Why Do Children From Age 4 Fail True Belief Tasks? A Decision Experiment Testing Competence Versus Performance Limitation Accounts

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Lydia Paulin Schidelko, Hannes Rakoczy
{"title":"Why Do Children From Age 4 Fail True Belief Tasks? A Decision Experiment Testing Competence Versus Performance Limitation Accounts","authors":"Lydia Paulin Schidelko,&nbsp;Hannes Rakoczy","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The standard view on Theory of Mind (ToM) is that the mastery of the false belief (FB) task around age 4 marks the ontogenetic emergence of full-fledged meta-representational ToM. Recently, a puzzling finding has emerged: Once children master the FB task, they begin to fail true belief (TB) control tasks. This finding threatens the validity of FB tasks and the standard view.  Here, we test two prominent attempts to explain the puzzling findings against each other. The perceptual access reasoning account (a competence limitation account) assumes that children at age 4 do not yet engage in meta-representation, but use simpler heuristics (“if an agent has perceptual access, she knows and then acts successfully; otherwise, she acts unsuccessfully”). In contrast, the pragmatics approach (a performance limitation account) suggests that children at age 4 do have meta-representational ToM but are confused by pragmatic task factors of the TB task. The current study tested competing predictions of both accounts in a decision experiment. Results from 165 4- to 7-year-olds reveal that failure in the TB task disappeared once the tasks were modified: children mastered both FB and TB tasks when the latter were adapted in terms of heuristic and pragmatic factors. Importantly, this pattern held in conditions in which the pragmatics account predicts success, but the perceptual access account predicts failure. Overall, the present findings thus corroborate the standard view (children use meta-representational ToM from age 4, at the latest) and suggest that difficulties with TB tasks merely reflect pragmatic performance factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70069","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70069","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The standard view on Theory of Mind (ToM) is that the mastery of the false belief (FB) task around age 4 marks the ontogenetic emergence of full-fledged meta-representational ToM. Recently, a puzzling finding has emerged: Once children master the FB task, they begin to fail true belief (TB) control tasks. This finding threatens the validity of FB tasks and the standard view.  Here, we test two prominent attempts to explain the puzzling findings against each other. The perceptual access reasoning account (a competence limitation account) assumes that children at age 4 do not yet engage in meta-representation, but use simpler heuristics (“if an agent has perceptual access, she knows and then acts successfully; otherwise, she acts unsuccessfully”). In contrast, the pragmatics approach (a performance limitation account) suggests that children at age 4 do have meta-representational ToM but are confused by pragmatic task factors of the TB task. The current study tested competing predictions of both accounts in a decision experiment. Results from 165 4- to 7-year-olds reveal that failure in the TB task disappeared once the tasks were modified: children mastered both FB and TB tasks when the latter were adapted in terms of heuristic and pragmatic factors. Importantly, this pattern held in conditions in which the pragmatics account predicts success, but the perceptual access account predicts failure. Overall, the present findings thus corroborate the standard view (children use meta-representational ToM from age 4, at the latest) and suggest that difficulties with TB tasks merely reflect pragmatic performance factors.

为什么4岁的孩子不能完成真实信念任务?一个测试能力与绩效限制帐户的决策实验
关于心智理论(ToM)的标准观点是,4岁左右对错误信念任务的掌握标志着成熟的元表征性心智理论(ToM)的个体发生出现。最近,一个令人困惑的发现出现了:一旦孩子们掌握了FB任务,他们开始失败的真实信念(TB)控制任务。这一发现威胁到FB任务的有效性和标准观点。在这里,我们测试了两种突出的尝试,以相互解释令人困惑的发现。知觉获取推理说(能力限制说)假设4岁的儿童还没有参与元表征,而是使用更简单的启发式(“如果一个主体有知觉获取,她知道,然后成功地行动;否则,她的行为就不成功”)。相比之下,语用学方法(表现限制解释)表明,4岁的儿童确实有元表征性ToM,但被TB任务的语用任务因素所迷惑。目前的研究在一个决策实验中测试了这两种说法的相互矛盾的预测。165名4- 7岁儿童的结果显示,在对TB任务进行修改后,TB任务的失败消失了:当TB任务在启发式和语用因素方面进行调整时,儿童同时掌握了FB和TB任务。重要的是,这种模式在语用解释预测成功,而知觉获取解释预测失败的情况下成立。总的来说,目前的研究结果因此证实了标准观点(儿童最迟从4岁开始使用元代表性的ToM),并表明结核任务的困难仅仅反映了务实的表现因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信