IX. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ANDDIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Given that this is the first study that used new measures, such as themodified false belief task and the surprise body task, to ascertain the validity ofthe DSR task and the first to yield significant findings, future research shouldfocus on replicating this study. Similarly, future research should focus onreplicating the simultaneous contribution of social, cognitive, and linguisticfactors to the development of the TES. Replicating these studies would serveto establish external validity and experimental reliability (Shaughnessy &Zechmeister, 1997). Additionally, in light of the importance attributed to thedevelopment of a TES, establishing external validity would hold importanttheoretical and practical ramifications (see earlier section on significance ofautobiographical memory).

Further, it may be beneficial that future research focuses specifically onassessing contributing factors longitudinally and to test children from ayounger age before they can use language to converse with their caregivers.This would allow for the assessment of caregiver’s conversational style at atime when children do not have the capacity to be involved in elaboratereciprocal conversations. It may be that caregiver’s conversational stylechanges as a function of children’s increasing age, which allows them tobe conversational participants. Also, as in the current study, children’scognitive maturity and verbal ability should be tested using standardized teststo ascertain whether differences in cognitive ability at such a young ageinfluence their caregivers’ conversational style. Finally, it would be beneficialto include a measure of mental state talk by mothers and children, andconversational style of parents as it relates to other children in the family. Thiswould provide further insight into whether conversational style is a stablecharacteristic of the caregivers rather than influenced by children’scharacteristics. This was not possible in the current study, as parents werealready attending three lengthy sessions and any additional demands on thecarers and their children would have been impractical. Also, regardingthe time constraints imposed by the demands of the clinical nature of the

88

course and the number of issues that needed exploring, this would have beenan impossible task to fulfill.

Another limitation of the present study was that the sample used wasmainly composed of middle-class families, hence, possibly restricting thegeneralizability of the findings.

CONCLUSION

The current research provided evidence to support Povinelli et al.’s(1996) theoretical assertion that the DSR task (i.e., the version in whichchildren do not see, on video playback, the experimenter place a sticker ontheir hair) measures the ability to meta-represent, and is thus a valid measurefor assessing the development of the TES; a significant developmentalmilestone for young children. Further, it is argued that the DSR task is avaluable tool given that it does not require a large amount of verbal directionand is implemented in the context of an enjoyable activity, allowing theresearcher to administer it reliably.

Importantly, however, in reviewing the studies that have used the DSRtask it has become evident that not all researchers have used the same versionof theDSR task. For example, some researchers (e.g., Miyazaki &Hiraki, 2006;Povinelli et al., 1996, Experiment 3; Skouteris et al., 2006; Zelazo et al., 1999,Experiment 1) have used the version in which children do not see, on the videoplayback, the experimenter place a sticker on their hair, whereas in otherresearch (e.g., Dissanayake et al., 2010; Lind & Bowler, 2009; Povinelli et al.,1996, Experiment 1; Suddendorf, 1999; Zelazo et al., 1999, Experiment 2)participants saw, on the video playback, the experimenter place a sticker ontheir hair. Moreover, it is maintained that, from a theoretical point of view,successful performance on the latter version of the DSR task may require alower level of representation (i.e., secondary representation—hence,Dissanayake et al.’s, and Lind & Bowler’s findings “that children with autisticdisorder and Asperger’s disorder are as able to recognize their delayed videoimage as their TD peers” [Dissanayake et al., p. 503]). Future research is,therefore, directed at exploring this issue by testing children on both versionsof the DSR task after they have been provided with the required level oftraining to understand the video medium. According to the present research,children who were between the mental age of 3 and 3.5 years required acertain level of video training before they were able to express their ability forDSR.

In addition, the current research, together with the work of otherresearchers (e.g., Povinelli et al., 1999; Roth & Leslie, 1998; Skouteris et al.,2006; Suddendorf, 2003; Troseth, 2006; Troseth&DeLoache, 1998) highlightthe importance of evaluating the methods used in testing both from

89

CONSIDERATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

theoretical and empirical perspectives to help detect and remove extraneousvariables that may conceal children’s abilities. It is equally important toconsider the possibility that, for certain age groups (or developmentallydelayed children such as those with autism), a reliable test may not necessarilybe a valid one (e.g., standard false belief task with 3-year-olds or a certainversion of the DSR task) resulting in research that may yield consistent, albeitnonvalid findings.

Finally, in line with prior research (e.g., Fivush, 1994; Fivush & Fromhoff,1988; Fivush & Nelson, 2006), the data of the present study emphasize thecentral role that social input plays in children’s cognitive development.

90