Incorrect Responses in First-Order False-Belief Tests: A Hybrid-Logical Formalization

IF 0.6 Q2 LOGIC
T. Braüner
{"title":"Incorrect Responses in First-Order False-Belief Tests: A Hybrid-Logical Formalization","authors":"T. Braüner","doi":"10.12775/LLP.2020.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the paper (Brauner, 2014) we were concerned with logical formalizations of the reasoning involved in giving correct responses to the psychological tests called the Sally-Anne test and the Smarties test, which test children’s ability to ascribe false beliefs to others. A key feature of the formal proofs given in that paper is that they explicitly formalize the perspective shift to another person that is required for figuring out the correct answers – you have to put yourself in another person’s shoes, so to speak, to give the correct answer. We shall in the present paper be concerned with what happens when answers are given that are not correct. The typical incorrect answers indicate that children failing false-belief tests have problems shifting to a perspective different from their own, to be more precise, they simply reason from their own perspective. Based on this hypothesis, we in the present paper give logical formalizations that in a systematic way model the typical incorrect answers. The remarkable fact that the incorrect answers can be derived using logically correct rules indicates that the origin of the mistakes does not lie in the children’s logical reasoning, but rather in a wrong interpretation of the task.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":"29 1","pages":"415-445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2020.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the paper (Brauner, 2014) we were concerned with logical formalizations of the reasoning involved in giving correct responses to the psychological tests called the Sally-Anne test and the Smarties test, which test children’s ability to ascribe false beliefs to others. A key feature of the formal proofs given in that paper is that they explicitly formalize the perspective shift to another person that is required for figuring out the correct answers – you have to put yourself in another person’s shoes, so to speak, to give the correct answer. We shall in the present paper be concerned with what happens when answers are given that are not correct. The typical incorrect answers indicate that children failing false-belief tests have problems shifting to a perspective different from their own, to be more precise, they simply reason from their own perspective. Based on this hypothesis, we in the present paper give logical formalizations that in a systematic way model the typical incorrect answers. The remarkable fact that the incorrect answers can be derived using logically correct rules indicates that the origin of the mistakes does not lie in the children’s logical reasoning, but rather in a wrong interpretation of the task.
一阶错误置信测试中的错误回答:一种混合逻辑形式化
在这篇论文(Brauner,2014)中,我们关注的是对被称为Sally Anne测试和Smarties测试的心理测试做出正确反应所涉及的推理的逻辑形式化,这两种测试测试儿童将错误信念归因于他人的能力。该论文中给出的形式证明的一个关键特征是,它们明确地将找出正确答案所需的视角转移到另一个人身上——可以说,你必须设身处地为另一个人着想,才能给出正确的答案。在本文中,我们将关注当给出的答案不正确时会发生什么。典型的错误答案表明,不通过错误信念测试的孩子很难转移到与自己不同的角度,更准确地说,他们只是从自己的角度推理。基于这一假设,我们在本文中给出了逻辑形式化,以系统的方式对典型的错误答案进行建模。使用逻辑正确的规则可以得出错误答案,这一显著事实表明,错误的根源不在于孩子的逻辑推理,而是对任务的错误解释。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
40.00%
发文量
29
×
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