Literature DB >> 28623778

Are there signature limits in early theory of mind?

Ella Fizke1, Stephen Butterfill2, Lea van de Loo1, Eva Reindl3, Hannes Rakoczy4.   

Abstract

Current theory-of-mind research faces the challenge of reconciling two sets of seemingly incompatible findings: Whereas children come to solve explicit verbal false belief (FB) tasks from around 4years of age, recent studies with various less explicit measures such as looking time, anticipatory looking, and spontaneous behavior suggest that even infants can succeed on some FB tasks. In response to this tension, two-systems theories propose to distinguish between an early-developing system, tracking simple forms of mental states, and a later-developing system, based on fully developed concepts of belief and other propositional attitudes. One prediction of such theories is that the early-developing system has signature limits concerning aspectuality. We tested this prediction in two experiments. The first experiment showed (in line with previous findings) that 2- and 3-year-olds take into account a protagonist's true or false belief about the location of an object in their active helping behavior. In contrast, toddlers' helping behavior did not differentiate between true and false belief conditions when the protagonist's belief essentially involved aspectuality. Experiment 2 replicated these findings with a more stringent method designed to rule out more parsimonious explanations. Taken together, the current findings are compatible with the possibility that early theory-of-mind reasoning is subject to signature limits as predicted by the two-systems account.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implicit vs. explicit; Nativism; Signature limits; Social cognition; Theory of mind; Two-systems theory

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28623778     DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.05.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol        ISSN: 0022-0965


  5 in total

1.  Great apes use self-experience to anticipate an agent's action in a false-belief test.

Authors:  Fumihiro Kano; Christopher Krupenye; Satoshi Hirata; Masaki Tomonaga; Josep Call
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  The social neuroscience of mentalizing: challenges and recommendations.

Authors:  Dorit Kliemann; Ralph Adolphs
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2018-02-27

3.  Do young children track other's beliefs, or merely their perceptual access? An interactive, anticipatory measure of early theory of mind.

Authors:  Pamela Barone; Lisa Wenzel; Marina Proft; Hannes Rakoczy
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 3.653

4.  Knowledge before belief ascription? Yes and no (depending on the type of "knowledge" under consideration).

Authors:  Hannes Rakoczy; Marina Proft
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-12

Review 5.  Infants' performance in the indirect false belief tasks: A second-person interpretation.

Authors:  Pamela Barone; Antoni Gomila
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci       Date:  2020-12-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.