La acción del secuestro

The current study aimed to investigate ToM development and its association with peer acceptance in Pakistani children (aged 5-8 years). For this purpose, 65 children were given four ToM tasks and two peer acceptance/rejection tasks. ToM tasks were scored as 1 for a correct answer and 0 for an incorrect answer.

Percentages of positive ratings by peers were calculated to indicate sociometric status. For self-perceived peer acceptance, the percentage of likes reported by the participant was calculated. Mean scores of ToM tasks were calculated to give the average performance. One-sample t-tests were conducted to find out the

difference between expected and observed mean values on overall ToM score for each year of age. A series One-sample t-tests was also conducted to test the difference between the mean value expected by chance and the observed mean value of participants on individual tasks of ToM at each year of age. Pearson correlations were carried out to find out the relationship between ToM, sociometric status and perceived peer acceptance rejection.

67

3.2.4.1 Demographics and Descriptive Analysis Table 1. Age and gender of Participants

Age (in months) Gender

Mean S.D Range F M Total Sample (N=65) 84.15 13.36 63-103 33 (51%) 32 (49%)

Table 1 presents demographics of age and gender for the entire sample. The age range of participants was 63 to 103 months (M=84.15, SD=13.36). There were roughly equal numbers of male and female participants.

Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of individual ToM tasks and total ToM score (N=65)

Tasks Mean (St. Dev)

ToM Desire (0/1) .64 (.48)

ToM Unexpected content (0/1) .56 (.49)

ToM Emotion(0/1) .41 (.49)

ToM Deception (0/1) .07 (.26)

ToM Total (0-4) 1.7 (1.19)

Table 2 presents the mean scores on different ToM tasks and total ToM score (which is the sum of scores on four tasks) for participants. The mean for desire

68

task is highest indicating that most children performed well on desire task. Whereas the mean for deception task is lowest, indicating that children did not perform as well on this task. The mean on total ToM score (1.7) indicated that, on average, children got under half of the ToM tasks correct.

3.2.4.2 Main Analysis

This section includes the results of single t-tests that have been used to analyse the difference between the actual mean scores of the participants and mean scores expected by chance on ToM tasks for different age groups. In addition it also includes findings from Pearson correlation between the variables (ToM, self-perceived peer acceptance and sociometric status).

Table 3. Results of One-Sample t-test and Descriptive Statistics of Total ToM Scores for Different Age Groups

Mean SD t df p 5 year olds (N=15) 1.00 1.06 -3.62 14 .003 6 year olds (N=16) 1.62 1.02 -1.46 15 .164 7 year olds (N=16) 2.06 1.28 .194 15 .849 8 year olds (N=18) 2.05 1.16 .203 17 .842

The range of total score for ToM tasks was 0-4, therefore 2 was specified as test value. The results of One- Sample t-test presented in table 3 indicated that the mean score of 5-year-olds (M= 1.00, SD= 1.06) was significantly different than the expected mean; t(14)=-3.62, p=0.003). This suggested that the performance of this group was significantly lower than would be expected by chance. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the observed and expected mean scores of and 6-year-olds (M= 1.62, SD= 1.02); t(15)= -1.46, p=0.164, 7-year-olds (M= 2.06, SD= 1.28); t(15)=.194, p=0.849 and 8-year-old participants (M= 2.05,

69

SD= 1.16); t(17)= .203, p=0.842. This suggested that the performance of 6, 7 and

8-year-olds could be attributed to chance.

One-Sample t-tests were also carried out for individual ToM tasks to

analyse the difference between observed mean scores of the participants and the scores that would be expected by chance. Since the tasks were scored as 0 or 1, .5 was specified as the mean score expected by chance.

Table 4. Results of One-Sample t-test and Descriptive Statistics of individual ToM tasks for 5-year-olds (N=15)

Mean SD t df p

Desire .33 .48 -1.32 14 .207

Content .40 .50 -.764 14 .458

Emotion .20 .41 -2.80 14 .014

Deception .06 .25 -6.50 14 .000

The results of One-Sample t-tests in Table 4 indicated no significant difference in the observed and expected mean scores (M=.33, SD=.48) of desire task; t(14)=- 1.32, p=0.207. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the expected and observed mean scores (M=.40, SD=.50) of content task; t(14)=-7.64, p=0.458, for the 5-year-olds. This suggested that the performance of 5-year-olds on desire and content tasks was no different than would be expected by chance. On the contrary there was a significant difference in the observed and expected mean values of emotion (M=.20, SD=.41); t(14)=-2.80, p=0.014, and deception tasks (M=.06,

SD=.25); t(14)=-6.50, p=0.000.This suggested that the performance of 5-year-olds

70

Table 5. Results of One-Sample t-test and Descriptive Statistics of individual ToM tasks for 6-year-olds (N=16)

Mean SD t df p

Desire .75 .44 2.23 15 .041

Content .56 .51 .488 15 .633

Emotion .31 .47 -1.56 15 .138

Deception .00 .00 - - -

The results of One-Sample t-tests in Table 5 indicated a significant difference in the observed and expected mean scores (M=.75, SD=.44) of desire task,

t(15)=2.23, p=0.041, for the 6-year-olds. This suggested that the performance of 6-

year-olds on desire task was better than would be expected by chance. However, there was no significant difference in the observed and expected mean values (M=.56, SD=.51) of content task; t(15)=.488, p=0.633. Similarly, no difference was found in the expected and observed mean score (M=.31, SD=.47) of emotion task;

t(15)=1.56, p=0.138). These results indicated that the performance of 6-year-olds

on these tasks could be attributed to chance. All the children failed the deception task; therefore, the test could not be carried out for this task.

71

Table 6. Results of One-Sample t-test and Descriptive Statistics of individual ToM tasks for 7-year-olds (N=16)

Mean SD t df p

Desire .81 .40 3.10 15 .007

Content .56 .51 .488 15 .633

Emotion .50 .51 .000 15 1.000

Deception .18 .40 -3.10 15 .007

According to the results presented in table 6, the observed mean score (M=.81,

SD=.40) of 7-year-olds on desire task was significantly different than the expected

mean value; t(15)=3.10, p=0.007. This indicated that the performance of 7-year- olds was better than would be expected by chance on desire task. However, there was no significant difference in the observed and expected mean score (M=.56,

SD=.51) of content task; t(15)=-.488, p=0.633) as well as the emotion task (M=.50, SD=.51); t(15)=.000, p=1.000. The observed and expected mean scores (M=.18, SD=.40) were significantly different for the deception task; t=-3.10, p=0.007,

indicating that the 7-year-olds performed worse than would be expected by chance on this task.

72

Table 7. Results of One-Sample t-test and Descriptive Statistics of individual ToM tasks for 8-year-olds (N=18)

Mean SD t df p

Desire .77 .42 2.75 17 .014

Content .72 .46 2.04 17 .057

Emotion .61 .50 .940 17 .361

Deception .05 .23 -8.00 17 .000

As per the results presented in table 7, the observed mean score (M=.77, SD=.42) of 8-year-olds on desire task was significantly different than the expected mean value; t(17)=2.75, p=0.014. This indicated that the performance of this age group on the desire task was better than would be expected by chance. However, there was no significant difference in the observed and expected mean scores on content (M=.18, SD=.38); t(17)=2.04, p=0.057, and emotion tasks (M=.61,

SD=.50); t(17)=.940, p=0.361. These findings indicated that the performance of 8-

year-olds on content and emotion tasks was no better than chance. Furthermore, the observed and expected mean scores (M=.05, SD=.23) of 8-year-olds were significantly different for the deception task; t(17)=-8.00, p=0.000, indicating that the 8-year-olds performed worse than would be expected by chance on this task.

73

Table 8. Pearson Correlation between ToM, Self-perceived peer acceptance (SPPA) and sociometric status (SS)

ToM SPPA SS

ToM - -.212 -.104 SPPA - .245*

SS- -

*_{p < .05}

The possible range of scores on ToM tasks was 0-4 where higher scores indicated better ToM ability. The possible range of scores on perceived peer acceptance was 0-100, where higher scores meant higher perceived acceptance. The possible range of scores on sociometric status was also 0-100, where higher scores meant popularity in the group or high liking by the group. There was no significant

correlation between ToM score and both measures of peer acceptance. However, the correlation between self-perceived peer acceptance and sociometric status was significant (r=.245, p=.049).