What Can We Learn by Treating Perspective Taking as Problem Solving?

Taylor et al. (2021) wrote a theory paper. They asked: what if perspective taking is just problem solving?

The authors said kids first learn tiny precurrent steps. These steps later trigger the final "I know what you think" response.

They critiqued two big models. Theory of Mind says we infer hidden mental states. RFT says we derive relations. Taylor’s team says both skip the real action: the child’s own problem-solving chain.

The paper does not give new data. It gives a new lens.

Looking through that lens, teaching perspective taking means you break the skill into small, observable parts. You reinforce each part until the chain runs by itself.

Mead Jasperse et al. (2023) showed the same precurrent idea in real life. Their functional analysis found self-injury was kept alive because it set up the next response, not because it earned direct payoff. The mechanism matches Taylor’s theory.

Zhirnova et al. (2025) and Paranczak et al. (2024) went further. Preschoolers and early-elementary kids learned a few color or character relations. Minutes later the children passed symmetry and analogy tests without extra training. The studies give live examples of brief problem-solving chains producing perspective-like performances.

Alderson-Day et al. (2011) sounds like a clash. Children with autism used narrower, slower categories when problems got abstract. That warns us: the same chain may need more practice or different precurrent cues for neurodivergent learners.

Stop asking "Does the child have Theory of Mind?" Start asking "Which precurrent behaviors are missing?" Write the chain. Test each link. Reinforce until the final response looks like perspective taking. The four neighbor studies give you proof it works across ages and content. Just watch for population tweaks—kids with ASD may need tighter stimulus control and extra fluency drills.