Lifespan A: Children's understanding of others' mind, WEEK 6 Flashcards
1
Q
Theory of mind
A
- Capacity to attribute mental states (e.g desires, beliefs, knowledge) to others to predict/explain behaviour
- Mental states = things we cannot see so it is thought about in a theoretical sense (behaviour is caused by certain mental state)
- “Theory” of mind because we are assuming what is happening > way of explaining people’s behaviour
- Ability to recognise what other people may be thinking or feeling (responding appropriately is beyond ToM)
2
Q
Piaget on children’s social development
A
- Piaget investigated playground conversations + found they were commonly egocentric
- Egocentrism: child doesn’t take into account what the listener knows or doesn’t know > Pre-operational stage (2-7yrs)
- After age 7, child shows socialized speech > obs suggest children try take the view of others by imagining knowledge others have
- Domain general view of development > between 0-8 children cannot think about what others are thinking
3
Q
Piaget & Inhelder: mountain experiment
A
- Wanted to see if children between 3-8yrs could take the view of a character
- Use a doll + put them at the 4 different views of mountain, child is shown different pictures of the views + is asked what can the doll see?
- Results show children didn’t pass reliably until age 7-8 (concrete ops)
- Contradictory research by Donaldson + Hughes simplify this task where children were asked to hide burglar form police so police can’t see him (have to take view of police) > results show children between 3-5 could hide the burglar
4
Q
Criticism of Piaget: Wellman
A
- Problem w/ Piaget’s way of thinking is that it isn’t very social > Wellman believes using perspective taking in mountains task confounded ability to understand what other people were thinking w/ mental rotation
- Argues it is possible to pass task w/o taking the perspective by manipulating the space in mind (physical skill)
5
Q
Alternative argument: Meta-Representation
A
- Wellman argues the most important thing children had to do to understand someones mind is to represent that other people can have representation
- Represent = ability to hold an idea in mind
- Children have to recognise that other people can represent things + their view of the world can be different from yours
- Meta-representation > ability to represent different people have different views on the same thing
- Exists on different levels so we can have different beliefs about the same thing
6
Q
Concept for False-Belief task: Dennett (1978)
A
- At a Punch + Judy puppet show noticed the children there between 3-4 yrs could represent
- Punch put Judy in a box and left > Judy got out of the box and left but Punch came back thinking she was still there and opened the box > the kids were laughing consistently when there was a contrast between what Punch + Judy knew suggesting children can have ToM earlier than Piaget said
- Dennett came up with the concept for the false belief task
7
Q
The False-Belief Task: Wimmer & Perner (1983)
A
- Developed FB exp
- Children see a character put a toy in a basket the the character leaves
- Character’s friend comes + takes toy out of basket + puts in a box and closes it
- When the character returns, the child is asked where will he look for his toy? > distinction between what character knows + what we know
- Children who recognise the character has a different belief to us will say they look in the basket (pass test)
- Children who don’t recognise that we know differently from the character will say he looks in the box (fails test)
8
Q
Replication of False-Belief task: Perner et Al., (1987)
A
- Smarties task > show child smarties box + ask what do you think is in it? they respond w/ sweets > researcher opens the box + shows there aren’t sweets but there are pencils in the box > close box + say your mummy hasn’t seen what is inside, what will she think is in it?
- Distinction between what child knows and what mother knows
- Child recognising people have different knowledge will say she thinks there are smarties > if the child doesn’t recognise this they will say pencils
9
Q
Why do we ask children where the object really is, who put it there, and where was it at the start?
FB task
A
- To make sure the child has paid attention to story + followed it > control for them not understanding and failing bc of that
- Who put it there? checks their memory for sequence of events
- Where was it at the start? Checks memory
- Need to ask all these to truly assess their belief vs characters
- Working memory + language affects ability to follow the story
10
Q
Truth about False Belief
A
- Did meta-analysis + gathered data from 178 studies representing 4000 children from different countries to see when children pass this test
- Between ages of 36-60mo, children’s performance on the task increases from below chance levels to above chance levels
- There are variations in when kids understand beliefs different to theirs exist
11
Q
Why is mind reading important?
A
- Children w/ autism reliably do worse on measures of ToM than children w/o it > perhaps ToM deficits may be why children w/ autism struggle in certain social situations
- Adults w/ SZ struggle on tests of ToM
- Typically developing children > some are v good at the task while others aren’t > means a disorder isn’t necessary to be bad at ToM > we may just vary in how good we are
- Children better at mind reading in early childhood are 1.more likely to be called prosocial (likely to share/help)
2. more likely to be rated as popular by peers
3. More likely rated as socially competent at end of primary school by their teachers
12
Q
Nativist accounts
A
- Mind reading is an innate, domain specific skill
- Suggests we have specialised cognitive abilities allowing us to do this
- Leslie argues we are born w/ ToM module > born w/ a module which processes mental states > when we enter the world we track people’s eyes, facial exp
- Development occurs due to specialised modules (each capable of processing different types of mental states) which come up as we mature > born w/ modules which specialise as we grow + improves > no development of ToM, we are born with it
13
Q
Evidence for Nativist Theories
A
- Mind reading is universal > many cross-cultural studies have been completed + mind-reading is prevalent across species > although some children in certain countries get this earlier + others get it later but all cultures get it eventually
- Evolutionary argument > Baron-Cohen argues as social beings we need ToM to survive > apart of evolution
- Autism is a highly heritable + genetically predisposed condition > some argue this itself shows theory of mind is linked to genes + not EV
14
Q
Can infants reason about false belief?
Baillargeon task description
A
- Baillargeon said measures of ToM were too difficult > required working memory + language before the question could be answered
- Developed a non-verbal measure of ToM w/ violation of expectations with 15mo > minimal language skills
- Phase 1: Familiarisation task so child gets used to idea researcher has a toy which is put in a box then reached for after
Phase 2: Belief-induction trial > infants split into 4 groups
1st group: True belief green condition > actor sees toy move under green box
2nd group: true belief yellow condition > toy moves to yellow box but actor sees
3rd group: False belief green condition > actor sees toy put under green box, screen shut so actor can’t see and toy moves to yellow box
4th group: False belief yellow condition > actor sees it is under yellow box but moves to green w/o being seen
Phase 3: Children see something consistent/inconsistent w/ their knowledge
15
Q
Can infants reason about false belief?
Challenges to Baillargeon
A
- Children use simple behaviour rules so the actor should look where they last saw the toy > if they don’t the child looks longer than when it is knowledge consistent > e.g: if the actor believed it was in the green box but reached for yellow, infants looked longer > doesn’t measure mind reading
- Baillargeon argues the children could represent what the actor was thinking > suggests children at 15mo begin to reason others’ beliefs
- Children may have simple understanding (implicit) but is different to what is measured at 3-4 yrs old (explicit) > implicit knowledge cannot answer those questions
- Failure to replicate Baillargeon’s findings > unreliable?
16
Q
The “Theory” Theory of Theory of Mind:
Constructivist accounts
A
- Views child as little psychologist > sees things happening in surrounds + if it conflicts w/ what you think, scheme updates
- Children have basic abilities allowing them to reflect on + update knowledge
- Development of ToM is about updating your theory of mind
- Child’s “theory” of how mental state link w/ behaviour changes in response to transactions w/ EV
- Mind reading development viewed as a sequence of theoretical or conceptual changes
- Understand other people’s mind by going through a sequence of steps + mastering different concepts such as desires
17
Q
Progression of understanding mental concepts
A
- There is evidence of development contrasting nativist theories
- Children exhibit stable progressions from ages 2-6 in their understanding of different mental concepts
- Progresses from: diverse desires (wanting different things), diverse beliefs (different beliefs about same object), knowledge access (someone knowing something you don’t vice versa), false belief and belief-emotion
- Children move through a sequence + must build their ToM by understanding types of mental states
18
Q
Variation in mind-reading ability
A
- Children show individual differences in their ability to understand others’ minds > not all or nothing phenomenon
- Individual differences in mind-reading are stable over time + predicted by a wide range of cognitive + social factors+ linked w/ a range of social outcomes in childhood
19
Q
Explanation for individual differences in mind-reading
A
- ToM is reliant on understanding we can control our own thoughts + actions before thinking about thoughts of others
- Executive function make explain individual differences
- EF = higher order processes involved in the conscious control of thought + action > linked w/ functioning of pre-frontal cortex
- Components of EF include inhibitory control (ability to override impulse to do something), working memory and shifting (shift between activities easily)
20
Q
Measuring executive function
A
- Measure inhibitory control using games > e.g. whenever I say sad you point to happy sticker
- Measure shifting using organising cards > cards where there are some w/ same shape + others w/ different shape but same colour > match based on shapes then shift to match based on colour > looks at same object in different ways
- Commonly between both tasks from ages 2-6, performance improves
- Executive function develops around same time as ToM
21
Q
Executive function & Theory of Mind
A
- As EF + ToM develop together, they may have a connection
- Need to be able to understand own thoughts + EF tasks are good at testing this
- EF deficits along ToM deficits in ASD
- EF + ToM are correlated
22
Q
Meta analysis on relation between EF & ToM
A
- Data from 100 studies from kids between 2-6 to investigate correlation between EF + ToM
- Found moderate association between EF tasks + ToM tasks
- Effect remains moderate when outliers are removed + control for language ability or age
- EF helps us develop ToM (emergence view) > ToM helps us develop EF (meta-representation view)
- longitudinal studies support emergence view
- EF is necessary for ToM > need to control our own thoughts before thinking of others
23
Q
Necessary but not sufficient?
A
- Training by showing the task + giving feedback + control conditions to see if training ToM improved EF and vice versa
- Children in EF training = gains in false belief task (ToM) + EF
- But children in ToM training improved in false belief but also EF > there may be a directional association
24
Q
Social & cultural accounts of mindreading
A
- Argues learning ToM is similar to learning for print reading > we have to be taught by our culture > do this via everyday interactions
- Through these conversational experiences we compare out perspectives against other people > helps develop ToM
25
Q
Is mind-reading heritable?
A
Twin studies show how heritable ToM may be
- Effect of additive genes reduce w/ age + effect of EV increases w/ age
- Genes may be important initially in developing ToM but environmental experience may play a greater role w/ maturation
26
Q
Talking about mental states
A
- observational studies can show what experiences really matter
- study this by recording lengthy conversations between parents + child > count amount of mental words used
- Children engaged in more conversations about mental states outperformed their peers on false belief tasks
27
Q
Mind-mindedness
A
- Can also look at relationship between child + parent > quality of it
- Mind-minded parenting > kind of parents see their child as an agent w/ their own thoughts, ideas + feelings
- Mind-mindedness can be measured by observing parents + their non-verbal infants playing together + looking at parents description during play looking to see if it attributes to thoughts, desires or feelings of the child
- Can also use a interview where we ask the parent to describe their child > count number of times the parent refers to the child as having their own thoughts + emotions + desires
- Parents who aren’t mind-minded would give a description of physical appearance etc
28
Q
Importance of family in mind-reading?
A
- Meta analysis examining relationship between parental mind-mindedness + parent mental state talk
- There is a relationship between children’s ToM and socio-economic status, family size, parental mental state talk + parental mind-mindedness
- Supports that ToM may be influenced by social experience
29
Q
Evidence for environment in mind-reading
A
- Longitudinal evidence shows parents using lots of mental state words when their child is very young do better on ToM tasks later on
- Long-term effects of mental state talk
30
Q
Can we train ToM by increasing amount of mental state talk?
A
- meta analysis on 32 training studies on how to do ToM tests including 1529 children
- Between group effect: g= .75 > Within groups effect: g= .93
- Long sessions, short training periods = better effects
- Can train ToM + improve it through feedback
31
Q
Is conversation enough to improve mind-reading?
A
- Intervention and control group > intervention group got daily stories followed by conversation about characters mental states while control group discussed events in story or features of characters
- Mental state talk includes how did he feel? while talk about events was “what was he wearing?”
- Mental state talk appears to predict the development of ToM but can be sufficient to increase child’s ToM
- Month later, the pre-test shows no difference in ToM, but 10 days after the month finishing testing, children in intervention group showed improved ToM more than control > 3 months later this remained consistent
