What factors influence level-2 visual perspective-taking ability in 4-year-old children?

Introduction Level-2 visual perspective taking (VPT-2) reflects children’s ability to understand others’ visual experiences. However, the effects of viewing angle and task materials on 4-year-olds’ performance remain unclear. Methods Using a picture-taking (“photographer”) task, this study examined the effects of test tool and rotation angle, as well as egocentric error patterns, among 163 four-year-old children from Hainan, China. A 2 (test tool: Lego figurines vs. geometric solids) × 3 (rotation angle: 0°, 90°, 180°) within-subjects design was used. The formal test comprised 18 four-alternative trials, with three trials in each Tool × Angle condition; each correct response scored 1 and each incorrect response scored 0. Performance was assessed using raw correct scores and the proportions of egocentric errors. Results Rotation angle significantly affected performance in a nonmonotonic pattern: raw correct scores were highest at 0°, followed by 180°, and lowest at 90°. The main effect of test tool was significant, with higher raw correct scores in the Lego figurine condition than in the geometric solids condition. The Tool × Angle interaction for raw correct scores was not significant. The proportions of egocentric errors showed significant main effects of test tool and rotation angle, as well as a significant Tool × Angle interaction. Egocentric errors were most pronounced in the geometric solids condition at 180°. Supplementary analyses revealed no significant sex main effect or sex-related interactions. Discussion These findings indicate that 4-year-olds’ VPT-2 performance varies across rotation angles and test materials. Performance differences between material conditions may be associated with differences in task structure, stimulus discriminability, social cues, and spatial-relational judgment demands, whose independent contributions could not be isolated in this study. Because the analyses relied on raw correct scores and error-type data, the findings should be interpreted as differences in behavioral performance rather than direct evidence about processing strategies or cognitive mechanisms.