Selman’s levels of perspective-taking | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision

For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025

AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 60 minutes

Selman’s theory explains how children become increasingly able to understand social situations from other people’s points of view. These Selman’s levels of perspective-taking A-Level Psychology revision notes cover the progression from an egocentric understanding to the ability to coordinate several viewpoints and consider wider social values.

Selman investigated social cognition using interpersonal dilemmas that required children to explain what different characters might think, feel and do. His account develops the idea of moving beyond an egocentric viewpoint and links closely with understanding other people’s beliefs and intentions. Selman’s levels are explicitly required by the AQA specification.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

• Define social perspective-taking.

• Explain how perspective-taking develops with age.

• Describe Selman’s five levels of perspective-taking.

• Apply each level to an unfamiliar interpersonal dilemma.

• Explain how Selman investigated social cognition.

• Evaluate Selman’s theory and perspective-taking research.

Revision Notes 📚

Selman’s levels of perspective-taking overview

Robert Selman developed a stage-like account of social perspective-taking, sometimes called role-taking.

Perspective-taking is the ability to understand a social situation from another person’s point of view.

It may involve understanding that another person has different:

• Knowledge.

• Thoughts.

• Feelings.

• Motives.

• Intentions.

• Experiences.

• Social responsibilities.

Selman proposed that this ability develops through five levels:

1. Egocentric role-taking

2. Social informational role-taking

3. Self-reflective role-taking

4. Mutual or third-party role-taking

5. Social and conventional system role-taking

The levels describe an age-related movement from a largely egocentric viewpoint towards an understanding of several perspectives and the wider social system. These are the level names recognised in AQA mark schemes.

Overview of Selman’s five levels

Level	Name	Common approximate age	Central ability
0	Egocentric role-taking	Approximately 3 to 6 years	The child struggles to distinguish their own viewpoint from another person’s
1	Social informational role-taking	Approximately 5 to 9 years	The child understands that different information can produce different viewpoints
2	Self-reflective role-taking	Approximately 7 to 12 years	The child can place themselves in another person’s position
3	Mutual or third-party role-taking	Approximately 10 to 15 years	The child can coordinate two viewpoints and consider the interaction as a neutral observer
4	Social and conventional system role-taking	Approximately 12 years to adulthood	The person understands that viewpoints are influenced by society, values, roles and conventions

The age ranges overlap and are approximate. They should not be treated as exact boundaries.

A child’s response to a particular situation may also depend on:

• Familiarity with the people involved.

• Language ability.

• Emotional involvement.

• The complexity of the dilemma.

• Cultural expectations.

What is social cognition?

Social cognition refers to the mental processes involved in understanding:

• Other people.

• Social relationships.

• Thoughts and feelings.

• Intentions.

• Social rules.

• Interpersonal behaviour.

It includes the ability to interpret questions such as:

• Why did that person behave in that way?

• What do they know that I do not know?

• How might they feel?

• What do they think I believe?

• How would a neutral observer understand the disagreement?

Selman focused on one aspect of social cognition:

the ability to take and coordinate different social perspectives

Other parts of social cognition include understanding false beliefs and mental states and the proposed role of neural systems involved in understanding actions and emotions.

Perspective-taking

What is a perspective?

A perspective is a person’s particular understanding or viewpoint.

Two people may interpret the same event differently because they possess different:

• Information.

• Experiences.

• Goals.

• Values.

• Emotional reactions.

• Relationships with the people involved.

For example:

A teacher may interpret a pupil’s silence as a lack of preparation. The pupil may remain silent because they are anxious about speaking in front of the class.

Understanding the pupil’s perspective requires recognising information that is not immediately visible.

Perspective-taking as a cognitive skill

Perspective-taking involves constructing another person’s point of view mentally.

The individual may need to:

1. Identify what the other person knows.

2. Recognise what they do not know.

3. Consider their feelings and motives.

4. Separate the other person’s viewpoint from their own.

5. Coordinate several perspectives.

6. Consider social rules or values.

The ability becomes more complex across Selman’s levels.

Perspective-taking is not the same as agreeing

Understanding another person’s viewpoint does not mean agreeing with it.

A person may understand:

• Why someone is angry.

• Why someone made a particular decision.

• Why two people disagree.

They may still believe that one person behaved wrongly.

Perspective-taking is not the same as empathy

Perspective-taking is mainly cognitive.

It concerns understanding another person’s viewpoint.

Empathy involves responding to or sharing another person’s emotional experience.

Perspective-taking	Empathy
Understanding another viewpoint	Responding emotionally to another person
Mainly cognitive	Contains an emotional component
“I understand why you feel upset”	“I feel concern because you are upset”
Can be used helpfully or manipulatively	More directly connected with emotional concern

A person can possess strong perspective-taking skills without behaving kindly.

For example, a bully may understand precisely what embarrasses another pupil and use that knowledge to cause distress.

This distinction is important when evaluating Selman’s theory.

Perspective-taking and theory of mind

Perspective-taking and theory of mind are closely connected but not identical.

Selman’s perspective-taking	Theory of mind
Focuses on how social viewpoints are understood and coordinated	Focuses on understanding that others have mental states
Includes thoughts, feelings, motives and social roles	Includes beliefs, desires, intentions and false beliefs
Develops through five levels	Often investigated through mind-reading or false-belief tasks
Uses interpersonal dilemmas	Uses tasks such as Sally-Anne
Extends into adolescent and adult social understanding	Basic abilities are often investigated in younger children

Theory of mind provides an important foundation for recognising that another person can possess a different belief.

Selman’s later levels require increasingly complex coordination of several social viewpoints.

How perspective-taking develops

Selman proposed that development involves several changes.

From one viewpoint to separate viewpoints

Young children may assume that other people experience a situation in the same way they do.

They gradually understand that two people can hold different perspectives.

From different information to psychological interpretation

Children first explain differences through the information available to each person.

Later, they understand that people can interpret the same information differently because of:

• Feelings.

• Motives.

• Values.

• Personal histories.

From one perspective at a time to reciprocal understanding

A child may initially understand either:

• Their own perspective.

• Another person’s perspective.

Later, they can consider how each person views the other.

From reciprocal viewpoints to third-party coordination

Older children become able to step mentally outside a relationship.

They can ask:

“How would an impartial observer understand both sides?”

From individual viewpoints to social systems

Adolescents and adults may consider how social perspectives are shaped by:

• Laws.

• Cultural values.

• Family roles.

• Friendship expectations.

• Moral principles.

• Social conventions.

The broad progression is:

own viewpoint → separate viewpoints → reciprocal viewpoints → coordinated viewpoints → societal viewpoints

Selman’s interpersonal dilemmas

How did Selman investigate perspective-taking?

Selman used interpersonal dilemmas.

An interpersonal dilemma is a social story in which:

• Two or more people have competing wishes.

• Several perspectives need to be considered.

• There is no simple physical solution.

• The child must reason about relationships, motives or responsibilities.

After hearing the story, children were asked questions about:

• What each person thought.

• How each person felt.

• Why each person behaved in a particular way.

• Whether one person understood another.

• What the characters should do.

• How the disagreement might be resolved.

The response was classified according to the level of perspective-taking demonstrated.

AQA describes Selman’s method as the use of dilemmas requiring multiple perspectives and social or moral understanding.

The Holly dilemma

One well-known example involved a girl called Holly.

The dilemma can be summarised as follows:

• Holly had previously fallen while climbing a tree.

• Her father had asked her not to climb trees again.

• Later, a friend’s kitten became trapped in a tree.

• Holly had to decide whether to obey her father or climb the tree to rescue the kitten.

The dilemma creates several perspectives:

Holly’s viewpoint

Holly may:

• Want to help the kitten.

• Want to help her friend.

• Fear disobeying her father.

• Believe that rescuing the kitten is worth the risk.

The father’s viewpoint

The father may:

• Want Holly to keep her promise.

• Be concerned for her safety.

• Become angry if she disobeys.

• Understand why she wanted to help.

The friend’s viewpoint

The friend may:

• Be frightened for the kitten.

• Expect Holly to help.

• Feel grateful if the kitten is rescued.

• Be unaware of Holly’s promise.

A third-party viewpoint

A neutral observer may consider:

• Both Holly’s safety and the kitten’s welfare.

• Why the father made the rule.

• Whether an emergency justifies breaking a promise.

• How Holly could explain her decision afterwards.

A societal viewpoint

A more advanced response may refer to:

• Responsibilities towards animals.

• The importance of promises.

• Parents’ duty to protect children.

• Wider moral rules.

• Exceptions to rules in emergencies.

The important feature is not whether the child says Holly should climb.

The researcher analyses the reasoning used to understand the different perspectives.

Level 0: Egocentric role-taking

Central characteristic

At the egocentric level, the child has difficulty distinguishing their own perspective from another person’s.

They may assume that:

• Other people know what they know.

• Other people feel what they feel.

• Only one viewpoint is possible.

• Behaviour directly reveals a person’s thoughts or feelings.

The child’s answer is organised mainly around the immediately visible situation or their own wishes.

Approximate age

This level is commonly associated with approximately 3 to 6 years.

The age is only a guide.

Undifferentiated viewpoints

This level may also be called undifferentiated perspective-taking because the child does not clearly separate:

• Their own viewpoint.

• Another person’s viewpoint.

For example:

“Holly should climb the tree because the kitten needs help. Her father will think that too.”

The child assumes that the father will share Holly’s understanding because the reason

appears obvious to the child.

Focus on observable outcomes

The child may judge feelings from visible events.

For example:

“Her father will be happy because the kitten came down.”

The response does not consider that the father might remain frightened or angry about the danger.

Applying Level 0

Four-year-old Mina takes her brother’s toy because she wants to play with it. She says, “He will not mind because it is the best toy.”

Mina’s response shows egocentric role-taking because:

• She focuses on her own desire.

• She assumes her brother shares her evaluation.

• She does not represent his disappointment.

• She does not separate her knowledge and feelings from his.

Level 0 response to Holly

A Level 0 child might say:

“Holly should climb because she wants the kitten.”

or:

“Her father will not be angry because saving it is good.”

The response contains only one dominant viewpoint.

Level 1: Social informational role-taking

Central characteristic

At the social informational level, the child understands that people can hold different viewpoints because they possess different information.

The child recognises:

“You think differently because you know something different.”

However, they may still struggle to consider two perspectives simultaneously.

Approximate age

This level is commonly associated with approximately 5 to 9 years.

Different information produces different views

For example:

Holly wants to climb because she knows the kitten is trapped. Her father may be angry because he does not know why she climbed.

The child understands that the characters have access to different information.

One viewpoint at a time

The child can describe:

• Holly’s viewpoint.

• The father’s viewpoint.

However, the explanations may remain separate.

The child may not yet coordinate how each person understands the other.

Similar information means similar viewpoint

A child at this level may assume that people with the same information will reach the same conclusion.

They may not fully understand that personal values or emotions can lead to different interpretations of identical information.

Applying Level 1

Seven-year-old Isaac says, “Ella thinks the lesson starts at ten because that is what her timetable says. Her friend knows it starts at nine because the teacher told him.”

Isaac demonstrates social informational role-taking because:

• He recognises two different perspectives.

• He explains the difference through unequal information.

• He does not assume that Ella and her friend know the same thing.

Level 1 response to Holly

A Level 1 child might explain:

“Holly’s father will be angry at first because he does not know about the kitten. When Holly tells him, he will understand.”

The different perspectives are explained through available information.

Level 2: Self-reflective role-taking

Central characteristic

At the self-reflective level, the child can place themselves in another person’s position.

They understand:

• Another person can have a different perspective.

• The other person can also think about the child’s perspective.

• Thoughts and feelings may not be directly visible.

The child can mentally ask:

“What would I think or feel if I were that person?”

Approximate age

This level is commonly associated with approximately 7 to 12 years.

AQA’s November 2020 mark scheme expected most 9-year-olds to demonstrate self-reflective role-taking.

Looking at the self from another viewpoint

The child understands that another person can form an opinion about them.

For example:

“Holly may worry that her father will think she cannot be trusted.”

Holly is represented as thinking about the father’s view of her.

Hidden motives and feelings

The child understands that outward behaviour may not reveal internal experience.

For example:

• A person may smile while feeling anxious.

• A parent may sound angry because they are frightened.

• A child may refuse help because they feel embarrassed.

Limitation of this level

The child can take another person’s viewpoint, but may move between perspectives one at a time.

They may not yet coordinate both perspectives into a single detached understanding.

Applying Level 2

Nine-year-old Priya says, “Sam may pretend not to care about being left out because he does not want the others to think he is upset.”

This demonstrates self-reflective role-taking because Priya understands:

• Sam’s internal feeling differs from his behaviour.

• Sam can think about how other people view him.

• Social behaviour may be shaped by another person’s expected judgement.

Level 2 response to Holly

A Level 2 child might explain:

“Holly knows her father may think she broke her promise, but she hopes that if he imagines being in her position, he will understand why she helped.”

This response includes reciprocal awareness, although the viewpoints may not yet be coordinated fully.

Level 3: Mutual or third-party role-taking

Central characteristic

At the mutual or third-party level, the child can coordinate two viewpoints simultaneously.

They can step mentally outside an interaction and consider it from the position of a neutral observer.

The child understands:

• How person A views person B.

• How person B views person A.

• How the relationship appears from outside.

• How both perspectives may be valid.

Approximate age

This level is commonly associated with approximately 10 to 15 years.

Third-party perspective

The child can ask:

“How would someone who was not personally involved understand the situation?”

This allows a more balanced judgement.

Mutual understanding

The child recognises that relationships involve reciprocal interpretations.

For example:

• Each person reacts to the other’s behaviour.

• Misunderstandings can develop because each interprets the other differently.

• A solution may need to take both viewpoints into account.

Applying Level 3

Thirteen-year-old Leo says, “Aisha thinks Ben ignored her, while Ben thinks she wanted to be left alone. A neutral person would see that neither intended to upset the other and that they need to explain what happened.”

Leo demonstrates mutual or third-party role-taking because:

• He coordinates both viewpoints.

• He identifies the misunderstanding.

• He considers a neutral observer’s interpretation.

• He proposes a solution reflecting both perspectives.

Level 3 response to Holly

A Level 3 response might be:

“Holly believes rescuing the kitten is an emergency, while her father believes the promise protects her safety. An outside observer could understand both and suggest that Holly explains the situation rather than treating either person as completely wrong.”

The response integrates the two viewpoints.

Level 4: Social and conventional system role-taking

Central characteristic

At the social and conventional system level, the individual understands that perspectives are influenced by wider systems.

These systems may include:

• Laws.

• Moral principles.

• Family roles.

• Cultural values.

• Social conventions.

• Community expectations.

• Institutional responsibilities.

The individual can consider how personal viewpoints relate to broader social arrangements.

Approximate age

This level is commonly associated with approximately 12 years onwards.

Not every person will demonstrate this level in every situation.

Wider social perspective

The person understands that society needs shared rules and conventions to coordinate behaviour.

For example:

• Parents have responsibilities for children’s safety.

• Promises support trust.

• Emergency situations may justify exceptions.

• Decisions affect people beyond the immediate relationship.

Perspectives shaped by social experience

The individual recognises that viewpoints do not develop in isolation.

They are influenced by:

• Culture.

• Social position.

• Family expectations.

• Moral beliefs.

• Group membership.

Applying Level 4

Sixteen-year-old Mariam says, “The teacher has a responsibility to apply school rules fairly, but rules should also allow reasonable adjustments for pupils whose circumstances differ. The disagreement must be understood within the school’s duty to all pupils.”

Mariam demonstrates social and conventional system role-taking because she considers:

• Individual perspectives.

• Institutional responsibility.

• Fairness.

• The wider system in which the disagreement occurs.

Level 4 response to Holly

A Level 4 response might explain:

“Parents have a social and legal responsibility to protect their children, while people may also have a moral responsibility to prevent harm. Rules and promises are important, but society often recognises exceptions during emergencies.”

This response places the individual dilemma within a broader moral and social system.

Comparing the five levels

Feature	Level 0	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4
Distinguishes own and other viewpoint	Very limited	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Explains different viewpoints	Rarely	Different information	Feelings, motives and reciprocal thought	Coordinates two viewpoints	Uses wider social values
Can put self in another’s position	Limited	Partly	Yes	Yes	Yes
Coordinates viewpoints simultaneously	No	No	Limited	Yes	Yes
Uses neutral third-party view	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Considers social systems	No	No	No	Limited	Yes
Typical response	“They think what I think”	“They know different things”	“I can imagine their view”	“Both sides can be coordinated”	“Social roles and values shape the issue”

A memory structure for the levels

Use:

0: One view1: Information differs2: Imagine the other person3: Third-party coordination4: Wider social system

Or:

self → information → reflection → mutuality → society

📌 Exam tip: Do not learn the level names as an isolated list. Learn the cognitive change that separates each level.

Applying all five levels to one dilemma

Consider the following dilemma:

Alex promised a friend not to reveal a secret. Alex later learns that keeping the secret may allow another pupil to be harmed.

Level 0: Egocentric

“Alex should tell because telling is the right thing.”

Only one viewpoint is represented.

Level 1: Social informational

“Alex’s friend wants the secret kept because they do not know someone might be harmed.”

Different viewpoints are explained through different information.

Level 2: Self-reflective

“Alex understands that the friend may feel betrayed and worries about how the friend will judge the decision.”

Alex considers another’s viewpoint and that person’s view of Alex.

Level 3: Mutual or third-party

“Alex and the friend have understandable reasons. A neutral observer would consider the trust between them and the risk of harm.”

Both viewpoints are coordinated.

Level 4: Societal

“Confidentiality supports trust, but wider safeguarding responsibilities may override a private promise when someone is at risk.”

The response uses broader social principles and responsibilities.

Perspective-taking in everyday social development

More advanced perspective-taking may help children and adolescents:

• Understand misunderstandings.

• Resolve disputes.

• Negotiate.

• Maintain friendships.

• Predict how others will respond.

• Interpret hidden motives.

• Cooperate.

• Consider fairness.

• Understand social rules.

Friendship

A child with limited perspective-taking may assume:

“My friend chose someone else, so they do not like me.”

A more advanced thinker may consider:

• The friend had already made a promise.

• The friend did not know they would feel excluded.

• The choice was not intended as rejection.

• Both perspectives need discussing.

Conflict

Perspective-taking may help someone recognise:

• Why each person is angry.

• Which information is missing.

• How one person’s behaviour affected the other.

• How the situation looks to an outsider.

Negotiation

Successful negotiation requires understanding:

• What each person wants.

• What each person is willing to give up.

• Which solution respects both viewpoints.

• Which wider rules apply.

AQA recognises interpersonal understanding and negotiation as possible applications of Selman’s theory.

Selman and Piaget compared

Selman’s theory was influenced by Piaget’s account of egocentrism.

Similarities

Both theories propose that:

• Young children are relatively egocentric.

• Perspective-taking improves with age.

• Cognitive development involves qualitative changes.

• Children gradually decentre from their own viewpoint.

• Development can be described through ordered levels or stages.

Differences

Selman	Piaget
Focuses on social and interpersonal viewpoints	Initially focused strongly on visual-spatial perspective
Uses social dilemmas	Used tasks such as the three mountains
Development extends into adolescence	Egocentrism is mainly linked with pre-operational childhood
Includes motives, feelings and social systems	Focuses more broadly on intellectual operations
Includes mutual and societal perspectives	Focuses on the ability to move beyond one’s own view
Directly concerned with social cognition	Concerned with general cognitive development

Selman extended Piaget’s idea by showing that social perspective-taking continues to become more sophisticated after children can understand a simple visual viewpoint.

Selman and theory of mind compared

Selman’s theory	Theory of mind
Five levels of social perspective-taking	Understanding that other people possess mental states
Extends into adolescence and adulthood	Basic false-belief understanding often develops in early childhood
Focuses on relationships and dilemmas	Focuses on beliefs, intentions and knowledge
Coordinates several viewpoints	Distinguishes one mind from another
Includes societal systems	Does not necessarily require societal reasoning

A child may need a basic theory of mind before demonstrating Selman’s more advanced levels.

Theory of mind is explored fully in false-belief understanding and the Sally-Anne study.

Research supporting Selman

Selman and Byrne

Selman and Byrne examined children’s responses to characters in interpersonal dilemmas.

Responses differed with age in ways broadly consistent with Selman’s levels.

Older children were more able to:

• Represent another person’s viewpoint.

• Coordinate perspectives.

• Explain the psychological reasons behind behaviour.

AQA accepts Selman and Byrne’s evidence as support for age-related change in perspective-taking.

Gurucharri, Phelps and Selman

Longitudinal research followed children’s perspective-taking development over time.

The findings showed increasingly sophisticated reasoning with age.

This supports Selman because the same individuals progressed towards more advanced perspective-taking rather than the age differences appearing only between separate groups.

AQA’s 2025 mark scheme identifies longitudinal evidence from Gurucharri, Phelps and Selman as a strength of dilemma research.

Why longitudinal evidence is valuable

A longitudinal design:

• Measures the same participants over time.

• Directly observes developmental change.

• Controls some participant variables because each child is compared with themselves.

• Provides stronger evidence of an age-related progression.

However, it may also involve:

• Attrition.

• Practice with similar dilemmas.

• Changes in social experience.

• A lengthy and expensive research process.

Fitzgerald and White

Research by Fitzgerald and White linked parenting style with children’s perspective-taking.

This suggests that social experience may affect development.

Parents may encourage perspective-taking by:

• Discussing feelings.

• Asking children to explain another viewpoint.

• Resolving conflict through dialogue.

• Providing reasons for rules.

This supports the idea that social cognition is not produced by maturation alone.

However, the association does not show clearly whether:

• Parenting produces greater perspective-taking.

• Socially advanced children encourage more discussion.

• A third factor affects both.

Evaluating Selman’s account

Strength: evidence supports age-related development

Studies using interpersonal dilemmas generally find that older children produce more sophisticated explanations than younger children.

This supports the central prediction that perspective-taking develops.

Older children become more likely to:

• Distinguish viewpoints.

• Consider hidden motives.

• Coordinate perspectives.

• Use third-party reasoning.

Strength: longitudinal evidence supports progression

Longitudinal evidence is particularly valuable because it shows change within the same children.

This supports the idea of a developmental sequence rather than age-group differences being produced entirely by different samples.

However, evidence of age-related improvement does not necessarily prove five distinct levels.

Development could be continuous rather than stage-like.

Strength: the theory explains qualitative change

Selman does not simply claim that older children know more social facts.

He proposes that their reasoning is organised differently.

For example:

• A young child assumes one perspective.

• An older child understands different information.

• A still older child coordinates reciprocal perspectives.

• An adolescent considers societal values.

This provides a detailed account of how social cognition changes.

Strength: it extends Piaget

Piaget demonstrated that young children struggle to understand another visual viewpoint.

Selman extended this idea into:

• Friendship.

• Conflict.

• Motives.

• Moral decisions.

• Social systems.

This is useful because ordinary social understanding involves more than knowing what another person can see.

Strength: practical applications

Perspective-taking research has practical applications in:

• Conflict resolution.

• Mediation.

• Family therapy.

• Anti-bullying programmes.

• Friendship coaching.

• Restorative conversations.

• Negotiation training.

A person may be encouraged to consider:

1. Their own view.

2. The other person’s view.

3. How the other person views them.

4. A neutral observer’s interpretation.

5. The wider social responsibilities involved.

AQA recognises coaching in perspective-taking as a useful application in conflict resolution and mediation.

Limitation: hypothetical dilemmas may lack ecological validity

Selman’s research often asked children what story characters should think or do.

A hypothetical answer may not represent behaviour in a real disagreement.

A child might give a sophisticated response while calm but behave less thoughtfully when:

• Angry.

• Frightened.

• Embarrassed.

• Under peer pressure.

• Personally involved.

AQA’s 2025 mark scheme identifies this gap between dilemma reasoning and real-life behaviour as an important limitation.

Limitation: reasoning does not necessarily predict behaviour

Knowing another person’s viewpoint does not ensure that someone will behave prosocially.

A child may understand that another pupil is upset but still:

• Ignore them.

• Bully them.

• Use the knowledge manipulatively.

• Prioritise their own social status.

Perspective-taking ability is therefore not identical to kindness or moral behaviour.

Gasser and Keller

Research cited by AQA suggests that bullying can occur alongside perspective-taking ability.

A bully may understand another person’s thoughts and emotional vulnerabilities very effectively.

This challenges the assumption that advanced perspective-taking automatically leads to:

• Empathy.

• Helping.

• Cooperation.

• Reduced aggression.

The cognitive ability may be used for either prosocial or antisocial purposes.

Limitation: emotion and empathy are underemphasised

Selman focuses heavily on understanding viewpoints.

Real social interaction also involves:

• Emotional concern.

• Empathy.

• Attachment.

• Guilt.

• Anger.

• Emotional regulation.

A person may understand a perspective intellectually without sharing or responding appropriately to the emotion.

A complete explanation of social cognition should therefore consider both:

• Cognitive perspective-taking.

• Emotional processes.

AQA mark schemes recognise the neglect of empathy and emotion as a limitation of Selman’s account.

Limitation: social contexts differ

A child may show different perspective-taking abilities with:

• Parents.

• Siblings.

• Friends.

• Teachers.

• Strangers.

• Online contacts.

For example, a child may understand a close friend’s motives easily but struggle with an unfamiliar adult.

Selman’s levels may make perspective-taking appear more general and consistent than it really is.

AQA identifies the failure to distinguish family interaction from peer interaction as a possible criticism.

Limitation: modern social worlds are complex

Children now interact across many settings, including:

• Families.

• Blended families.

• Schools.

• Peer groups.

• Online games.

• Social media.

• Messaging platforms.

Online communication may remove information normally used to understand perspective, such as:

• Facial expression.

• Tone of voice.

• Immediate feedback.

Alternatively, interaction with diverse people may provide additional opportunities to practise perspective-taking.

A simple face-to-face dilemma may not represent this complexity.

Limitation: cultural variation

Cultures differ in how they understand:

• Individual viewpoints.

• Family obligations.

• Respect for authority.

• Friendship.

• Independence.

• Collective responsibility.

A response classified as less advanced within one cultural framework may reflect a different social value.

For example, prioritising family obligation over individual preference may be:

• Interpreted as conventional reasoning.

• A culturally valued form of mature social understanding.

Researchers should avoid assuming that one cultural style of reasoning is universally superior.

Limitation: language demands

Interpersonal dilemmas require children to:

• Understand the story.

• Remember several characters.

• Interpret questions.

• Express complex reasoning verbally.

A child may possess perspective-taking ability but lack the vocabulary needed to demonstrate it.

The task may therefore underestimate:

• Younger children.

• Children with language difficulties.

• Children tested in a second language.

Limitation: memory demands

The child must remember:

• What each character knows.

• What each person wants.

• Previous events.

• Several relationships.

An incorrect answer could reflect memory limitations rather than poor perspective-taking.

Limitation: researcher interpretation

Children’s open-ended answers must be classified into levels.

The classification may involve subjective judgement.

For example, a response might contain features of:

• Self-reflective reasoning.

• Third-party reasoning.

Researchers may disagree about the most appropriate level.

Reliability can be improved through:

• Clear coding criteria.

• Training coders.

• Using several independent coders.

• Measuring inter-rater reliability.

• Keeping coders unaware of the child’s age.

Limitation: the levels may overlap

The age ranges overlap considerably.

A child may show:

• Level 3 reasoning in a familiar friendship dilemma.

• Level 2 reasoning in a complex family dispute.

• Level 1 reasoning when emotionally distressed.

This challenges the idea that each child occupies one fixed level.

Perspective-taking may be:

• Gradual.

• Situation dependent.

• Domain specific.

• Affected by emotion.

Limitation: development may not be caused by age alone

Age is associated with many other changes.

Older children usually have:

• Greater language ability.

• Better memory.

• More friendship experience.

• More opportunities for conflict resolution.

• Greater knowledge of social rules.

The observed age effect does not establish which change causes improved perspective-taking.

Limitation: parenting evidence is correlational

A relationship between parenting style and perspective-taking does not prove causality.

Possible explanations include:

1. Parental discussion improves perspective-taking.

2. Socially advanced children encourage more discussion.

3. Language ability influences both.

4. Family education or culture affects both.

The relationship is likely to be bidirectional.

Limitation: a stage-like account may be too rigid

Selman describes a structured progression through five levels.

However, research showing gradual improvement could be explained by continuous development.

A person may slowly improve in:

• Language.

• Social experience.

• Emotional regulation.

• Working memory.

• Metacognition.

These abilities may produce more sophisticated responses without sharp transitions between levels.

Research methods in Selman’s work

Clinical interviews

Selman often used flexible interviews following the dilemma.

The researcher could ask:

• “Why does the character think that?”

• “How does the other person feel?”

• “Does one person understand the other?”

• “What would an outsider say?”

Strength

Follow-up questions provide detailed qualitative data about the child’s reasoning.

Limitation

Different questioning may influence different children’s answers, reducing standardisation.

Qualitative data

Children’s explanations provide rich information about:

• Thoughts.

• Motives.

• Social understanding.

• Reasoning.

However, qualitative responses can be:

• Difficult to classify.

• Time-consuming to analyse.

• Affected by researcher expectations.

Cross-sectional studies

A cross-sectional study compares different age groups at one time.

Strength

Developmental differences can be investigated quickly.

Limitation

The groups may differ in experience or background rather than age alone.

Longitudinal studies

A longitudinal study follows the same children over time.

Strength

It directly measures individual developmental change.

Limitation

Participants may withdraw, creating attrition bias.

Repeated experience with dilemmas may also improve performance.

Practical applications

Conflict resolution

A mediator can ask each person to explain:

• Their own perspective.

• The other person’s likely perspective.

• How the other person views them.

• How a neutral observer would describe the conflict.

• Which wider rules should guide the solution.

This reflects progression through Selman’s levels.

Restorative conversations

Following a disagreement, pupils may be asked:

• What happened?

• What were you thinking?

• How might the other person have understood it?

• Who was affected?

• What should happen next?

The goal is to improve mutual perspective-taking rather than simply impose punishment.

Anti-bullying programmes

Perspective-taking exercises may help pupils recognise:

• The target’s viewpoint.

• The effects of group behaviour.

• How bystanders see the event.

• Wider school expectations.

However, because bullies may already possess cognitive perspective-taking ability, training should also address:

• Empathy.

• Moral motivation.

• Peer-group rewards.

• Emotional regulation.

Family therapy and mediation

Family members may interpret the same event differently.

Perspective-taking can help them recognise:

• Different information.

• Different expectations.

• Reciprocal misunderstandings.

• Wider family responsibilities.

Limitations of applications

Teaching someone to state another viewpoint does not guarantee:

• Genuine empathy.

• Behavioural change.

• Cooperation.

• Reduced aggression.

Applications should therefore combine perspective-taking with:

• Emotional understanding.

• Communication skills.

• Behavioural expectations.

• Opportunities to practise real conflict resolution.

Overall conclusion

Selman proposed that social perspective-taking develops through five levels:

egocentric → social informational → self-reflective → mutual or third-party → social and conventional system

Young children initially struggle to separate their own perspective from another person’s. They gradually understand that viewpoints differ because of information, become able to place themselves in another person’s position, coordinate several viewpoints and eventually consider wider social systems.

The theory is supported by age-related and longitudinal research and has useful applications in mediation and conflict resolution.

However:

• Hypothetical reasoning may not predict real behaviour.

• Perspective-taking is not the same as empathy.

• Social context and culture affect performance.

• Language and memory demands may underestimate ability.

• The five levels may be less rigid than Selman proposed.

The strongest conclusion is that perspective-taking generally becomes more sophisticated with development, but performance reflects an interaction between cognitive maturity, language, social experience, emotion and culture.

Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡

Examiner hint: Learn all five levels in the correct order. AQA mark schemes use:

1. Egocentric.

2. Social informational.

3. Self-reflective.

4. Mutual or third-party.

5. Social and conventional system or societal.

Examiner hint: Explain the development, not just the labels. The central progression is from one egocentric viewpoint towards coordinating several perspectives and understanding wider society.

Examiner hint: Use the person’s reasoning to identify the level. Do not rely only on age.

Examiner hint: A 9-year-old would commonly be expected to demonstrate self-reflective role-taking, including the ability to place themselves in another child’s position.

Examiner hint: In 2025, some students missed the instruction to evaluate perspective-taking research and described Selman instead. Others gave generic criticisms that could have been applied to almost any study.

Effective evaluation should be specific, for example:

• The dilemmas are hypothetical.

• Reasoning may not predict real behaviour.

• Verbal demands may affect classification.

• Perspective-taking does not guarantee empathy.

• Longitudinal evidence demonstrates age-related change.

Examiner hint: Do not assume that high perspective-taking ability produces kindness. Evidence involving bullying shows that another person’s viewpoint can be understood and used antisocially.

Examiner hint: When using a supporting study, state what it found and why this supports developmental change. Naming Gurucharri and Selman alone is not enough.

Examiner hint: Keep theory of mind and Selman distinct in combined questions. The 2022 extended question assessed both, but a high-level answer needed accurate knowledge and effective discussion of each.

Examiner hint: In an application question, identify the detail that shows the child understands:

• Different information.

• Another person’s feelings.

• Reciprocal viewpoints.

• A third-party position.

• Wider social expectations.

Examiner hint: The November 2020 report noted that knowledge and application of Selman were usually sound, but discussion was often brief or missing.

Common Mistakes ⚠️

Mistake: Defining perspective-taking as seeing what another person physically sees

Why this is incomplete:

Selman focused on social viewpoints, including thoughts, feelings and motives.

How to improve:

Explain that visual perspective-taking is only one form of perspective.

Mistake: Treating perspective-taking and empathy as synonyms

Why this is incorrect:

Perspective-taking is cognitive. Empathy includes an emotional response.

How to improve:

Explain that a person may understand another’s feelings without caring about them.

Mistake: Giving only four levels

Why this is incorrect:

Selman proposed five levels numbered from Level 0 to Level 4.

How to improve:

Remember that Level 0 counts as the first level.

Mistake: Starting with social informational as Level 0

Why this is incorrect:

Level 0 is egocentric role-taking.

How to improve:

Use:

egocentric → informational → reflective → mutual → societal

Mistake: Treating the age ranges as exact

Why this is incorrect:

The ranges overlap and performance varies by situation.

How to improve:

Use age as a clue and analyse the reasoning shown.

Mistake: Saying Level 1 means the child has no understanding of another viewpoint

Why this is incorrect:

The child understands that people may differ because they possess different information.

How to improve:

Contrast this with Level 0’s failure to distinguish perspectives.

Mistake: Saying Level 2 involves a neutral observer

Why this is incorrect:

A neutral third-party viewpoint is characteristic of Level 3.

How to improve:

Level 2 involves putting oneself in another person’s position.

Mistake: Saying Level 3 considers laws and cultural systems

Why this is incomplete:

Level 3 coordinates individual viewpoints. Wider social systems characterise Level 4.

How to improve:

Separate third-party understanding from societal reasoning.

Mistake: Classifying an answer from its decision alone

Why this is incorrect:

Two children may make the same decision for very different reasons.

How to improve:

Analyse the explanation, not simply whether Holly climbs the tree.

Mistake: Describing Piaget instead of Selman

Why this is incorrect:

Piaget focused on general cognitive development and visual egocentrism. Selman focused on interpersonal role-taking.

How to improve:

Use social dilemmas, reciprocal perspectives and the five levels.

Mistake: Describing the levels but not social cognition

Why this is incomplete:

The theory explains how children understand other people and relationships.

How to improve:

Link each level to increasingly sophisticated social understanding.

Mistake: Claiming dilemma reasoning predicts actual behaviour perfectly

Why this is incorrect:

Emotion and peer pressure may produce less sophisticated real-life behaviour.

How to improve:

Distinguish hypothetical reasoning from behaviour during an actual conflict.

Mistake: Using bullying evidence as proof that perspective-taking is absent

Why this is incorrect:

Some bullies may possess strong perspective-taking abilities.

How to improve:

Use the evidence to distinguish perspective-taking from empathy and prosocial motivation.

Mistake: Giving a generic validity criticism

Why this is incomplete:

Writing “the study was artificial” does not identify the problem.

How to improve:

Explain how an imagined dilemma may fail to reproduce the emotions and consequences of a real disagreement.

Mistake: Assuming one response reveals a permanent level

Why this is incorrect:

Performance can change according to context, familiarity and emotion.

How to improve:

Treat the response as evidence of the level demonstrated in that task.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Questions

1. What is meant by perspective-taking?[2 marks]

2. Name Selman’s five levels of perspective-taking in the correct order.[5 marks]

3. Explain one difference between social informational and self-reflective role-taking.[4 marks]

4. Six-year-old Theo says, “Lina thinks the party starts at three because her invitation gives the wrong time. Max thinks it starts at two because his invitation is correct.”

Explain Theo’s perspective-taking using Selman’s theory.[3 marks]

5. Nine-year-old Ada says, “Kim may pretend not to be upset because she does not want her friends to think she cares about being excluded.”

Explain Ada’s perspective-taking.[4 marks]

6. Fourteen-year-old Joel says, “Ravi thinks Eva ignored him, but Eva thought Ravi wanted to be left alone. Someone outside the disagreement would see that neither intended to be unkind.”

Explain which level of perspective-taking Joel demonstrates.[4 marks]

7. A student says that a school should protect individual pupils but must also apply rules fairly to the entire community.

Explain which of Selman’s levels this answer demonstrates.[3 marks]

8. Explain how Selman used interpersonal dilemmas to investigate perspective-taking.[4 marks]

9. Explain one difference between perspective-taking and empathy.[3 marks]

10. Briefly evaluate research into perspective-taking.[4 marks]

11. Outline one strength and one limitation of Selman’s account of social cognition.[6 marks]

12. Discuss Selman’s levels of perspective-taking in the development of social cognition.[16 marks]

Answers and Mark Scheme

Question 1

Award up to two marks:

• Perspective-taking is the ability to understand a situation from another person’s point of view.

• It may involve recognising that another person possesses different knowledge, thoughts, feelings, motives or intentions.

Question 2

Award one mark for each level in the correct order:

1. Egocentric role-taking.

2. Social informational role-taking.

3. Self-reflective role-taking.

4. Mutual or third-party role-taking.

5. Social and conventional system or societal role-taking.

Question 3

Award up to four marks:

• Social informational role-taking involves understanding that people may hold different views because they possess different information.

• The child may consider only one viewpoint at a time.

• Self-reflective role-taking involves placing oneself in another person’s position.

• The child understands that another person can also form an opinion about them or that

  outward behaviour may differ from internal feelings.

Question 4

Award up to three marks:

• Theo demonstrates social informational role-taking.

• He understands that Lina and Max possess different information.

• The different invitations explain why they form different beliefs about the party.

• He therefore distinguishes their perspectives rather than assuming both know the same thing.

Question 5

Award up to four marks:

• Ada demonstrates self-reflective role-taking.

• She places herself in Kim’s position.

• She understands that Kim’s outward behaviour may differ from her internal emotion.

• Kim is also represented as thinking about how her friends might judge her.

• This reciprocal awareness is characteristic of Level 2.

Question 6

Award up to four marks:

• Joel demonstrates mutual or third-party role-taking.

• He represents Ravi’s viewpoint.

• He also represents Eva’s viewpoint.

• He coordinates the two perspectives.

• He can step outside the interaction and describe how a neutral observer would understand it.

Question 7

Award up to three marks:

• The answer demonstrates social and conventional system role-taking.

• It considers an individual perspective and the wider school community.

• It uses broader social principles involving protection, fairness and institutional responsibility.

Question 8

Award up to four marks:

• Selman presented children with hypothetical interpersonal dilemmas.

• The stories involved characters with competing wishes or viewpoints.

• Children were asked questions about what each person thought, felt or should do.

• Their verbal explanations were analysed.

• Responses were classified according to the level of perspective-taking demonstrated.

Question 9

Award up to three marks:

• Perspective-taking is the cognitive ability to understand another person’s viewpoint.

• Empathy includes an emotional response or concern for that person.

• Someone may understand another person accurately without sharing their emotion or behaving prosocially.

Question 10

Award up to four marks for effective evaluation.

Possible content:

• Selman’s dilemmas are hypothetical, so children’s reasoning may not predict their behaviour during emotionally charged real conflicts.

• Longitudinal studies can demonstrate increasingly sophisticated reasoning within the same participants over time.

• Dilemmas require language and memory, so younger children’s ability may be underestimated.

• Perspective-taking does not guarantee empathy or prosocial behaviour, as bullies may understand and exploit another person’s viewpoint.

• Perspective-taking training has practical applications in conflict resolution and mediation.

• Social, cultural and emotional influences are not fully represented by the cognitive levels.

Higher marks require development rather than a list of undeveloped points.

Question 11

Award up to three marks for a developed strength and three marks for a developed limitation.

Possible strength:

Longitudinal evidence shows that the same children produce more sophisticated perspective-taking responses as they grow older. This supports Selman’s claim that social understanding develops progressively.

Possible limitation:

The theory is based mainly on responses to hypothetical dilemmas. Children may reason at an advanced level when discussing an imagined story but behave more egocentrically when personally involved and emotionally aroused, reducing ecological validity.

Alternative creditworthy points include:

• Age-related support from Selman and Byrne.

• Practical applications in mediation.

• Extension of Piaget’s work.

• Neglect of empathy.

• Cultural variation.

• Language demands.

• Subjective classification.

• Levels may overlap.

• Perspective-taking does not guarantee prosocial behaviour.

Question 12

A strong response should include:

Knowledge and understanding

• Definition of social cognition.

• Perspective-taking or role-taking.

• The age-related movement from egocentrism towards broader social understanding.

• Interpersonal dilemmas.

• The Holly dilemma or another suitable example.

• Level 0, egocentric role-taking.

• Difficulty separating self and other perspectives.

• Level 1, social informational role-taking.

• Different perspectives resulting from different information.

• Level 2, self-reflective role-taking.

• Placing oneself in another’s position.

• Understanding that another person can view the self.

• Level 3, mutual or third-party role-taking.

• Coordination of two perspectives.

• Neutral observer’s viewpoint.

• Level 4, social and conventional system role-taking.

• Wider laws, values, roles and cultural expectations.

• The progression from one viewpoint towards societal understanding.

Evaluation

• Age-related evidence from Selman and Byrne.

• Longitudinal evidence from Gurucharri, Phelps and Selman.

• Qualitative interviews provide detailed insight into reasoning.

• Selman extends Piaget’s account of egocentrism.

• Practical applications in conflict resolution, mediation and family therapy.

• Hypothetical dilemmas may lack ecological validity.

• Reasoning may not predict behaviour in real emotional situations.

• Perspective-taking is different from empathy.

• Bullying evidence shows advanced perspective-taking may be used antisocially.

• Selman underemphasises emotion and moral motivation.

• Family, peer and online settings may require different forms of perspective-taking.

• Cultural values affect what counts as mature social reasoning.

• Language and memory demands may underestimate younger children.

• Classification of qualitative responses may be subjective.

• Longitudinal research may suffer from attrition and practice effects.

• The levels may overlap and development may be continuous.

• Parenting evidence is correlational.

• A complete account should combine cognitive ability with social experience, emotion and culture.

Higher-level responses will describe all five levels accurately, apply them to interpersonal reasoning and evaluate research into perspective-taking rather than relying on generic criticisms.