# data[].attributes.body
Empty Key Reading Seminar
Empty
Key Reading Seminar 2 
Key Reading Seminar 2
padlet
Group 14 Aim 4
Group 14 Aim 4 
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

would have more errors in hidden tasks in younger children. 

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

Significant interaction in 8yo between common ground and tasks, but 10yo there wasn’t an interaction between common ground. 

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

The first experiment showed significant interaction between age and common ground, and task version. The second experiment showed a small effect, and no significant interaction between age and common ground size. 
 
What can we conclude from these two experiments?

8 year olds are more affected by memory demands than 10 year olds, potentially because they do not have the executive function that 10 year olds do in order to help them with memory tasks. 

Group 14 Aim 3
Group 14 Aim 3 
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

Significant of common grou
Empty
Key Reading Seminar 2 
Key Reading Seminar 2
padlet
Group 14 Aim 4
Group 14 Aim 4 
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

would have more errors in hidden tasks in younger children. 

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

Significant interaction in 8yo between common ground and tasks, but 10yo there wasn’t an interaction between common ground. 

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

The first experiment showed significant interaction between age and common ground, and task version. The second experiment showed a small effect, and no significant interaction between age and common ground size. 
 
What can we conclude from these two experiments?

8 year olds are more affected by memory demands than 10 year olds, potentially because they do not have the executive function that 10 year olds do in order to help them with memory tasks. 

Group 14 Aim 3
Group 14 Aim 3 
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

Significant of common ground and magnitude, independent of age. Main effect of task version independent of age.  

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

Significant main effect of common ground magnitude in experiment 1 and 2. 

Group 13 Aim 1
Group 13 Aim 1
2 x 2 x 3 mixed design. 
Age x Task Version x magnitude mixed ANOVA.
Between-participant factors = age and task version. 
Within-participant factors = magnitude of common ground. 

The control condition was removed from the final structure of the ANOVA because mean proportions for all age groups in all task versions were below .005 - didn't make sense to include in ANOVA.

AIM 2
The only difference between the two task versions was that there was extra memory load in the hidden perspective task version.
Errors increased meaning that children tend to be more egocentric when dealing with a larger memory load. 
Children are less successful at accommodating a speaker’s limited perspective in communication when there was a greater amount of common ground info. 
The cognitive demand of managing common ground size constrains people’s ability to use another’s perspective to guide communication. 

Age range:
Before 8, they don’t have theory of mind. 
Between 8 and 10, there is a significant increase in theory of mind use in the director task.
Group 14 Aim 2
Group 14 Aim 2
Questions to address:

Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

Not to do with misunderstanding the task (shown in the first phase where their understanding was checked), younger children don’t have executive function to perform memory strategies unlike 10-year-olds

Why did the researchers pick this age range? 

Wanted sample that had theory of mind, wanted to measure working memory constraints. Between 8 and 10, they already have the full range of theory of mind abilities. Are roughly similar in cognitive development, so can be sure that the changes seen are to do with age related change as opposed to differences in cognitive development for example. 

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

Decreases with age, unless there is a heavier memory load. Overall findings provide some evidence for age related development, but 10-year-olds use strategies to remember. 

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? 

The results are roughly similar, the greater the common ground, the more egocentric errors were made. In the second experiment, the 10-year-olds may have used more strategic tasks to help them remember the results. Heavier memory load in experiment 2, caused a change in results. 

Only differences between the two is that both are affected by common ground objects, and the 10-year-olds use strategies to remember, whereas children do not. 

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

Experiment 1 results are consistent with Dumontheil et al. (2010). 

 


s)
s)
Group 2 Aim 4
Group 2 Aim 4
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true? An indirect proportional relationship between memory and egocentric errors as with memory improvements there are less egocentric errors made.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern? Common ground magnitude as it is associated with memory load and is a memory demand task

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2? There were such effects as 10 year olds outperformed 8 year olds, this effect was significant in experiment 1 but not significant in experiment 2

What can we conclude from these two experiments? More egocentric errors were made when memory load was high and the older children generally than the younger children

Group 8 Aim 4
Group 8 Aim 4
- As age increases, egocentric errors decrease. 
- Age effects
- Significant effect in experiment 1 but marginal in experiment 2
- If the child has more information of what's shared between them and the speaker, they make less egocentric errors. Therefore, when speaking to young children, highlighting what's shared and what's not would allow them to understand the speaker's perspective even better.
Group 12 All
Group 12 All
These questions are the same for both experiments (so you only need to consider one of them!):
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?
Accuracy & Response time & Number of egocentric errors

What are the two between-subject variables?
1) Hidden perspective or visible perspective (Task version)
 2) 8- or 10 year olds (Age)

What are the two within-subject variables?
1) Experiment or control (condition)
 2) 3, 5 or 7 common ground objects (magnitude)

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?
‘In the control condition, the mean proportions ego-centric errors for each age group in each task version all were below .005. Due to the floor level of pro-portion egocentric errors in the control condition and the unequal variance between the experimentaland control conditions, it was very questionable to include the factor of condition (experimental orcontrol) in an omnibus analysis.’

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA
2(Age) x 2 (task version) x 3 (magnitude) MIXED ANOVA

 
Aim 2 – Discuss (in 10 minutes) how the experimental design in Zhao et al. (2018) enables us to examine age-related change in communication, and consider what the results demonstrate.
Questions to address:

Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?
They do not lack the underlying concepts as they are able to do it with a lower amount of objects and they do understand the task as they were tested before hand to make sure whether they do. It is likely due to difference in working memory.

Why did the researchers pick this age range? 
1) Children in this age rage are believed to have the full range of basic theory of mind concepts
 2) Previous studies have shown robust age-related changes in performance on the director task across this age range.

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?       
 “A significant main effect of age was observed,F(1, 92) = 9.314,p= .003,gp2= .092, with 10-year-olds outperforming 8-year-olds.” – experiment 1
 A marginally significant main effect of age was also observed,F(1, 129) = 3.489,p= .064,gp2= .026. In general, 10-year-olds showed a tendency to out perform 8-year-olds, but this tendency did not reach statistical significance. – Experiment 2

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? 
They are different in the two experiment 

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?
The results are inconsistent with that of Dumontheil et al., (2010)
 ‘Second, previous studies (Dumontheil et al., 2010; Symeonidou et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016) have shown robust age-related changes in performance on the director task across this age range.’

 

 

Aim 3 - Discuss how the experimental design enables us to examine effects of memory, and consider what the results demonstrate.
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?
“There was a significant main effect of common ground magnitude,F(2, 184) = 14.026,p< .001,gp2= .132, with a significant linear trend only,F(1, 92) = 21.568,p< .001,gp2= .190 (the quadratic trendwas not significant,p= .116” 
 “ A significant main effect of taskversion was also observed,F(1, 92) = 4.133,p= .045,gp2= .043, with children committing higher ratesof egocentric errors in the hidden perspective version than in the visible perspective version.”

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?
8yo found a systematic effect of common ground in the visible and hidden. But no effect for 10yo in visible or hidden.

 

 

Aim 4 – Discuss how the experimental design enables us to examine whether improving memory accounts for age-related changes in communication. 
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?
Conceptually, you would see that as age increases then the amount of egocentric errors that occur decrease. Maybe it plateaus around 20s and then decreases. 

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?
 The main effects of age

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?
Effects of age in experiment 1 were significant, but in experiment 2 are not significant.
 
 

What can we conclude from these two experiments?
Effect of cognitive task load/memory load and the higher the age the less mistakes they make in general. 


Group 14 Aim 1
Group 14 Aim 1
Aim 1: These questions are the same for both experiments (so you only need to consider one of them!):
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?
Number of egocentric errors, response time and accuracy. 
What are the two between-subject variables?
Hidden perspective or visible perspective and age. 
What are the two within-subject variables?
Experimental control, common ground. 
The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?
Excluded control as a variable as there were inequal variance between experimental and control. 
What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA
Initial design: 2(task version)*2(age)*2(condition)*3(level of common ground)
Final analysis: 2(task version)*2(age)*3(level of common ground)
Group 2 Aim 3
Group 2 Aim 3
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)? Common ground magnitude as the more objects they had to report the higher the memory load and this resulted in higher egocentric error rates

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2? There was in experiment 1 and in experiment 2 

GROUP 1 AIM 3
GROUP 1 AIM 3
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

-          Main effect of visible and hidden, and main effect of common ground shows memory influences irrespective of age.

-          Children in general make more egocentric errors when there is an increase of memory demand. Egocentric errors in the hidden condition increase as number of items in common ground increase.

-          In experiment 2 when total number of objects are kept constant, size of common ground still systematically affected perspective taking.

-          Slightly more errors in 8 year olds, but not significant difference.

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

-          In both experiments = significant main effects of task version, and significant main effects of magnitude which demonstrates children are more likely to select the distractor when memory is challenged than when memory demands are not present.

Group 14
Group 14
Group 3- Aim 4
Group 3- Aim 4 
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

·         Memory demands would maybe hit an optimal level- as you increase in age, the ability to take on another person’s perspective would increase and decrease your egocentric errors but as you get to a certain age this ability will reach its optimal level and plateau.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

·         The interaction between age and task condition (memory demand tasks)

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

·         There was an interaction between age and hidden perspective condition in experiment 1 

·         Also an interaction between age and common ground magnitude- younger children more susceptible to this effect in experiment 1 

·         But these effects decreased in experiment 2 

What can we conclude from these two experiments?

·         The memory demands that come with the hidden perspective condition have a bigger effect on the 8 year olds in their ability to recognise the speakers ability. 

GROUP 9 AIM 4
GROUP 9 AIM 4
o   There would be more egocentric errors when the memory demand increases e.g. hidden task or increased common ground, but there is also an interaction of this with age. E.g. so younger children show more egocentric errors than older children. 

o   Interaction between age and task AND interaction between age and common ground size

o  Experiment 1: significant interaction between age and task, and between age and common ground size.

o   Experiment 2: only a marginally significant interaction between age and task. For age and common ground size there was no significant interaction.

o   There is no clear evidence that the differences in memory (between the 2 age groups- as a result of the hidden perspective task) accounts for the different in egocentric error, as the 2 experiments produced different results. 
Group 3- Aim 3
Group 3- Aim 3 
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

·         Common ground magnitude 

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

·         More egocentric errors when it is hidden perspective condition in both experiments and more errors when the common ground magnitude is increased. 

Group 7 Aim 3
Group 7 Aim 3
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

 

Common ground and hidden perspective require memory. There were more egocentric errors when more objects were in the common ground. 

 

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

 

Yes because more egocentric errors were made when there were more objects in the common ground (magnitude) and with the hidden perspective.

In experiment 2 there was less memory demand as the objects in the common ground were kept the same however, there was still an effect of memory due to the task version.

Group 3- Aim 1
Group 3- Aim 1 
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?

·         Dependent variable=  they were measuring children’s accurate ability to recognise another speakers perspective. So the children will identify or move the right object that the director can see, from the director’s perspective. 

 

What are the two between-subject variables?

·         Age and Task version (Hidden vs Visible)

What are the two within-subject variables?

·         Both groups took part in the Experimental condition and the Control condition and the Magnitude of Common ground.  

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?

·         Because the experimental trials was the condition that actually tested children’s ability to recognise the director’s perspective as there was a memory demand and they had to. The control trials did not measure this and could have been too easy for participants- a lot of people had high scores- little variation in scores in this trial. 

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA

·         The final ANOVA was 2 x 2 x 3 mixed ANOVA 

·         Factors were=  Task version e.g hidden or visible, 8 vs 10 year olds and the common ground magnitude e.g 3, 5, 7 objects 

Group 6 Aim 2
Group 6 Aim 2
children not able to employ the appropriate memory strategies and not as large memory capacity

Why did the researchers pick this age range? children this age thought to have full range of basic theory of mind concepts also previous studied have shown robust age-related changes in performance on director task across this age range

Main effects of age: Exp 1 = significant - 10yo made less egocentric errors than 8yo
Exp 2 = not significant but same effects found - 10yo tend to outperform 8yo

Effect was smaller and non significant in exp 2

Results are consistent with the previous findings of Dumontheil et al - children's ability to use others mental states continues to grow over time as they develop ToM.

Group 4 Aim 4
Group 4 Aim 4
More egocentric errors amongst 8-year-olds and when memory demands were high. 

Age and common ground size test for this pattern. This is true for both experiments. 

Significant interaction for both experiment 1. Experiment 2 showed significant interaction for age and task, not age and common ground size. 

Egocentric errors decrease with age Memory demands have a bigger effect on 8-year-olds. Age related improvement may not be due to increased memory capacity. 

GROUP 9 AIM 3
GROUP 9 AIM 3
o   Hidden perspective and magnitude 

o   Yes, because more egocentric errors with the hidden perspective AND for the magnitude there is more errors when common ground is increased 

Group 2 Aim 2
Group 2 Aim 2
Why are children making errors on this task? There was high memory load, the 10 year olds could handle it better than the 8 year olds.   Do they lack the underlying concepts? They don’t lack the underlying concepts because 8 to 10 year olds were chosen because there is evidence that by that age they can understand the concept. Do they not understand the task? They checked for comprehension in the instruction phase of the director’s task so they do understand the task. Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy? 8 year olds have more difficulty than 10 year olds

Why did the researchers pick this age range? Because previous research has shown that within that age range that they can understand the concept

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments? There was a main effect of common ground magnitude where 8 year olds made more egocentric errors when the common ground magnitude exist

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? They are the same but in experiment 1 there was more of a significant difference

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)? It is consistent with the results in this study, as they found that children’s ability to accommodate to the speakers perspective. In this study we see that there is development from the ages 8 to 10.




Group 4 Aim 3
Group 4 Aim 3
Common ground and hidden perspective place a demand on memory. More objects on common ground meant more egocentric errors. 

More egocentric errors when hidden in both experiments, but not statistically significant in experiment 2. 

Group 3- Aim 2
Group 3- Aim 2 
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

·         The 8 year olds may be making these mistakes as they have not yet developed these cognitive abilities to help their perspective taking.  Also children in the hidden task are expected to encode and retain the information of where the objects are- which is an increased memory demand compared to the visible task. Also is harder when there is increased number of objects (e.g in second study). 

·         Memory capacity/ memory demands. 

Why did the researchers pick this age range? 

·         As they wanted to see age related development/improvement, this age range was tested before in previous studies and this in this research their findings could be extended to see whether this development can improve in such a short age range. 

·         Age related improvements in this age range has already been shown 

·         At this age they should have acquired all these theory of mind processed 

·         Compare the two age ranges 

·         Also 8 year olds will act more egocentric than the 10 year olds. 

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

·         Experiment 1= 10 year olds made less egocentric errors than 8 year olds

·         Experiment 2= 10 years olds made less egocentric errors in the hidden perspective than the visible than 8 year olds 

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? 

·         The effect was smaller in Experiment 2 

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

·         The study does support the findings as Dumontheil found that there is age related improvements and development throughout childhood and adolescence in perspective taking. Also it also supports that egocentric errors can still occur even when children are older and have theory of mind processes. 

Group 11 - Aim 1
Group 11 - Aim 1
DV: number of egocentric errors - which is when children selected a distractor object from the priviledged ground instead of the object from the common ground.

Between-subjects variables: Age (8 or 10) and task version (hidden or visible)

Within-subjects variables: Condition (experimental or contol) and magnitude of common ground (3, 5 or 7 shared objects)

Why not control trials: floor level proportion of egocentric errors and unequal variance between experimental and control.

Final ANOVA:  2(age) x 2(task version) x 3 (common ground magnitude) 
Group 5 Aim 4
Group 5 Aim 4
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

More egocentric errors when memory demands were high but there were more errors in the 8 year olds. 

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

The interaction between age and task, and the interaction between age and common ground size.

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

In experiment 1, there was a significant interaction between age and task, and for age and common ground size. In experiment 2, there was only a marginally significant interaction between age and task, and for age and common ground size there was no significant interaction.

What can we conclude from these two experiments?

Increased memory demands as a result of hidden perspective task influence 8yos and 10yos differently. However, the confounding variables associated with common ground size occlude conclusions on the degree of its effect on age-related improvements.
Group 4 Aim 2
Group 4 Aim 2
Mixed research. ToM develop between 2-7. Even adults do not have a full understanding of ToM. Children do not tend to be as good at taking the perspective of others. 

This age range (8-10) full range of basic ToM concepts. Previous studies showed robust age-related changes. 

Older children are better at the task than younger children. The affects of age were less in experiment 2, where 10-year-olds outperformed 8-year-olds. 
Dumontheil et al. (2010) showed consistent findings, with 10-year-olds outperforming 8-year-olds. 
Group 1 AIM 1
Group 1 AIM 1
Experiment one
 
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?

-          Number of egocentric errors

What are the two between-subject variables?

-          Age and task

What are the two within-subject variables?

-          magnitude and control/experimental conditions

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?

-          control condition was not analysed due to “unequal variance between experimental and control conditions”

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA

-          2x2x2x3 mixed ANOVA – 2(age 8-10) x 2 (task – hidden or visible) x 2 (experimental or control) x 3 (magnitude 3, 5, 7 objects)

***** NOTE FROM TA - 
The final structure was 2(age)*2(Hidden vs Visible perspective)*3(magnitude/number of objects) mixed ANOVA


Group 1 AIM 2
Group 1 AIM 2
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

-          Errors are not due to lack of fundamental understanding of theory of mind, but due to not always applying perspective taking appropriately. The egocentric errors are in part due to memory demands.

-          Children do understand the task as they pass an initial “comprehension check”

-          It is also possible children are making errors due to the salience of certain objects presented

Why did the researchers pick this age range? 

-          by 8 years old typically have a full understanding of theory of mind

-          previous research demonstrates robust changes in performances between 8 and 10 year olds

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

-          Experiment 1 significant main effect of age, 10 year olds outperform 8 year olds

-          Experiment 2 less pronounced 

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? 

-           Although significant in experiment 1, in experiment 2 though 10-year-olds showed a tendency to outperform 8-year-olds, this tendency did not reach statistical significance.

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

-          Results are consistent with Dumontheil et al 2010 suggesting ability to use other people’s mental state continues to develop beyond acquiring Theory of Mind as also requires holding perspective information in mind and using it appropriately for communication.

Group 7 - Aim 2
Group 7 - Aim 2
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

 

Children don’t lack understanding as 8–10-year-olds have been shown to understand basic concepts of theory of mind. Children perform more egocentrically when under the memory load. 

Memory partially accounts for age related improvements in perspective performance.

 

Why did the researchers pick this age range? 

 

Children at this age are believed to have the full range of basic theory of mind concepts.

Previous studies have shown robust age-related changes in performance on the director task at the age range of 8 - 10-year-olds.

 

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

 

Decreasing egocentric error rate with age. 

 

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? 

 

Experiment 2 had no interaction between age and common ground whereas, experiment 1 did show an interaction.

 

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

 

It is consistent with previous studies.

GROUP 9
GROUP 9 
DV: egocentric errors

Between subject variables: Age and task version 

Within subject variable: Condition and magnitude of common ground

The use of the directors perspective was not a prerequisite for correctly selecting the target referent 

Task x age x magnitude (2x2x3)

For the above floor, it is unclear if it was poor understanding or included by the cognitive demanding nature of the nature of the current experimental manipulation

8-10 they develop a theory of mind 

yes there are main effects- but they are not the same because one is significant and the other is only marginally significant 

consistent with Dumontheil: because the results from Experiment 1 demonstrated that 10-year-olds outperformed 8-year-olds 
Group 5 Aim 3
Group 5 Aim 3
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

Common ground and hidden perspective as they both place an additional memory demand.

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

Yes, there are more egocentric errors when it is a hidden perspective in both experiments. Further, there are more errors when the common ground magnitude is increased.


Group 6
Group 6
Aim 1
Dv: egocentric erros

between subjects variables: age and task version

within subjects variables:  condition and magnitude of common ground objects 

the authors only analysed data from the exp trials because there was unequal variance between the conditions

2(age) X 2(hidden perspective and visible perspective) X 2( control or exp) X 3(common ground objects: 3, 5, 7)
mixed anova 

*** Note from TA - The FINAL structure was a mixed ANOVA
2(age)*2(Hidden vs Visible perspective)*3(magnitude/number of objects) 

Group 5 Aim 2
Group 5 Aim 2
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?  

They don’t lack underlying concepts of ToT as they are 8-10. They do understand the task as did comprehension test. Related to common ground magnitude (it is assumed that listeners work on the basis of common ground to interpret a speaker’s message) – however, possible confounding variables (overall array size/complexity, and strategic use in 10yos) – however, when confounding variable controlled for in Exp 2, there was no interaction between common ground size and egocentric errors, so it may be that increasing common ground size might influence younger children’s perspective-taking performance more strongly by placing an additional demand on their rather limited executive function capacities.

Why did the researchers pick this age range? 

8-10-year-olds have full ToM concepts at these ages. Furthermore, research showed robust age-related changes in performance on the director task across this age range

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

Exp 1 = F(1, 92) = 9.314, p = .003, n2p = .092  (w/ 10yos outperforming 8yos)

Exp 2 = F(1, 129) = 3.489, p = .064, n2p = .026  (10yos tended to outperform 8yos, but this tendency did not reach statistical significance)

 

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? 

The two experiments are not the same. Because the main effect in experiment 1 is significant and large while in experiment 2 it was not significant.

 

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

Experiment 1 is consistent with the study as it showed that 10 year olds outperformed 8 year olds thus it suggest age related improvement. Experiment 2 is consistent with the study as it suggests age related improvement, but it is not significant. 

Group 4 Aim 1
Group 4 Aim 1
DV: Egocentric errors.

Between subject variables: Age and task version (hidden perspective (visual cues (e.g., coloured background) removed) or visible perspective version). 

Within subject variable: Condition (experimental vs. control) and magnitude of common ground (how many items were available for Sally and participants, 3, 5, 7, 9). 

Lots of egocentric errors made in the control group. Unequal variance between conditions. 

Final structure: Age*Task version*Common ground magnitude, mixed ANOVA. 

Group 2 Aim 1
Group 2 Aim 1
What is the dependent variable? The children’s performance on the director task; response time and accuracy

What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable? Children were either in a hidden perspective version or visible perspective version and the hidden one relied more on memory. They would have to report how many objects Sally could or couldn't see

What are the two between-subject variables? Experimental vs control and 8 or 10 years old

What are the two within-subject variables? Hidden or visible and magnitude of common ground

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why? In the control trial practically everyone performed well with very little variation so an analysis wasn’t need

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA
 A 2x2x2x3 mixed design was constructed with age (8 or 10 year olds), task version (hidden perspective or visible perspective), between-participants factors and conditions (experimental vs control) and magnitude of common ground (3, 5 or 7 common ground objects referred to as magnitude)

*****NB NOTE FROM TA - 
MIXED ANOVA 2(age)*2(Hidden vs Visible perspective)*3(magnitude/number of objects) 





Group 8 Aim 2
Group 8 Aim 2

Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?
 
Younger children do not lack the underlying concepts, but they struggle to perform to a high accuracy due to problems with keeping the differing perspective in memory, older children become for efficient

Why did the researchers pick this age range? 

8-10 y/o's have the capacity for ToM but there are clear differences in performance between them on this task, which needed to be examined

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the t

# data[].attributes.body
Empty
Key Reading Seminar 2 
Key Reading Seminar 2
padlet
Group 14 Aim 4
Group 14 Aim 4 
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

would have more errors in hidden tasks in younger children. 

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

Significant interaction in 8yo between common ground and tasks, but 10yo there wasn’t an interaction between common ground. 

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

The first experiment showed significant interaction between age and common ground, and task version. The second experiment showed a small effect, and no significant interaction between age and common ground size. 
 
What can we conclude from these two experiments?

8 year olds are more affected by memory demands than 10 year olds, potentially because they do not have the executive function that 10 year olds do in order to help them with memory tasks. 

Group 14 Aim 3
Group 14 Aim 3 
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

Significant of common grou

# data[].attributes.body
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

would have more errors in hidden tasks in younger children.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

Significant interaction in 8yo between common ground and tasks, but 10yo there wasn’t an interaction between common ground.

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

The first experiment showed significant interaction between age and common ground, and task version. The second experiment showed a small effect, and no significant interaction between age and common ground size.

What can we conclude from these two experiments?

8 year olds are more affected by memory demands than 10 year olds, potentially because they do not have the executive function that 10 year olds do in order to help them with memory tasks.

# data[].attributes.body
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

Significant of common ground and magnitude, independent of age. Main effect of task version independent of age.

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

Significant main effect of common ground magnitude in experiment 1 and 2.

# data[].attributes.body
2 x 2 x 3 mixed design.

Age x Task Version x magnitude mixed ANOVA.

Between-participant factors = age and task version.

Within-participant factors = magnitude of common ground.

The control condition was removed from the final structure of the ANOVA because mean proportions for all age groups in all task versions were below .005 - didn't make sense to include in ANOVA.

AIM 2
The only difference between the two task versions was that there was extra memory load in the hidden perspective task version.
Errors increased meaning that children tend to be more egocentric when dealing with a larger memory load.
Children are less successful at accommodating a speaker’s limited perspective in communication when there was a greater amount of common ground info.
The cognitive demand of managing common ground size constrains people’s ability to use another’s perspective to guide communication.

Age range:
Before 8, they don’t have theory of mind.
Between 8 and 10, there is a significant increase in theory of mind use in the director task.

# data[].attributes.body
Questions to address:

Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

Not to do with misunderstanding the task (shown in the first phase where their understanding was checked), younger children don’t have executive function to perform memory strategies unlike 10-year-olds

Why did the researchers pick this age range?

Wanted sample that had theory of mind, wanted to measure working memory constraints. Between 8 and 10, they already have the full range of theory of mind abilities. Are roughly similar in cognitive development, so can be sure that the changes seen are to do with age related change as opposed to differences in cognitive development for example.

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

Decreases with age, unless there is a heavier memory load. Overall findings provide some evidence for age related development, but 10-year-olds use strategies to remember.

Are they the same/different in the two experiments?

The results are roughly similar, the greater the common ground, the more egocentric errors were made. In the second experiment, the 10-year-olds may have used more strategic tasks to help them remember the results. Heavier memory load in experiment 2, caused a change in results.

Only differences between the two is that both are affected by common ground objects, and the 10-year-olds use strategies to remember, whereas children do not.

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

Experiment 1 results are consistent with Dumontheil et al. (2010).

# data[].attributes.body
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true? An indirect proportional relationship between memory and egocentric errors as with memory improvements there are less egocentric errors made.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern? Common ground magnitude as it is associated with memory load and is a memory demand task

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2? There were such effects as 10 year olds outperformed 8 year olds, this effect was significant in experiment 1 but not significant in experiment 2

What can we conclude from these two experiments? More egocentric errors were made when memory load was high and the older children generally than the younger children

# data[].attributes.body
- As age increases, egocentric errors decrease.
- Age effects
- Significant effect in experiment 1 but marginal in experiment 2
- If the child has more information of what's shared between them and the speaker, they make less egocentric errors. Therefore, when speaking to young children, highlighting what's shared and what's not would allow them to understand the speaker's perspective even better.

# data[].attributes.body
These questions are the same for both experiments (so you only need to consider one of them!):

What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?
Accuracy & Response time & Number of egocentric errors

What are the two between-subject variables?
1) Hidden perspective or visible perspective (Task version)
2) 8- or 10 year olds (Age)

What are the two within-subject variables?
1) Experiment or control (condition)
2) 3, 5 or 7 common ground objects (magnitude)

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?
‘In the control condition, the mean proportions ego-centric errors for each age group in each task version all were below .005. Due to the floor level of pro-portion egocentric errors in the control condition and the unequal variance between the experimentaland control conditions, it was very questionable to include the factor of condition (experimental orcontrol) in an omnibus analysis.’

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA
2(Age) x 2 (task version) x 3 (magnitude) MIXED ANOVA

Aim 2 – Discuss (in 10 minutes) how the experimental design in Zhao et al. (2018) enables us to examine age-related change in communication, and consider what the results demonstrate.

Questions to address:

Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?
They do not lack the underlying concepts as they are able to do it with a lower amount of objects and they do understand the task as they were tested before hand to make sure whether they do. It is likely due to difference in working memory.

Why did the researchers pick this age range?
1) Children in this age rage are believed to have the full range of basic theory of mind concepts
2) Previous studies have shown robust age-related changes in performance on the director task across this age range.

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?
“A significant main effect of age was observed,F(1, 92) = 9.314,p= .003,gp2= .092, with 10-year-olds outperforming 8-year-olds.” – experiment 1
A marginally significant main effect of age was also observed,F(1, 129) = 3.489,p= .064,gp2= .026. In general, 10-year-olds showed a tendency to out perform 8-year-olds, but this tendency did not reach statistical significance. – Experiment 2

Are they the same/different in the two experiments?
They are different in the two experiment

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?
The results are inconsistent with that of Dumontheil et al., (2010)
‘Second, previous studies (Dumontheil et al., 2010; Symeonidou et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016) have shown robust age-related changes in performance on the director task across this age range.’

Aim 3 - Discuss how the experimental design enables us to examine effects of memory, and consider what the results demonstrate.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?
“There was a significant main effect of common ground magnitude,F(2, 184) = 14.026,p< .001,gp2= .132, with a significant linear trend only,F(1, 92) = 21.568,p< .001,gp2= .190 (the quadratic trendwas not significant,p= .116”
“ A significant main effect of taskversion was also observed,F(1, 92) = 4.133,p= .045,gp2= .043, with children committing higher ratesof egocentric errors in the hidden perspective version than in the visible perspective version.”

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?
8yo found a systematic effect of common ground in the visible and hidden. But no effect for 10yo in visible or hidden.

Aim 4 – Discuss how the experimental design enables us to examine whether improving memory accounts for age-related changes in communication.

If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?
Conceptually, you would see that as age increases then the amount of egocentric errors that occur decrease. Maybe it plateaus around 20s and then decreases.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?
The main effects of age

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?
Effects of age in experiment 1 were significant, but in experiment 2 are not significant.

What can we conclude from these two experiments?
Effect of cognitive task load/memory load and the higher the age the less mistakes they make in general.

# data[].attributes.body
Aim 1: These questions are the same for both experiments (so you only need to consider one of them!):
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?
Number of egocentric errors, response time and accuracy.
What are the two between-subject variables?
Hidden perspective or visible perspective and age.
What are the two within-subject variables?
Experimental control, common ground.
The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?
Excluded control as a variable as there were inequal variance between experimental and control.
What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA
Initial design: 2(task version)*2(age)*2(condition)*3(level of common ground)
Final analysis: 2(task version)*2(age)*3(level of common ground)

# data[].attributes.body
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)? Common ground magnitude as the more objects they had to report the higher the memory load and this resulted in higher egocentric error rates

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2? There was in experiment 1 and in experiment 2

# data[].attributes.body
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

-          Main effect of visible and hidden, and main effect of common ground shows memory influences irrespective of age.

-          Children in general make more egocentric errors when there is an increase of memory demand. Egocentric errors in the hidden condition increase as number of items in common ground increase.

-          In experiment 2 when total number of objects are kept constant, size of common ground still systematically affected perspective taking.

-          Slightly more errors in 8 year olds, but not significant difference.

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

-          In both experiments = significant main effects of task version, and significant main effects of magnitude which demonstrates children are more likely to select the distractor when memory is challenged than when memory demands are not present.

# data[].attributes.body
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

·         Memory demands would maybe hit an optimal level- as you increase in age, the ability to take on another person’s perspective would increase and decrease your egocentric errors but as you get to a certain age this ability will reach its optimal level and plateau.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

·         The interaction between age and task condition (memory demand tasks)

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

·         There was an interaction between age and hidden perspective condition in experiment 1

·         Also an interaction between age and common ground magnitude- younger children more susceptible to this effect in experiment 1

·         But these effects decreased in experiment 2

What can we conclude from these two experiments?

·         The memory demands that come with the hidden perspective condition have a bigger effect on the 8 year olds in their ability to recognise the speakers ability.

# data[].attributes.body
o   There would be more egocentric errors when the memory demand increases e.g. hidden task or increased common ground, but there is also an interaction of this with age. E.g. so younger children show more egocentric errors than older children.

o   Interaction between age and task AND interaction between age and common ground size

o  Experiment 1: significant interaction between age and task, and between age and common ground size.

o   Experiment 2: only a marginally significant interaction between age and task. For age and common ground size there was no significant interaction.

o   There is no clear evidence that the differences in memory (between the 2 age groups- as a result of the hidden perspective task) accounts for the different in egocentric error, as the 2 experiments produced different results.

# data[].attributes.body
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

·         Common ground magnitude

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

·         More egocentric errors when it is hidden perspective condition in both experiments and more errors when the common ground magnitude is increased.

# data[].attributes.body
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

Common ground and hidden perspective require memory. There were more egocentric errors when more objects were in the common ground.

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

Yes because more egocentric errors were made when there were more objects in the common ground (magnitude) and with the hidden perspective.

In experiment 2 there was less memory demand as the objects in the common ground were kept the same however, there was still an effect of memory due to the task version.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?

·         Dependent variable=  they were measuring children’s accurate ability to recognise another speakers perspective. So the children will identify or move the right object that the director can see, from the director’s perspective.

What are the two between-subject variables?

·         Age and Task version (Hidden vs Visible)

What are the two within-subject variables?

·         Both groups took part in the Experimental condition and the Control condition and the Magnitude of Common ground.

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?

·         Because the experimental trials was the condition that actually tested children’s ability to recognise the director’s perspective as there was a memory demand and they had to. The control trials did not measure this and could have been too easy for participants- a lot of people had high scores- little variation in scores in this trial.

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA

·         The final ANOVA was 2 x 2 x 3 mixed ANOVA

·         Factors were=  Task version e.g hidden or visible, 8 vs 10 year olds and the common ground magnitude e.g 3, 5, 7 objects

# data[].attributes.body
children not able to employ the appropriate memory strategies and not as large memory capacity

Why did the researchers pick this age range? children this age thought to have full range of basic theory of mind concepts also previous studied have shown robust age-related changes in performance on director task across this age range

Main effects of age: Exp 1 = significant - 10yo made less egocentric errors than 8yo
Exp 2 = not significant but same effects found - 10yo tend to outperform 8yo

Effect was smaller and non significant in exp 2

Results are consistent with the previous findings of Dumontheil et al - children's ability to use others mental states continues to grow over time as they develop ToM.

# data[].attributes.body
More egocentric errors amongst 8-year-olds and when memory demands were high.

Age and common ground size test for this pattern. This is true for both experiments.

Significant interaction for both experiment 1. Experiment 2 showed significant interaction for age and task, not age and common ground size.

Egocentric errors decrease with age Memory demands have a bigger effect on 8-year-olds. Age related improvement may not be due to increased memory capacity.

# data[].attributes.body
o   Hidden perspective and magnitude

o   Yes, because more egocentric errors with the hidden perspective AND for the magnitude there is more errors when common ground is increased

# data[].attributes.body
Why are children making errors on this task? There was high memory load, the 10 year olds could handle it better than the 8 year olds.   Do they lack the underlying concepts? They don’t lack the underlying concepts because 8 to 10 year olds were chosen because there is evidence that by that age they can understand the concept. Do they not understand the task? They checked for comprehension in the instruction phase of the director’s task so they do understand the task. Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy? 8 year olds have more difficulty than 10 year olds

Why did the researchers pick this age range? Because previous research has shown that within that age range that they can understand the concept

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments? There was a main effect of common ground magnitude where 8 year olds made more egocentric errors when the common ground magnitude exist

Are they the same/different in the two experiments? They are the same but in experiment 1 there was more of a significant difference

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)? It is consistent with the results in this study, as they found that children’s ability to accommodate to the speakers perspective. In this study we see that there is development from the ages 8 to 10.

# data[].attributes.body
Common ground and hidden perspective place a demand on memory. More objects on common ground meant more egocentric errors.

More egocentric errors when hidden in both experiments, but not statistically significant in experiment 2.

# data[].attributes.body
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

·         The 8 year olds may be making these mistakes as they have not yet developed these cognitive abilities to help their perspective taking.  Also children in the hidden task are expected to encode and retain the information of where the objects are- which is an increased memory demand compared to the visible task. Also is harder when there is increased number of objects (e.g in second study).

·         Memory capacity/ memory demands.

Why did the researchers pick this age range?

·         As they wanted to see age related development/improvement, this age range was tested before in previous studies and this in this research their findings could be extended to see whether this development can improve in such a short age range.

·         Age related improvements in this age range has already been shown

·         At this age they should have acquired all these theory of mind processed

·         Compare the two age ranges

·         Also 8 year olds will act more egocentric than the 10 year olds.

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

·         Experiment 1= 10 year olds made less egocentric errors than 8 year olds

·         Experiment 2= 10 years olds made less egocentric errors in the hidden perspective than the visible than 8 year olds

Are they the same/different in the two experiments?

·         The effect was smaller in Experiment 2

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

·         The study does support the findings as Dumontheil found that there is age related improvements and development throughout childhood and adolescence in perspective taking. Also it also supports that egocentric errors can still occur even when children are older and have theory of mind processes.

# data[].attributes.body
DV: number of egocentric errors - which is when children selected a distractor object from the priviledged ground instead of the object from the common ground.

Between-subjects variables: Age (8 or 10) and task version (hidden or visible)

Within-subjects variables: Condition (experimental or contol) and magnitude of common ground (3, 5 or 7 shared objects)

Why not control trials: floor level proportion of egocentric errors and unequal variance between experimental and control.

Final ANOVA:  2(age) x 2(task version) x 3 (common ground magnitude)

# data[].attributes.body
If high memory demands lead to more egocentric errors, then perhaps improvements in memory can explain why older children make fewer egocentric errors. Conceptually, what pattern would we expect to see if this were true?

More egocentric errors when memory demands were high but there were more errors in the 8 year olds.

In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects test for this pattern?

The interaction between age and task, and the interaction between age and common ground size.

Are there any such effects? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

In experiment 1, there was a significant interaction between age and task, and for age and common ground size. In experiment 2, there was only a marginally significant interaction between age and task, and for age and common ground size there was no significant interaction.

What can we conclude from these two experiments?

Increased memory demands as a result of hidden perspective task influence 8yos and 10yos differently. However, the confounding variables associated with common ground size occlude conclusions on the degree of its effect on age-related improvements.

# data[].attributes.body
Mixed research. ToM develop between 2-7. Even adults do not have a full understanding of ToM. Children do not tend to be as good at taking the perspective of others.

This age range (8-10) full range of basic ToM concepts. Previous studies showed robust age-related changes.

Older children are better at the task than younger children. The affects of age were less in experiment 2, where 10-year-olds outperformed 8-year-olds.

Dumontheil et al. (2010) showed consistent findings, with 10-year-olds outperforming 8-year-olds.

# data[].attributes.body
Experiment one

What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?

-          Number of egocentric errors

What are the two between-subject variables?

-          Age and task

What are the two within-subject variables?

-          magnitude and control/experimental conditions

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?

-          control condition was not analysed due to “unequal variance between experimental and control conditions”

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA

-          2x2x2x3 mixed ANOVA – 2(age 8-10) x 2 (task – hidden or visible) x 2 (experimental or control) x 3 (magnitude 3, 5, 7 objects)

***** NOTE FROM TA -
The final structure was 2(age)*2(Hidden vs Visible perspective)*3(magnitude/number of objects) mixed ANOVA

# data[].attributes.body
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

-          Errors are not due to lack of fundamental understanding of theory of mind, but due to not always applying perspective taking appropriately. The egocentric errors are in part due to memory demands.

-          Children do understand the task as they pass an initial “comprehension check”

-          It is also possible children are making errors due to the salience of certain objects presented

Why did the researchers pick this age range?

-          by 8 years old typically have a full understanding of theory of mind

-          previous research demonstrates robust changes in performances between 8 and 10 year olds

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

-          Experiment 1 significant main effect of age, 10 year olds outperform 8 year olds

-          Experiment 2 less pronounced

Are they the same/different in the two experiments?

-           Although significant in experiment 1, in experiment 2 though 10-year-olds showed a tendency to outperform 8-year-olds, this tendency did not reach statistical significance.

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

-          Results are consistent with Dumontheil et al 2010 suggesting ability to use other people’s mental state continues to develop beyond acquiring Theory of Mind as also requires holding perspective information in mind and using it appropriately for communication.

# data[].attributes.body
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

Children don’t lack understanding as 8–10-year-olds have been shown to understand basic concepts of theory of mind. Children perform more egocentrically when under the memory load.

Memory partially accounts for age related improvements in perspective performance.

Why did the researchers pick this age range?

Children at this age are believed to have the full range of basic theory of mind concepts.

Previous studies have shown robust age-related changes in performance on the director task at the age range of 8 - 10-year-olds.

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

Decreasing egocentric error rate with age.

Are they the same/different in the two experiments?

Experiment 2 had no interaction between age and common ground whereas, experiment 1 did show an interaction.

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

It is consistent with previous studies.

# data[].attributes.body
DV: egocentric errors

Between subject variables: Age and task version

Within subject variable: Condition and magnitude of common ground

The use of the directors perspective was not a prerequisite for correctly selecting the target referent

Task x age x magnitude (2x2x3)

For the above floor, it is unclear if it was poor understanding or included by the cognitive demanding nature of the nature of the current experimental manipulation

8-10 they develop a theory of mind

yes there are main effects- but they are not the same because one is significant and the other is only marginally significant

consistent with Dumontheil: because the results from Experiment 1 demonstrated that 10-year-olds outperformed 8-year-olds

# data[].attributes.body
In the experimental design you outlined above, which effects reveal whether memory influences egocentric error rate (irrespective of age)?

Common ground and hidden perspective as they both place an additional memory demand.

Are there any such effects of memory? In Experiment 1? In Experiment 2?

Yes, there are more egocentric errors when it is a hidden perspective in both experiments. Further, there are more errors when the common ground magnitude is increased.

# data[].attributes.body
Aim 1
Dv: egocentric erros

between subjects variables: age and task version

within subjects variables:  condition and magnitude of common ground objects

the authors only analysed data from the exp trials because there was unequal variance between the conditions

2(age) X 2(hidden perspective and visible perspective) X 2( control or exp) X 3(common ground objects: 3, 5, 7)
mixed anova

*** Note from TA - The FINAL structure was a mixed ANOVA
2(age)*2(Hidden vs Visible perspective)*3(magnitude/number of objects)

# data[].attributes.body
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

They don’t lack underlying concepts of ToT as they are 8-10. They do understand the task as did comprehension test. Related to common ground magnitude (it is assumed that listeners work on the basis of common ground to interpret a speaker’s message) – however, possible confounding variables (overall array size/complexity, and strategic use in 10yos) – however, when confounding variable controlled for in Exp 2, there was no interaction between common ground size and egocentric errors, so it may be that increasing common ground size might influence younger children’s perspective-taking performance more strongly by placing an additional demand on their rather limited executive function capacities.

Why did the researchers pick this age range?

8-10-year-olds have full ToM concepts at these ages. Furthermore, research showed robust age-related changes in performance on the director task across this age range

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

Exp 1 = F(1, 92) = 9.314, p = .003, n2p = .092  (w/ 10yos outperforming 8yos)

Exp 2 = F(1, 129) = 3.489, p = .064, n2p = .026  (10yos tended to outperform 8yos, but this tendency did not reach statistical significance)

Are they the same/different in the two experiments?

The two experiments are not the same. Because the main effect in experiment 1 is significant and large while in experiment 2 it was not significant.

How do the results compare with Dumontheil et al, (2010)?

Experiment 1 is consistent with the study as it showed that 10 year olds outperformed 8 year olds thus it suggest age related improvement. Experiment 2 is consistent with the study as it suggests age related improvement, but it is not significant.

# data[].attributes.body
DV: Egocentric errors.

Between subject variables: Age and task version (hidden perspective (visual cues (e.g., coloured background) removed) or visible perspective version).

Within subject variable: Condition (experimental vs. control) and magnitude of common ground (how many items were available for Sally and participants, 3, 5, 7, 9).

Lots of egocentric errors made in the control group. Unequal variance between conditions.

Final structure: Age*Task version*Common ground magnitude, mixed ANOVA.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the dependent variable? The children’s performance on the director task; response time and accuracy

What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable? Children were either in a hidden perspective version or visible perspective version and the hidden one relied more on memory. They would have to report how many objects Sally could or couldn't see

What are the two between-subject variables? Experimental vs control and 8 or 10 years old

What are the two within-subject variables? Hidden or visible and magnitude of common ground

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why? In the control trial practically everyone performed well with very little variation so an analysis wasn’t need

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA
A 2x2x2x3 mixed design was constructed with age (8 or 10 year olds), task version (hidden perspective or visible perspective), between-participants factors and conditions (experimental vs control) and magnitude of common ground (3, 5 or 7 common ground objects referred to as magnitude)

*****NB NOTE FROM TA -
MIXED ANOVA 2(age)*2(Hidden vs Visible perspective)*3(magnitude/number of objects)

# data[].attributes.body
Why are children making errors on this task? Do they lack the underlying concepts? Do they not understand the task? Are they having difficulty performing the task with high accuracy?

Younger children do not lack the underlying concepts, but they struggle to perform to a high accuracy due to problems with keeping the differing perspective in memory, older children become for efficient

Why did the researchers pick this age range?

8-10 y/o's have the capacity for ToM but there are clear differences in performance between them on this task, which needed to be examined

What are the main effects of age on egocentric error rate across the two experiments?

Exp 1
F(1, 92) = 9.314, p = .003, η p ² = .092
Exp 2
F(1, 129) = 3.489, p = .064, η p ² = .026

Are they the same/different in the two experiments?
Exp 1

# data[].attributes.body
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?

Performance on the ability to use speaker perspective in language comprehension.

NB. Note from TA  - the DV is the egocentric error rate

What are the two between-subject variables?

Age (8 or 10 yr olds) and task version (hidden or visible perspective)

What are the two within-subject variables?

Condition and magnitude.

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?

Because there was unequal variance between experimental and control conditions

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA

2x2x2x4 age x task x condition x magnitude (mixed)

*****NB - NOTE FROM TA
The final structure is 2(age)*2(Hidden vs Visible perspective)*3(magnitude/number of objects) -Mixed ANOVA

# data[].attributes.body
What is the dependent variable? What does this actually mean – ie what are children doing that the experimenters count to produce this dependent variable?

Number of egocentric errors on directors’ shelf task.  Selected something on privileged ground

What are the two between-subject variables?

Age - 8 vs 10

Task version - Hidden perspective vs visible perspective.

What are the two within-subject variables?

Magnitude of common ground - 3,5 or 7 common ground objects.

Condition - Experimental and Control group

The authors only analyse data from Experimental trials (not control trials) – why?

Only data from critical trials were entered.

In the control, mean egocentric errors was below .005 so there was unequal variance between the two conditions.

What is the final structure of the omnibus ANOVAs? I.e. fill in the placeholders in the following: N(factor name)*N(factor name)*…    between/within/mixed ANOVA

2(Age)x2(Task Version)x3(Magnitude of Common ground)

A mixed ANOVA