Adolescents’ Motivation to Engage in Social Perspective Taking

Scott W. Brown, Hunter Gehlbach, Andri Ioannou, Mark A. Boyer, Natalie Hudson, Anat Niv-SolomonUniversity of Connecticut

Abstract: We define social perspective taking (SPT) as discerning the thoughts and feelings of others and figuring out how they perceive the situation. SPT consists of both the ability to take the perspective of others as well as the propensity to engage this ability. This propensity to engage in SPT is the focus of this research. First, we examined whether SPT motivation related to important aspects of negotiating as well as cognitive and motivational educational outcomes. Upon finding that SPT did relate to several outcomes of interest, we next investigated how teachers might motivate students to engage in SPT more regularly. Results indicated some promise for having students work collaboratively in mixed gender groups.

Introduction & Context: The GlobalEd Project at the University of Connecticut conducts a series of

simulated negotiations with middle and high school students each year. Each classroom represents a country; within each class students divide into 5 issue areas: Global Environment, Conflict & Cooperation, Human Rights, International Economics, and U.N. Security Council Reform. These issue area groups negotiate with one another online through synchronous “chat” and asynchronous emails. The negotiations are moderated by a “Simulation Controller” i.e., a graduate student researcher. This context provides an excellent forum for examining how adolescents attempt to engage in taking the perspective of one another. Specifically we can explore:

1) What benefits are associated with being motivated to engage in social perspective taking more frequently?

2) What might teachers do to motivate adolescents to engage in social perspective taking more frequently?

Participants: Middle School Sample

• N = 302

• Gender distribution: 50% female overall

• 26% males in all male groups

• 23% males in mixed groups

• 23% females in all female groups

• 28% females in mixed groups

Measures:Social Perspective Taking Propensity (= .89 pre; = .88 post)

Response Scale:

How often do you try to figure out how the people around you view different situations?

If you are having a disagreement with your friends, how often do you try to imagine how they are feeling?

How often do you try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before you make a decision?

When you are upset at someone, how often do you try to “put yourself in his or her shoes”?

How often do you try to understand your classmates better by trying to figure out what they are thinking?

Before criticizing others, how often do you imagine how you would feel if you were in their place?

To understand your friends better, how often do you imagine how things look from their perspective?

Cognitive Academic Measures:

1) A knowledge test related the content they have been studying (pre & post).

2) Students’ self-reports of their grade for their social studies class.

Motivational Academic Measures:

1) A “social studies self-efficacy” scale (5 items; = .80 pre; = .82 post).

Sample item: How confident are you that you can do the hardest work that is assigned in this class?

2) An “interest in social studies” scale (6 items; = .86 pre; = .87 post).

Sample item: How interesting do you find learning about other countries?

Conflict Resolution & Negotiation Measures

1) Conflict Resolution: Students read three different scenarios describing a conflict between teachers and students. At the end of each scenario, they rated 10 strategies in terms of their effectiveness for helping to resolve the conflict. Their teachers also read the scenarios and rated the strategies in terms of their effectiveness. Students’ responses were then correlated with their teacher’s responses. Thus, students who rate these conflict resolution strategies more similarly to their teachers have higher scores on this measure.

2) A “competitive negotiator” scale (3 items; post only: a = .67)

Sample item: How important was it for you to get a better deal than the other groups you negotiated with?

3) A “cooperative negotiator” scale (3 items; post only: a = .62)

Sample item: How important was it for you to come to an agreement that helped both your side and the other side?

4) A “negotiation efficacy” scale (8 items; a = .85 pre; a = .87 post).

almostnever

once ina while

sometimes often almost allthe time

Research question #1: Is the motivation to engage in SPT related to educational outcomes of interest?

Note: Correlations greater than .15 are significant.

Research Question 1: Results• Cognitive Academic Outcomes: Students who are motivated to engage in SPT

reported higher social studies grades. Those with higher SPT propensity (as measured by the post survey) performed slightly better on the multiple choice test of social studies content knowledge.

• Motivational Academic Outcomes: Students high in SPT propensity were more confident that they could do well in their social studies class and were more interested in the subject matter.

• Conflict resolution & Negotiation Outcomes: More motivated perspective takers evaluated conflict resolution strategies more similarly to their teachers. As negotiators, they were more cooperative and felt more efficacious. However, they were not necessarily more competitive negotiators.

• Overall, the SPT post surveys correlated slightly more strongly with the outcomes of interest than the SPT pre surveys.

•17 classrooms (from CA to CT)

•3% Fifth graders

•9% Sixth graders

•27% Seventh graders

•61% Eighth graders

•Students divided into 70 groups

•Race

•10% Asian

•8% Black

•5% Latino

•73% White

Research question #2: How might teachers motivate students to engage in SPT more frequently?

Research Question 2: Results We examined the possibility that working in a heterogeneous group might help motivate students to engage in SPT more frequently.

•Students in racially heterogeneous groups increased in their SPT propensity from the beginning to end of the simulation: t(88) = 1.83; p = .07. There was no increase for students in homogeneous groups.

Changes in SPT Based on Group Diversity

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Pre Post

SPT

Prop

ensi

ty

Heterogeneous

Homogeneous

• Next we examined students in mixed gender groups. Middle school females rose in their SPT propensity during the simulation if they were in mixed groups: t(55) = 1.73; p = .09. There was no increase for girls in same-sex groups or boys in either group.

Middle School Females

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Pre Post

SPT

Pro

pens

ity

All female

Mixed

Middle School Males

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Pre Post

SPT

Pro

pens

ity

All male

Mixed

• Because the benefits of heterogeneous groups were marginally significant (using two-tailed tests) we replicated the gender analysis on a high school sample who had participated in an earlier simulation. For this sample, males increased in their SPT propensity, if they were in mixed groups: t(65) = 1.98; p = .05. There was no increase for boys in same-sex groups or girls in either group. (Unfortunately, due to a data collection problem, we were unable to replicate the race analysis).

High School Females

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Pre Post

SPT

Pro

pens

ity

All female

Mixed

High School Males

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Pre Post

SPT

Pro

pens

ity

All male

Mixed

Discussion Points• The propensity to engage in SPT relates to many desirable outcomes including cognitive abilities, motivational dispositions, and negotiation/conflict resolution skills. Because of the multiple beneficial associations, future research should determine whether SPT is causally related to some of these outcomes.

• There is preliminary evidence that teachers might help foster students’ SPT propensity through placing them in heterogeneous groups. In this study, differences were small and, in the case of gender, did not occur consistently. Thus, future research that can see whether these results emerge in other populations and whether there are between-sex developmental differences would be particularly helpful.

Correlates of SPT

-0.15

0.00

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

Cor

rela

tion

wit

h S

PT

SPT-PreSPT-Post