reveals five dimensions</a> on which our preferences vary. People high on the “dark” dimension enjoy intense and edgy genres such as punk and metal music, horror movies and erotic fiction. </p>
<p>Those whose preferences are captured by the “thrilling” dimension enjoy action movies, adventure fiction and sci-fi. “Cerebral” people are drawn to news and current events, documentaries, educational programming and non-fiction.</p>
<p>And highly empathic people are most likely to have entertainment preferences that match the two remaining dimensions: “communal” and “aesthetic”.</p>
<p>Communal preferences focus on people and relationships, including a fondness for TV talk-shows, dramas and romantic movies, and popular music. Aesthetic preferences are more highbrow, running to classical music, arts and history programs and independent and subtitled movies.</p>
<p>The fact these two quite distinct sorts of cultural genres appeal to empathic individuals speaks to the dual character of empathy. On the one hand it leads people to take an interest in the familiar everyday dramas of social interaction. On the other, it draws us into an imaginative engagement with minds, experiences and worlds that are different from our own.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150923/original/image-20161220-26748-jy0i5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150923/original/image-20161220-26748-jy0i5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150923/original/image-20161220-26748-jy0i5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150923/original/image-20161220-26748-jy0i5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150923/original/image-20161220-26748-jy0i5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150923/original/image-20161220-26748-jy0i5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150923/original/image-20161220-26748-jy0i5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A study by Kidd and Castano found people who read literary fiction performed better on empathy tests.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/search/reading?photo=mIESPbiPwkI">Ben White/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Empathic people may not only prefer particular entertainment genres, but also have a distinctive response to the negative emotions conveyed by them. </p>
<p>There is <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009365090017005003">some evidence</a> empathic individuals are relatively averse to genres involving violence and horror, perhaps because they resonate acutely to the pain experienced by the bloodied fictional victims. </p>
<p>In contrast, empathic individuals revel in other negative emotions conveyed by the arts. For example, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164029">one study</a> showed people who score high on absorption – a tendency to become deeply engaged with particular experiences that is strongly associated with empathy – are more likely to enjoy negative emotions conveyed by music.</p>
<p>Empathy may therefore make some negative emotions more unpleasant while making others paradoxically enjoyable.</p>
<h2>Does art nurture empathy?</h2>
<p>But while empathy is associated with being drawn to the arts, the question remains: do the arts actively promote it, or merely appeal to already sensitive souls? The causal arrow could point in two directions.</p>
<p>Exposure to literature and the sorts of movies that do not involve car chases might nurture our capacity to get inside the skins of other people. Alternatively, people who already have well developed empathic abilities might simply find the arts more engaging, even if their exposure to it does not hone those abilities.</p>
<p>In 2013, psychologists Evan Kidd and Emanuele Castano ran <a href="http://www.newschool.edu/pressroom/pressreleases/2013/CastanoKidd.htm">five experiments</a> to test whether exposure to literary fiction enhances empathy.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150932/original/image-20161220-26738-1apq794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150932/original/image-20161220-26738-1apq794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150932/original/image-20161220-26738-1apq794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150932/original/image-20161220-26738-1apq794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150932/original/image-20161220-26738-1apq794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150932/original/image-20161220-26738-1apq794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150932/original/image-20161220-26738-1apq794.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Genres such as violence and horror may not appeal to empathic people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/brandflair/6234711821/in/photolist-auWwBp-9yGU1w-abWzG6-HeMu-kaQjM-dwKCcm-6YoQyr-7tKbSd-pT2Krj-8U5WKz-FBrsC-a4Yikw-ayQSBJ-9m9HV2-9tKnzs-92tt9s-7mhh3C-aovJcS-abZqzj-8xPWE8-7YzLMT-bNycPV-9NBwZh-8XY4pj-aqzXuZ-fRVScB-dZw1ug-cagjXJ-VmkHz-9PNmhJ-9m9bp-q7rgCm-9wVz3B-4fQcvN-9dxtBd-jv1qnx-9warB8-9tGpZr-oFFknP-fwvVnd-dCffxp-91V2eD-bFMHhr-9aosCG-59CSR2-6XeUBv-5Cm9eC-qbk5kd-bhZ8aX-5XayHP">John Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In each experiment, they randomly assigned one group of study participants to read short passages of literary fiction excerpted from National Book Award finalists. </p>
<p>One or more other groups were assigned to read passages of nonfiction, popular fiction (drawn from Amazon.com bestsellers) or nothing at all. </p>
<p>After reading the passages, participants completed tests measuring their <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811905005112">Theory of Mind</a> – the ability to detect and understand other people’s mental states, which is the foundation for empathy.</p>
<p>Theory of Mind was measured mostly using the <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/well-quiz-the-mind-behind-the-eyes/?_r=0">Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test</a>. In this test, people must correctly guess a series of emotional expressions from photographs of the eyes.</p>
<p>In each of Kidd and Castano’s studies, people who had just read literary fiction performed better on the empathy measures. The researchers argued that any general empathy-promoting function of fiction could not explain this benefit, as it was restricted to literary rather than popular fiction. Instead, they argued, literary fiction facilitates empathy by inducing readers to take “an active writerly role” in understanding the mental lives of the characters. </p>
<p>In essence, Kidd and Castano argue literary fiction uniquely fosters the capacity to simulate the nuances of others’ experience. </p>
<p>This claim is <a href="http://psnlab.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/Soc%20Cogn%20Affect%20Neurosci-2016-Tamir-215-24.pdf">supported by evidence</a> the brain networks involved in making sense of other minds are activated strongly when people read literary depictions of other people.</p>
<p>Although the effects of reading literature on empathy might be short-lived, the researchers speculated it might build enduring empathy in avid readers. Indeed, there is <a href="http://www.yorku.ca/mar/Mar%20et%20al%202009_reading%20fiction%20and%20empathy.pdf">ample evidence</a> people who read more fiction perform better on tests of Theory of Mind.</p>
<p>Reading literary fiction may train up the neural networks that underpin empathy, with lasting benefits.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150935/original/image-20161220-26748-96hgxz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150935/original/image-20161220-26748-96hgxz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150935/original/image-20161220-26748-96hgxz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150935/original/image-20161220-26748-96hgxz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150935/original/image-20161220-26748-96hgxz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150935/original/image-20161220-26748-96hgxz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150935/original/image-20161220-26748-96hgxz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reading a lot of fiction may train the neural networks that underpin empathy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/113026679@N03/15847798865/in/photolist-q9q7tt-o8Sw2u-mugrn-42gXjh-pjHLDB-o8SAX1-nRwrnD-o6XEjW-o8SwvA-8C2hbM-o8UTfA-nRvQXY-nRvreC-51GRmR-4avvXk-dP3T4n-7jV5j7-7NGZHu-nPDJZf-nRvD4t-o91xPH-ijcc81-nRwYwT-oaMa6Z-o8SwZm-6bdxk3-b6Lr3B-nRvPAE-oaMdoa-o91xxR-o4XxvP-pvrFZR-ddZspW-nUabcy-o8SwnE-Ned-nRwsUX-o8USUL-9ZLBU3-nRvro5-nRw2Ly-o91xGi-9qWUNU-o4PmL1-8BTEAM-akMvBf-7oGWbp-E6jx-asaiVw-dQKFRG">David Mulder/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Jury still out</h2>
<p>Will exposure to literature and the arts make you a better person? Perhaps, but the jury is still out. Several labs have <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27642659">failed to replicate</a> the original finding of even fleeting effects of literary fiction on the capacity to step into another person’s shoes. </p>
<p>It is also increasingly clear that taking that step does not invariably lead to better behaviour. Taking another’s perspective in a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23955353">competitive situation</a>, for instance, makes people behave more unethically. And taking the perspective of people who we see as a threat can make us <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304352311_It%27s_all_about_the_self_When_perspective_taking_backfires">view them more negatively</a>. </p>
<p>So we should not expect lovers of art and literature to be nicer people, just a little better at understanding the complexities of experience. </p>
<p>Empathy may not always make us more humane, but it may have other benefits. As Steve Martin said, “Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticise him, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes.”</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Read yesterday’s introductory essay on empathy <a href="http://theconversation.com/understanding-others-feelings-what-is-empathy-and-why-do-we-need-it-68494">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68478/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Haslam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Empathy is associated with being drawn to the arts, but do they actively promote it or merely appeal to already sensitive souls?Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/684942017-01-08T19:22:59Z2017-01-08T19:22:59ZUnderstanding others’ feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146517/original/image-20161118-19352-1972uze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many animals might show signs of mimicry or emotional contagion to another animal in pain.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fenix_21/2286803864/in/photolist-4u5t7Q-nME1X1-5n3Qtg-B6toHM-eR22s-yErX5J-HRvajK-ffiMWY-bCGw5Y-DLw7e-5gdEkh-aaQcLJ-nL4Yqy-mDwzK6-zFgwvd-bRvZZ2-8Vfdw6-zJoGB-wxnct-9pseQ4-Muizu-6MQFNY-68BLLB-phMzMn-o3V3A-4REiA1-6iY9as-cdw9i-egeipH-4zgkNH-4iDUFN-bBzr2b-5YCdvu-8LJmxD-ahu9T-cxmwdS-i7rmih-attny-9Fjyb5-8TnTzn-DJf6N-cxmvY7-8hipy1-7aGKR8-6BqLu-gYPojU-5PtpV3-4TbsXF-5NGJES-6XNmfQ">Fenix_21/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This is the introductory essay in our series on understanding others’ feelings. In it we will examine empathy, including what it is, whether our doctors need more of it, and when too much may not be a good thing.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Empathy is the ability to share and understand the emotions of others. It is a construct of multiple components, each of which is <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Decety/publication/228613512_Dissecting_the_neural_mechanisms_mediating_empathy/links/09e4150698e0ae01c4000000.pdf">associated with its own brain network</a>. There are three ways of looking at empathy. </p>
<p>First there is affective empathy. This is the ability to share the emotions of others. People who score high on affective empathy are those who, for example, show a strong visceral reaction when watching a scary movie. </p>
<p>They feel scared or feel others’ pain strongly <em>within</em> themselves when seeing others scared or in pain.</p>
<p>Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is the ability to understand the emotions of others. A good example is the psychologist who understands the emotions of the client in a rational way, but does not necessarily share the emotions of the client in a visceral sense. </p>
<p>Finally, there’s emotional regulation. This refers to the ability to regulate one’s emotions. For example, surgeons need to control their emotions when operating on a patient. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149566/original/image-20161212-31367-1fp9s5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Those who show a strong visceral reaction when watching a scary movie score high on affective empathy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dogberryjr/8206657127/in/photolist-dvcgfp-cFYDNC-dvhQJE-afqrdC-46ia-5C3A2B-dNEFKA-HMroW-a2cFdi-5r9G2o-5rMDoJ-bsteTn-8Unjwm-9yvWYb-8TcfQb-2VJitK-8AuL8u-8ArG82-9wYSn9-qTdooz-4o7CtS-64LhW4-emmu5U-PFtvT-9UAyzZ-pJW7eA-f8Etg-4c8HaJ-7vMFhm-acbvkn-5yZRiN-HMrxN-4ekYtu-iNHdv-6LonZa-8AuL61-hfqwDS-8AuL77-8ArG4a-8r4r5v-8AuLab-8ArFKR-4cEdQ5-oRbomu-8ArG6H-8ArG9x-9aBfRJ-8AuKVU-8AuLd7-8ka4Lx">dogberryjr/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another way to understand empathy is to distinguish it from other related constructs. For example, empathy <a href="http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/application_uploads/The_Neural_Basis_of_Empathy.pdf">involves self-awareness</a>, as well as distinction between the self and the other. In that sense it is different from mimicry, or imitation. </p>
<p>Many animals might show signs of mimicry or emotional contagion to another animal in pain. But without some level of self-awareness, and distinction between the self and the other, it is not empathy in a strict sense. Empathy is also different from sympathy, which involves feeling concern for the suffering of another person and a desire to help.</p>
<p>That said, empathy is not a unique human experience. It has been observed in many <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jaak_Panksepp/publication/237094634_Toward_a_cross-species_understanding_of_empathy/links/00b4951e4316b57ec2000000.pdf">non-human primates</a> and even <a href="http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/application_uploads/Empathy_and_Prosocial_Behavior_in_Rats.pdf">rats</a>. </p>
<p>People often say psychopaths lack empathy but this is not always the case. In fact, psychopathy is enabled by good cognitive empathic abilities - you need to understand what your victim is feeling when you are torturing them. What psychopaths typically lack is sympathy. They know the other person is suffering but they just don’t care.</p>
<p>Research has also shown those with psychopathic traits are often very good at <a href="http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/meffert2013.pdf">regulating their emotions</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149573/original/image-20161212-31383-wi4rnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">To be a good psychopath, you need to understand what your victims are feeling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pimkie_fotos/3484952865/in/photolist-6iXi5e-96Z1dy-dk4uzE-9xSMvX-9xVKTd-dk4t9i-8Hs7P4-94A9N7-bwJyf1-57Cu3f-9xSL2x-4kdUhy-agWosL-nbeL7Z-6ZXaLp-ebdZCS-dk4uiq-yYWa2-CktVn-e55Pk9-dz1Epy-9xVLbb-9xVKxw-9fi7r9-27v48e-2FdFc7-5ZVz9p-dk4sTB-9xSM6e-B5MUC-6HrGMX-7PY73X-4gRrNj-5Piavv-gHsTn6-nkhyrR-gHtFFX-e5JxGV-7g8X7X-4mKaey-9xsSwv-dm5KMi-7PKs1G-gHsULt-4cxoFD-8gbomb-6dvvy-37eJwU-9QPvTm-53tiVi">Pimkie/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why do we need it?</h2>
<p>Empathy is important because it helps us understand how others are feeling so we can respond appropriately to the situation. It is typically associated with social behaviour and there is <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nancy_Eisenberg/publication/19598630_The_Relation_of_Empathy_to_Prosocial_and_Related_Behaviors/links/0f31753323ebeadf81000000.pdf">lots of research showing</a> that greater empathy leads to more helping behaviour. </p>
<p>However, this is not always the case. Empathy can also <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Decety/publication/280612148_Empathy_Justice_and_Moral_Behavior/links/55bea12a08ae092e96651484.pdf">inhibit social actions, or even lead to amoral behaviour</a>. For example, someone who sees a car accident and is overwhelmed by emotions witnessing the victim in severe pain might be less likely to help that person. </p>
<p>Similarly, strong empathetic feelings for members of our own family or our own social or racial group might lead to hate or aggression towards those we perceive as a threat. Think about a mother or father protecting their baby or a nationalist protecting their country. </p>
<p>People who are good at reading others’ emotions, such as manipulators, fortune-tellers or psychics, might also use their excellent empathetic skills for their own benefit by deceiving others. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149569/original/image-20161212-31379-53o87v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Empathy is associated with social behaviour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/search/playing?photo=rnguvzoG-x8">Jesse Orrico/Unsplash</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interestingly, people with higher psychopathic traits <a href="http://imakelma.com/books/5/BartelsPizarro.2011.pdf">typically show more utilitarian responses</a> in moral dilemmas such as the footbridge problem. In this thought experiment, people have to decide whether to push a person off a bridge to stop a train about to kill five others laying on the track. </p>
<p>The psychopath would more often than not choose to push the person off the bridge. This is following the utilitarian philosophy that holds saving the life of five people by killing one person is a good thing. So one could argue those with psychopathic tendencies are more moral than normal people – who probably wouldn’t push the person off the bridge – as they are less influenced by emotions when making moral decisions. </p>
<h2>How is empathy measured?</h2>
<p>Empathy is often measured with self-report questionnaires such as the <a href="https://student.cc.uoc.gr/uploadFiles/179-%CE%9A%CE%A8%CE%92364/Davis1983.pdf">Interpersonal Reactivity Index</a> (IRI) or <a href="http://www.rpgresearch.com/documents/primary/fb-rp-theory/fb-group-files/empathy-assessment-and-definition-article.pdf">Questionnaire for Cognitive and Affective Empathy</a> (QCAE). </p>
<p>These typically ask people to indicate how much they agree with statements that measure different types of empathy. </p>
<p>The QCAE, for instance, has statements such as, “It affects me very much when one of my friends is upset”, which is a measure of affective empathy. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149571/original/image-20161212-31385-13vrz2v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If someone is affected by a friend who is upset, they score higher on affective empathy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vintagechica/2786726217/in/photolist-bD9pNH-6vaRgo-5rFTAj-8krk3F-8kuwaY-5WoGuJ-7n3Rx8-5LXpzp-snGLFG-bD9qwt-snPRLg-8H17TP-7537kS-bntw4Q-fSdPu8-9sQ2sZ-5zCnWe-5LWCgX-bntjyA-kDBNrX-81ezvY-dqrejk-qzz7Mv-moeSF-5QpT59-aDc3T7-5M2nif-fScNiZ-7RWPkd-9GtGpT-dHypaV-fSebHP-5M22Ky-8FRucW-fScKYj-8BDGQm-5ffGBK-9RGRYm-beMua8-bkezy9-5LWxZz-cCsky5-cCsjju-dYFU8b-fScL5S-9oRm51-6i1Rfr-5M2qcJ-bntwH9-V8JoF">eren {sea+prairie}/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cognitive empathy is determined by the QCAE by putting value on a statement such as, “I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.”</p>
<p>Using the QCAE, we recently <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pascal_Molenberghs2/publication/277251990_Individual_differences_in_local_gray_matter_density_are_associated_with_differences_in_affective_and_cognitive_empathy/links/5574c9ad08ae7536374ff1d2.pdf">found</a> people who score higher on affective empathy have more grey matter, which is a collection of different types of nerve cells, in an area of the brain called the anterior insula. </p>
<p>This area is often involved in regulating positive and negative emotions by integrating environmental stimulants – such as seeing a car accident - with visceral and automatic bodily sensations.</p>
<p>We also found people who score higher on cognitive empathy had more grey matter in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. </p>
<p>This area is typically activated during more cognitive processes, such as Theory of Mind, which is the ability to attribute mental beliefs to yourself and another person. It also involves understanding that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives different from one’s own. </p>
<h2>Can empathy be selective?</h2>
<p>Research shows we typically <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00176/full">feel more empathy for members of our own group</a>, such as those from our ethnic group. For example, one <a href="https://www.psy.pku.edu.cn/%7Ehanshihui/2009/Xu%20and%20Han%202009%20J%20Neurosci%20reprint.pdf">study</a> scanned the brains of Chinese and Caucasian participants while they watched videos of members of their own ethnic group in pain. They also observed people from a different ethnic group in pain.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149578/original/image-20161212-31367-133b1yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We feel more empathy from people from our own group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bahaius/5110981289/in/photolist-8MD7F4-jG7WDh-5D7nEs-pLMduo-5WxKVX-8bXFtk-oth3mJ-nZPim3-a3wjN5-29vyKT-29vy4z-qn1TjG-29vf9P-r6PzPj-4taVpt-5D7qZd-8nzTyP-8nD2ph-29zuDs-29A4dN-5D7uQf-8esgAD-r6PxMo-5D35dP-5D7om5-r6NZNw-qroB5Y-29zUbf-8nzTx4-29zRg3-nNFuxv-bJqEs4-oPhzdi-bWJ95H-8c1XMw-r6NHQE-8LeEBU-nCHfNL-bJqDER-8bXHoz-8nzTsP-o8x13V-29zRYQ-29viAD-29zTfS-8wHTxb-8ssFxN-8LouVf-naEScB-nNP29h">Bahai.us/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The researchers found that a brain area called the anterior cingulate cortex, which is often active when we see others in pain, was less active when participants saw members of ethnic groups different from their own in pain. </p>
<p>Other studies have found brain areas involved in empathy are less active when watching <a href="http://tm.ermarian.net/Academic%20Junk/Psychology/Neuroscience/Social%20Neuroscience/2006:01:26-%20Singer,%20T.%20et%20al%20(Nature)%20-%20Empathic%20neural%20responses%20are%20modulated%20by%20the%20perceived%20fairness%20of%20others%20%5BArticle%5D.pdf">people in pain who act unfairly</a>. We <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.188.3135&rep=rep1&type=pdf">even see activation in brain areas involved in subjective pleasure</a>, such as the ventral striatum, when watching a rival sport team fail. </p>
<p>Yet, we do not always feel less empathy for those who aren’t members of our own group. In our <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Decety/publication/261720045_The_influence_of_group_membership_and_individual_differences_in_psychopathy_and_perspective_taking_on_neural_responses_when_punishing_and_rewarding_others/links/0f31753a9d08a93c35000000.pdf">recent study</a>, students had to give monetary rewards or painful electrical shocks to students from the same or a different university. We scanned their brain responses when this happened.</p>
<p>Brain areas involved in rewarding others were more active when people rewarded members of their own group, but areas involved in harming others were equally active for both groups. </p>
<p>These results correspond to observations in daily life. We generally feel happier if our own group members win something, but we’re unlikely to harm others just because they belong to a different group, culture or race. In general, ingroup bias is <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.197.4614&rep=rep1&type=pdf">more about ingroup love</a> rather than outgroup hate. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149580/original/image-20161212-31364-1e3tcsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In war it might be beneficial to feel less empathy for people who you are trying to kill, especially if they are also trying to harm you.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dvids/4441432082/in/photolist-7Ltv2d-6Uw3rj-m9F1jz-9wQvgP-ie5sbG-ie3Y8u-4kDNHL-obqy4U-9HDJ4t-pqiSor-6kcUx5-9VCUTA-azvtTS-FdJnb1-cmjrqW-cmjGqb-saWcjm-sbJRQx-cmjoz7-cmjM9Y-ie3Vk5-aniXRN-ie3Jxy-e38Gm8-jrou16-5uDED9-8hhvFD-ie5z6o-ak8JLW-rG9Ypm-NkuCz-h3Ekfd-a9ocQj-9VA6LR-7KZ8qd-3TX9sG-ssmQkW-adSi88-9VCXe5-jrouH8-ie4dkp-oHkvP1-n7XTJc-ie3WKj-srPhKd-arUgnQ-ie3v13-cmburu-7TBkqM-c1GaJN">DVIDSHUB/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet in some situations, it could be helpful to feel less empathy for a particular group of people. For example, in war it might be beneficial to feel less empathy for people you are trying to kill, especially if they are also trying to harm you. </p>
<p>To investigate, we conducted another <a href="https://rampages.us/rockpaperscissor/wp-content/uploads/sites/12737/2015/10/Pascal-Molenberghs-fMRI.pdf">brain imaging study</a>. We asked people to watch videos from a violent video game in which a person was shooting innocent civilians (unjustified violence) or enemy soldiers (justified violence). </p>
<p>While watching the videos, people had to pretend they were killing real people. We found the lateral orbitofrontal cortex, typically active when people harm others, was active when people shot innocent civilians. The more guilt participants felt about shooting civilians, the greater the response in this region. </p>
<p>However, the same area was not activated when people shot the soldier that was trying to kill them. </p>
<p>The results provide insight into how people regulate their emotions. They also show the brain mechanisms typically implicated when harming others become less active when the violence against a particular group is seen as justified. </p>
<p>This might provide future insights into how people become desensitised to violence or why some people feel more or less guilty about harming others. </p>
<p>Our empathetic brain has evolved to be highly adaptive to different types of situations. Having empathy is very useful as it often helps to understand others so we can help or deceive them, but sometimes we need to be able to switch off our empathetic feelings to protect our own lives, and those of others.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Tomorrow’s article will look at whether art can cultivate empathy.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pascal Molenberghs receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC Discovery Early Career Research Award: DE130100120) and Heart Foundation (Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship: 1000458).</span></em></p>While we need empathic skills to relate to others sometimes, too much empathy can be a bad thing.Pascal Molenberghs, Senior Lecturer in Social Neuroscience, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/679792016-11-18T03:27:17Z2016-11-18T03:27:17ZYoung children are terrible at hiding – psychologists have a new theory why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146491/original/image-20161118-19377-lc2xhb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=625%2C74%2C4750%2C3186&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">I can't see you, you can't see me.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=260420891&src=lb-29877982">Child image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Young children across the globe enjoy playing games of hide and seek. There’s something highly exciting for children about escaping someone else’s glance and making oneself “invisible.”</p>
<p>However, developmental psychologists and parents alike continue to witness that before school age, children are remarkably bad at hiding. Curiously, they often cover only their face or eyes with their hands, leaving the rest of their bodies visibly exposed. </p>
<p>For a long time, this ineffective hiding strategy was interpreted as evidence that young children are hopelessly “<a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/preoperational.html">egocentric</a>” creatures. Psychologists theorized that preschool children cannot distinguish their <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.008">own perspective from someone else’s</a>. Conventional wisdom held that, unable to transcend their own viewpoint, children falsely assume that others see the world the same way they themselves do. So psychologists assumed children “hide” by covering their eyes because they conflate their own lack of vision with that of those around them.</p>
<p>But research in cognitive developmental psychology is starting to cast doubt on this notion of childhood egocentrism. We brought young children between the ages of two and four into our <a href="https://dornsife.usc.edu/labs/mid-la/">Minds in Development Lab</a> at USC so we could investigate this assumption. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2016.1243116">Our surprising results</a> contradict the idea that children’s poor hiding skills reflect their allegedly egocentric nature.</p>
<h2>Who can see whom?</h2>
<p>Each child in our study sat down with an adult who covered her own eyes or ears with her hands. We then asked the child whether or not she could see or hear the adult, respectively. Surprisingly, children denied that they could. The same thing happened when the adult covered her own mouth: Now children denied that they could speak to her.</p>
<p>A number of control experiments ruled out that the children were confused or misunderstood what they were being asked. The results were clear: Our young subjects comprehended the questions and knew exactly what was asked of them. Their negative responses reflected their genuine belief that the other person could not be seen, heard, or spoken to when her eyes, ears, or mouth were obstructed. Despite the fact that the person in front of them was in plain view, they flatout denied being able to perceive her. So what was going on?</p>
<p>It seems like young children consider mutual eye contact a requirement for one person to be able to see another. Their thinking appears to run along the lines of “I can see you only if you can see me, too” and vice versa. Our findings suggest that when a child “hides” by putting a blanket over her head, this strategy is not a result of egocentrism. In fact, children deem this strategy <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2011.594826">effective when others use it</a>.</p>
<p>Built into their notion of visibility, then, is the idea of bidirectionality: Unless two people make eye contact, it is impossible for one to see the other. Contrary to egocentrism, young children simply insist on mutual recognition and regard.</p>
<h2>An expectation of mutual engagement</h2>
<p>Children’s demand of reciprocity demonstrates that they are not at all egocentric. Not only can preschoolers imagine the world as seen from another’s point of view; they even apply this capacity in situations where it’s unnecessary or leads to wrong judgments, such as when they are asked to report their own perception. These faulty judgments – saying that others whose eyes are covered cannot be seen – reveal just how much children’s perception of the world is colored by others.</p>
<p>The seemingly irrational way in which children try to hide from others and the negative answers they gave in our experiment show that children feel unable to relate to a person unless the communication flows both ways – not only from me to you but also from you to me, so we can communicate with each other as equals.</p>
<p>We are planning to investigate children’s hiding behavior directly in the lab and test if kids who are bad at hiding show more reciprocity in play and conversation than those who hide more skillfully. We would also like to conduct these experiments with children who show an atypical trajectory in their early development.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146493/original/image-20161118-19356-1vxhfm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Children want to interact with the people around them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=6965902&src=lb-29877982">Eye contact image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our findings underscore children’s natural desire and preference for reciprocity and mutual engagement between individuals. Children expect and strive to create situations in which they can be reciprocally involved with others. They want to encounter people who are not only looked at but who can return another’s gaze; people who not only listen but are also heard; and people who are not just spoken to but who can reply and thus enter a mutual dialogue.</p>
<p>At least in this respect, young children understand and treat other human beings in a manner that is not at all egocentric. On the contrary, their insistence on mutual regard is remarkably mature and can be considered inspirational. Adults may want to turn to these preschoolers as role models when it comes to perceiving and relating to other humans. These young children seem exquisitely aware that we all share a common nature as people who are in constant interaction with others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67979/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Little kids cover their own eyes and feel hidden, even if they’re still fully visible. New research suggests this doesn’t mean children can’t understand others’ perspectives, as had been assumed.Henrike Moll, Assistant Professor in Developmental Psychology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesAllie Khalulyan, Ph.D. Student in Developmental Psychology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/662242016-10-06T18:00:29Z2016-10-06T18:00:29ZCan great apes read your mind?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140212/original/image-20161004-27269-16hqfws.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C144%2C3767%2C2446&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bonobo Jasongo at Leipzig Zoo has a hunch about what you're thinking.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">MPI-EVA</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the things that defines humans most is our ability to read others’ minds – that is, to make inferences about what others are thinking. To build or maintain relationships, we offer gifts and services – not arbitrarily, but with the recipient’s desires in mind. When we communicate, we do our best to take into account what our partners already know and to provide information we know will be new and comprehensible. And sometimes we deceive others by making them believe something that is not true, or we help them by correcting such false beliefs.</p>
<p>All these very human behaviors rely on an ability psychologists call <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512">theory of mind</a>: We are able to think about others’ thoughts and emotions. We form ideas about what beliefs and feelings are held in the minds of others – and recognize that they can be different from our own. Theory of mind is at the heart of everything social that makes us human. Without it, we’d have a much harder time interpreting – and probably predicting – others’ behavior.</p>
<p>For a long time, many researchers have believed that a major reason human beings alone exhibit unique forms of communication, cooperation and culture is <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146282">that we’re the only animals to have a complete theory of mind</a>. But is this ability really unique to humans?</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8110">new study published in Science</a>, my colleagues and I tried to answer this question using a novel approach. Previous work has generally suggested that people think about others’ perspectives in very different ways than other animals do. Our new findings suggest, however, that great apes may actually be a bit more similar to us than we previously thought.</p>
<h2>Apes get some parts of what others are thinking</h2>
<p>Decades of research with our closest relatives – chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans – have revealed that great apes do possess many aspects of theory of mind. For one, they can <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614536402">identify the goals and intentions behind others’ actions</a>. They’re also able to recognize which <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1518">features of the environment others can see or know about</a>. </p>
<p>Where apes have consistently failed, though, is on tasks designed to assess their understanding of others’ false beliefs. They don’t seem to know when someone has an idea about the world that conflicts with reality.</p>
<p>Picture me rummaging through the couch because I falsely believe the TV remote is in there. “Duuuude,” my (human) roommate says, noticing my false belief, “the remote is on the table!” He’s able to imagine the way I’m misconstruing reality, and then set me straight with the correct information. </p>
<p>To investigate false belief understanding in great apes, comparative psychologist <a href="http://www.fumihirokano.com/p/main-page.html">Fumihiro Kano</a> and I turned to a technique that hadn’t been used before with apes in this context: eye-tracking. Our international team of researchers enrolled over 40 bonobos, chimpanzees and orangutans at Zoo Leipzig in Germany and Kumamoto Sanctuary in Japan in our novel, noninvasive experiment.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140213/original/image-20161004-20235-1ja5x7r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers use juice to attract the apes to the spot where they can watch the videos.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">MPI-EVA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Watching what they watched</h2>
<p>We showed the apes videos of a human actor engaging in social conflicts with a costumed ape-like character (King Kong). Embedded within these interactions was important information about the human actor’s belief. For example, in one scene the human actor was trying to search for a stone that he saw King Kong hide within one of two boxes. However, while the actor was away, King Kong moved the stone to another location and then removed it completely; when the actor returned, he falsely believed the stone was still in its original location.</p>
<p>The big question was: Where would the apes expect the actor to search? Would they anticipate that the actor would search for the stone in the last place where he saw it, even though the apes themselves knew it was no longer there?</p>
<p>While the apes were watching the videos, a special camera faced them, recording their gaze patterns and mapping them onto the video. This eye-tracker let us see exactly where on the videos the apes were looking as they watched the scenarios play out.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kgYNSin3Sfc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Watch a video of what the apes were shown. The red dots show where one ape was looking as she watched the movie. Credit: MPI-EVA and Kumamoto Sanctuary, Kyoto University.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Apes, like people, do what’s called anticipatory looking: They look to locations where they anticipate something is about to happen. This tendency allowed us to assess what the apes expected the actor to do when he returned to search for the stone. </p>
<p>Strikingly, across several different conditions and contexts, when the actor was reaching toward the two boxes, apes consistently looked to the location where the actor falsely believed the stone to be. Importantly, their gaze predicted the actor’s search even before the actor provided any directional cues about where he was going to search for the stone.</p>
<p>The apes were able to anticipate that the actor would behave in accordance with what we humans recognize as a false belief.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140215/original/image-20161004-20205-oirolj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The red dots show the ape looking at the place where he anticipates the person will search – even though he himself knows the stone has been moved.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">MPI-EVA and Kumamoto Sanctuary, Kyoto University</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Even more alike than we thought</h2>
<p>Our findings challenge previous research, and assumptions, about apes’ theory of mind abilities. Although we have more studies planned to determine whether great apes can really understand others’ false beliefs by imagining their perspectives, like humans do, the current results suggest they may have a richer appreciation of others’ minds than we previously thought.</p>
<p>Great apes didn’t just develop these skills this year, of course, but the use of novel eye-tracking techniques allowed us to probe the question in a new way. By using methods that for the first time assessed apes’ spontaneous predictions in a classic false belief scenario – with minimal demands on their other cognitive abilities – we were able to show that apes knew what was going to happen.</p>
<p>At the very least, in several different scenarios, these apes were able to correctly predict that an individual would search for an object where he falsely believed it to be. These findings raise the possibility that the capacity to understand others’ false beliefs may not be unique to humans after all. If apes do in fact possess this aspect of theory of mind, the implication is that most likely it was present in the last evolutionary ancestor that human beings shared with the other apes. By that metric, this core human skill – recognizing others’ false beliefs – would have evolved at least 13 to 18 million years before our own species <em>Homo sapiens</em> hit the scene.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66224/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Krupenye receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Realizing that others’ minds hold different thoughts, feelings and knowledge than your own was thought to be something only people could do. But evidence is accumulating that apes, too, have ‘theory of mind.’Christopher Krupenye, Assistant Research Professor, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/474832015-09-16T20:18:16Z2015-09-16T20:18:16ZIs there a moral centre in our brain?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94954/original/image-20150916-12006-r0re9f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some argue that morality is everywhere, or maybe nowhere, in our brain.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/teflon/3668600906/in/photolist-6AbxeL-kBdS-NmtYD-5QGr5p-3qMr37-6PBTLa-4KRqNx-6tS2ht-ahhwNe-ahkiLS-72XeR4-6LVvtc-6Aq37F-9Yv4rd-6Aq2tp-6LSb7g-6LWEif-auVHXh-4qW68f-6LS8o6-6LWso3-2XXHv-7HY1Gq-8eSs81-7FpvB4-8hnfn6-6LS1bi-8hneGF-8hr1Mo-8hnH96-8hqY29-7Jfrot-5RPtDq-te8NX-9C4UMc-k546xW-aBWqJa-7nNsCQ-fngz81-ot7ktg-ntYxg-dQMUfc-dDdfRK-dTJp8X-9EXYDj-fe7bb-zSEuU-2PHTP-nt82zX-ksx8SN">Martin Deutsch/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Making moral decisions is a complex process. We have to think about the consequences of our actions for ourselves (will I go to jail?), others (will this person suffer as a consequence of my decision?), and society at large (does society benefit from my choice?).</p>
<p>Depending on the situation, it involves brain regions linked to decision making, empathy, Theory of Mind (the ability to think about the mental states of others), memory, agency – or a combination of these. This has led some to argue that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470919.2011.569146#.VfdljRGqpBc">morality is everywhere and – maybe – nowhere in our brain</a>. </p>
<p>There’s no single region in the brain responsible for all moral decision making. Nor are there specific brain regions devoted only to this process. But <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1440.005/full">neuroscience research</a> shows that certain, specific brain regions are often involved when we’re faced with a moral dilemma.</p>
<h2>Here’s a dilemma</h2>
<p>A nice example of a moral dilemma is the well-known “<a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sLh4oBgJEtEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Rights,+Restitution,+and+Risk:+Essays,+in+Moral+Theory&ots=7IITO3tjvD&sig=T4_weYJxswA-VOeXvSvNACPWrdE#v=onepage&q=Rights%2C%20Restitution%2C%20and%20Risk%3A%20Essays%2C%20in%20Moral%20Theory&f=false">trolley problem</a>”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94936/original/image-20150916-29630-figaj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A person is confronted with a hypothetical life-or-death decision where a train is about to run over five people on a track. The person can turn a switch that will divert the train from the main track. This will save the five people on the track, but it will kill the person on the other track. </p>
<p>What would you do? Would you turn the switch and save five people but be responsible for the death of one person? Or, would you do nothing? Typically, <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/emo/12/2/364/">people choose to turn the switch</a> because sacrificing one life to save five others is the most rational decision.</p>
<p>But emotions also play an important role in moral decision making and this is demonstrated by a small variation in the trolley problem, the so-called “footbridge dilemma”. In this “emotional” version of the dilemma, a person has to push a stranger from a bridge and onto the track to stop the train and save the life of the five people on the track. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=688&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=688&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94937/original/image-20150916-29648-c20aps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=688&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The outcome is the same (one person is sacrificed to save five others) but the results typically show that, in this situation, <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/6/476.full.pdf+html">people are much less willing to intervene</a>. Imagine that person on the bridge is someone you love, for instance. In that case, it’s likely that nobody would be willing to sacrifice one life to save five others. </p>
<p>This shows that emotions, distance, and agency play important parts in moral decision making. Think of it this way: it’s easier to kill a person you hate from a distance with a gun than killing a person you love with your bare hands. </p>
<h2>The neuroscience of morality</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5537/2105.short">One of the first neuroimaging studies</a> investigating these moral dilemmas showed that in more rational, impersonal situations (such as the trolley problem) brain regions involved in abstract reasoning (such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) became more active. While in more emotional, personal situations (such as the footbridge dilemma) brain regions involved in emotional processing (such as the ventral medial prefrontal cortex) were more active. </p>
<p>But the problem with the trolley paradigm and similar moral dilemmas is that they’re hypothetical, artificial and unusual. In real life, moral decisions often have to be made quickly and implicitly. And these processes typically involve different brain regions than those involved in complex decision making.</p>
<p>To investigate moral situations in which people actually had to harm others in real life themselves, my research group <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.22527/full">recently conducted an fMRI experiment</a> in which people had to give electric shocks to others. Our results show more activation in both the left and right lateral orbitofrontal cortex when people were harming others. This is the part of the brain involved in <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438813000330">feelings of displeasure</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94945/original/image-20150916-29636-iqo3mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94945/original/image-20150916-29636-iqo3mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94945/original/image-20150916-29636-iqo3mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94945/original/image-20150916-29636-iqo3mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94945/original/image-20150916-29636-iqo3mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=657&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94945/original/image-20150916-29636-iqo3mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=657&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94945/original/image-20150916-29636-iqo3mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=657&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The left and right lateral orbitofrontal cortex was more active for shooting innocent civilians compared to shooting soldiers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interestingly, in <a href="http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/05/scan.nsv027.abstract">another fMRI experiment</a> we showed that these same regions become active when we kill an innocent person. But when we kill a soldier who attacks us, this regions doesn’t become active. </p>
<p>These results show that, depending on the situation, we can “switch off” brain regions that typically prevent us from harming others if we feel the situation justifies violence (when we have to defend our own life, for instance). </p>
<h2>Meting out justice</h2>
<p>Making moral decisions about the actions of others or so called third-party punishment is also relevant for the legal system. The relevant questions here are: how severe is the harm caused? and, was it done intentionally? </p>
<p>If a person drives his car off the road but nobody is harmed, then, typically, no punishment is given. But when a person is accidentally killed during the process, this can lead to an involuntary manslaughter charge. Depending on the circumstances, a mild or severe punishment is given in this situation. However, when the person intentionally kills another person with their car, the charge becomes murder, and the punishment is much more severe. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94947/original/image-20150916-29639-1tbslvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94947/original/image-20150916-29639-1tbslvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94947/original/image-20150916-29639-1tbslvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94947/original/image-20150916-29639-1tbslvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94947/original/image-20150916-29639-1tbslvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94947/original/image-20150916-29639-1tbslvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94947/original/image-20150916-29639-1tbslvd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=713&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is involved in deciding if a person is responsible for the criminal behaviour or not.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627308008891">Previous fMRI research</a> has shown that when we have to decide if a person is responsible for his or her actions, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is involved. </p>
<p>Now, <a href="http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(15)00717-5">new research from the same authors</a>, published today in the journal Neuron, shows that when you disrupt this region using a non-invasive brain stimulation technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), people give less severe punishments to the perpetrator. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94949/original/image-20150916-29620-1qae5fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94949/original/image-20150916-29620-1qae5fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94949/original/image-20150916-29620-1qae5fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94949/original/image-20150916-29620-1qae5fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94949/original/image-20150916-29620-1qae5fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94949/original/image-20150916-29620-1qae5fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94949/original/image-20150916-29620-1qae5fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with TMS leads to less severe punishments.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Detailed analysis shows the disruption in their dorsolateral prefrontal cortex caused people in the experiment to base their punishment decisions more on the consequences of the crime rather than on the intentions. The findings suggest this part of the brain plays a critical role in balancing information about intent and harm, to enable appropriate punishment decisions. </p>
<p>The authors of the paper say this brain region has undergone significant expansion in humans, compared to other apes. They suggest this is one of the reasons why human society has evolved such a complex system of norm enforcement. </p>
<p>These new results provide important insights into how specific parts of our brain play a critical role in deciding the fate of others. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Pascal will be on hand for an Author Q&A between 4 and 5pm AEST on Thursday, September 17, 2015. Post your questions in the comments section below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47483/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pascal Molenberghs receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC Discovery Grant (DP130100559) and ARC Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE130100120)) and Heart Foundation (Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (1000458)).</span></em></p>There’s no single region in the brain responsible for all moral decision making. But neuroscience research has shown specific brain regions are involved when we’re faced with moral dilemmas.Pascal Molenberghs, Senior Lecturer in Social Neuroscience, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/311422014-09-02T11:45:03Z2014-09-02T11:45:03ZNow we know why it’s so hard to deceive children<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57892/original/qpnh9hv9-1409582950.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not so easy to beat me.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arichards-gallery/11164177786/">arichards-gallery</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Daily interactions require bargaining, be it for food, money or even making plans. These situations inevitably lead to a conflict of interest as both parties seek to maximise their gains. To deal with them, we need to understand the other person’s intentions, beliefs and desires and then use that to inform our bargaining strategy. </p>
<p>New research published just in the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/08/27/1403283111.abstract">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a> suggests that this skill develops remarkably early in childhood, as early as age seven.</p>
<h2>Understanding minds</h2>
<p><a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7131588&fileId=S0140525X00076512">Theory of mind</a>, or ToM, is the intuitive understanding of one’s own and other people’s minds. By understanding that other people can have thoughts different from our own, it enables us to infer what they are thinking. And because people act on their intentions and desires, we can use this to predict their behaviour. For example, if your friend leaves the house with an umbrella, we understand that it is because she thinks it will rain.</p>
<p>This skill underpins almost every social interaction. Notably it is thought to be one of the key abilities that is <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010027785900228">absent in autism</a>.</p>
<p>A crucial test of this theory is the ability to attribute false beliefs to others. For example, if a child was to tell you that she is putting her tooth under the pillow for the tooth fairy, although you know that the tooth fairy does not exist, you understand that her behaviour is being driven by the mistaken belief that it does.</p>
<p>Children start learning some of these skills needed to spot false beliefs quite early in life. For example, some two-year-olds seem to have an understanding that their thoughts can be <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/94/4/412/">different from the state of reality</a>, as shown through pretend play, which starts to develop around this time. Similarly, it seems three-year-olds have an awareness that thoughts exist. For example, they understand mental entities have different properties to physical ones – that is, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065240708604127">you can’t touch a dream</a>. But the ability to attribute false beliefs to another person does not develop till children are older than four.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57898/original/jmj5sym5-1409585245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57898/original/jmj5sym5-1409585245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57898/original/jmj5sym5-1409585245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57898/original/jmj5sym5-1409585245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57898/original/jmj5sym5-1409585245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57898/original/jmj5sym5-1409585245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57898/original/jmj5sym5-1409585245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">No cheating!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tocaboca/5523596357">tocaboca</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1983, psychologists tried to test these skills through a simple experiment. In one version, a puppet named Maxi puts a chocolate in a cupboard and leaves the room. The experimenter moves the chocolate to a new location and asks the child where Maxi will look for it when he comes back. Three-year-olds ascribe their own belief about where the chocolate is to Maxi, telling the experimenter that Maxi will look in the new location. Four-year-olds, in contrast, are able to understand that Maxi will look where he left the chocolate – in the cupboard.</p>
<p>This is one of the most robust, and fundamental milestones in early cognition. Interestingly, it also explains why three-year-olds are <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NGFnIMle4yYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=deception+AND+lie+AND+lewis&ots=uCO0P_Qmu2&sig=eW8IJMRY9UR4j-7PCCq0mDXu-EU#v=onepage&q=deception%20AND%20lie%20AND%20lewis&f=false">terrible liars</a>. You can’t deceive if you don’t have a theory of mind.</p>
<h2>Strategic theory of mind</h2>
<p>While we know there are significant developments in their understanding of such skills between the ages of three and four, we know little about how it develops in older children. Also, given its importance in deception, little research has looked at theory of mind’s role in strategic thinking and bargaining.</p>
<p>The new study looks at children’s ability to combine theory of mind with strategic thinking, which the researchers call “strategic theory of mind”. This addition involves understanding not just beliefs, desires and intentions but adding a layer of why people may have them. This additional layer involves incentives and is best illustrated by an example.</p>
<p>Suppose John has an incentive to lie to his wife, Mary, about where he went last night. Similarly, Mary knows that John will lie so she will not believe him. However, John conducts the same reasoning process and decides that Mary will know he is lying. Therefore, he concludes from this that he is better off telling the truth.</p>
<p>The study wanted to test this ability in a group of three to eight-year-olds as well as adults in a competitive environment. Children played games covering two prevalent aspects of social interaction – competition and deception.</p>
<p>In the first game, a child and an experimenter selected between one and five stickers. Whoever selected fewer stickers got to keep all the stickers, while the other player received nothing. If both players selected the same number, neither kept any stickers. Interestingly, they found that most children younger than four years couldn’t help taking five stickers, even though this strategy always lead to a loss. In contrast, seven-year-olds chose the optimal strategy of choosing one or two stickers, similar to adults.</p>
<p>The other game involved one player, a sender, communicating to the other, a receiver, about the location of a sweet by pointing at one of two boxes. If the receiver correctly guessed the location, they kept the sweet, and otherwise the sender kept it, giving the sender a potential incentive to deceive. They found that when those older than age seven played the sender, they used a highly sophisticated strategy used by adults. They were mainly deceitful, but with occasional acts of honesty to ensure the experimenter did not always select the other box.</p>
<h2>Seven, the magic number</h2>
<p>Why does this skill emerge at age seven? Could it be that what is developing is children’s increasing ability to suppress unhelpful responses? </p>
<p>Young children are <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06236.x/abstract">remarkably bad</a> at suppressing the urge to say or do something they want when it is not appropriate or helpful to do so. For example, it could be that children perform badly because the thought of the sticker or sweet that they want overrides their ability to think strategically. This would explain why younger children can’t help but grab all the stickers, and why they can’t help pointing to the box with the sweet despite this meaning they lose them. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312000773">Research has shown</a> this is an important factor in children’s ability to play strategic games.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57889/original/jmk9qh8b-1409582302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57889/original/jmk9qh8b-1409582302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57889/original/jmk9qh8b-1409582302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57889/original/jmk9qh8b-1409582302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57889/original/jmk9qh8b-1409582302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57889/original/jmk9qh8b-1409582302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57889/original/jmk9qh8b-1409582302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/101651382">lwr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The lead author of the paper, Itai Sher at the University of Minnesota, said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We think that for the oldest children, the decisions are explained by forward-looking behaviour. In both the stickers game and the sender-receiver game, children appear to perform a greater number of steps of recursive thinking as they age.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another possibility is that children’s <a href="http://www.york.ac.uk/res/wml/Classroom%20guide.pdf">working memory</a> helps performance on the task. This cognitive skill allows children to keep in mind goals and information. The skill would be crucial for remembering the rules of the game and keeping track of the other person’s behaviours. </p>
<p>In line with this, the researchers found that children with better working memory were more likely to use sophisticated strategies on the stickers game. They also found that working memory significantly developed between the ages of six and seven. The next steps, Sher suggested, will be to identify why this skill suddenly emerges at age seven and how working memory relates to this important skill.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31142/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Blakey receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Wellcome Trust.</span></em></p>Daily interactions require bargaining, be it for food, money or even making plans. These situations inevitably lead to a conflict of interest as both parties seek to maximise their gains. To deal with…Emma Blakey, PhD researcher in developmental psychology, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.