4: Theory of Mind

1
4 Theory of Mind

• Outline
• What is theory of mind?
• The development of theory of mind evidence from
  false belief tasks
• Traditional explanation representational deficit
  theory
• Empirical challenges to the false belief tasks
  and representational deficit theory
• Non-stage theories
• Theory of Mind module
• Reality Bias
• The response of representational deficit
  theorists
• Summary and learning outcomes

2
What is theory of mind (ToM)?

• The ability to make inferences about others
  representational states and to predict behaviour
  accordingly (Lewis Mitchell, 1994)
• Term theory of mind coined by Premack
  Woodruff, 1978
• Allows us to understand that what we believe to
  be true and what is true may be different

3
Alternative labels for, and Concepts about,
Mindreading (Whiten, 1994)   Folk Psychology
(Wundt, 1916) Consciousness of the feeling of
their fellows (Thorndike, 1911) Imputation to
others of first hand experience (Lloyd Morgan,
1930) Naïve psychology (Heider, 1958) Second
order intentionality (Dennett, 1971) Intersubjecti
vity (Trevarthen, 1977) Theory of mind (Premack
Woodruff, 1978) Metarepresentation (Pylyshyn,
1978) Belief-desire reasoning (Davidson,
1980) Natural psychology (Humphrey, 1980) Social
referencing (Feinman, 1982) Mindreading (Krebs
Dawkins, 1984) Mental simulation (Gordon,
1986) Mentalising (Morton, 1989) Perception of
intentionality (Dasser et al., 1989) (Mental)
attribution (Cheney Seyfarth, 1990) Mentalistic
theory of behaviour (Perner, 1991) Representationa
l theory of mind (Perner, 1991)
4
What about ToM in children?

• Traditional answer children below about 4 years
  do not have theory of mind
• How do we know?
• False belief tests
• Unexpected transfer test (Wimmer Perner, 1983)
• Deceptive box test (Perner, Leekam Wimmer,
  1987 Gopnik Astington, 1988)
• Appearance-reality tests
• Rock-sponge test (Flavell, Flavell Green, 1983)

5
From Mitchell, 1997
6
Representational deficit theory

• AKA theory-theory theory-shift conceptual
  change etc.
• Perner, Gopnik, Wellman
• ToM develops at age 4 when there is a radical
  shift in childrens thought processes
• Young children have representational deficit
• Evidence
• false belief tasks
• cross-cultural research (Avis Harris, 1991)
• Baka community, Cameroon
• ToM at 5 yrs

7
Challenges to rep. deficit theory (1)

• 1. Over-reliance on false belief tasks - false
  belief tasks flawed
• children can misunderstand the question (Lewis
  Osborne, 1990)
• children fail to understand and integrate key
  elements of the story (Lewis, Freeman, Hagestadt
  Douglas, 1994)
• children do not know that seeing is believing
  (Wimmer, Hogrefe Sodian, 1988)
• children are not able to articulate false belief
  (Freeman, Lewis Doherty, 1991)

8
Challenges to rep. deficit theory (2)

• 2. Evidence for early ToM (before 4 years)
• Children perform better in naturalistic settings
  (Dunn, 1988)
• early abilities indicate proto-ToM
• deception (Lewis, Stanger Sullivan, 1989
  Chandler, Fritz Hala, 1989)
• communicative abilities (Butterworth Jarrett,
  1991)
• pretence (Leslie, 1987)

9
Challenges to rep. deficit theory (3)

• children can recognise lots of mental states at
  earlier ages than 4 years
• Knowledge (vs ignorance, Leslie Frith, 1988)
• Intention (Astington Gopnik, 1991)
• Wanting (Wellman, 1991)
• Emotions like happy/sad (Harris, 1989, 1991)
• Seeing (Baron-Cohen, 1991)
• Belief just one of the developmental
  transitions leading up to full ToM?

10
Challenges to rep. deficit theory (4)

• 3. Evidence for later development (post-4 years)
• Second order belief attribution (Perner Wimmer,
  1985)
• 4. Evidence that can vary the onset of ToM by
  varying task
• can manipulate older children and adults to fail
  ToM tasks
• Older children Steverson, 1996 variant of
  deceptive box study
• Adults Mitchell, Robinson, Isaacs Nye, 1996
  adult false belief task

11
From Mitchell, 1997
12
From Mitchell, 1997
13
Theory or Module?

• ToMM (Theory of Mind Module/Mechanism)
• Domain specific learning device
• Leslie (1987), Baron-Cohen (1995), Fodor (1992)
• Development of ToM is continuous process
• Early task failure is a result of performance
  limitations
• Evidence from autism (see lecture 5)
• ToMM/SP (Scholl Leslie, 1999, 2001)
• ToM module innate conception of belief and
  mental states
• Selection Processing used to inhibit default
  responses
• i.e. that someones belief is true

14
Mitchells reality bias

• ToM is product of evolution -gt must be innate
• therefore, must be present from birth
• young children fail ToM tasks because are guided
  by reality criterion
• older children reality criterion -gt less
  prominent -gt can make false belief judgements
• Evidence? E.g. modification of deceptive box test
  (Mitchell Lacohee, 1991)
• standard version - 23 of 3 to 4 year olds
  correct
• modified version - 63 of 3 to 4 year olds correct

15
From Mitchell, 1997
16
Challenges to the challengers (1)

• False belief tasks not flawed
• manipulations are artificially boosting
  childrens performance by social scaffolding
• Even with manipulations, lots of children under 4
  years still fail

17
Challenges to the challengers (2)

• No evidence for early theory of mind as such
• showing pretence, deception, early communicative
  ability etc irrelevant
• ToM defined as ability to understand other's
  belief - doesnt occur until age 4 (Perner, 1991)
• pretence, deception etc may be over interpreted
  (Perner, 1991)
• communicative abilities
• pretence

18
Challenges to the challengers (3)

• Early abilities may be precursors to real ToM but
  they dont mean that the shift at age 4 doesnt
  exist
• Gopnik, Slaughter Meltzoff, 1994 - 4 conceptual
  changes in development of ToM
• Before 30 months foundational egocentric
  non-representational understanding of perception
• At 30 months development of a form of
  understanding of perception and desire
• Three years development of more complex
  understanding of desires and perspective
• 4 years realise can generalise notion of
  misrepresentation from perspective context to
  belief - formation of ToM

19
Challenges to the challengers (4)

• Evidence for later development (post-4 years)
  irrelevant
• c.f. puberty
• Evidence that can vary the onset of ToM by
  varying task irrelevant
• Fact remains that children under 4 fail the false
  belief tasks (Leslie, 1987, 1991 Scholl
  Leslie, 1999)
• Some studies not replicable (Sodian, Taylor,
  Harris Perner, 1991)
• The available results support the claim that the
  same theory of mind emerges universally in the
  young child with approximately the same
  timetable (Harris, 1990).

20
Wellman et als (2001) meta-analysis

• 77 articles, 178 studies, 591 conditions.
• 6 factors influence FB task performance.
• Better performance if
• 1) deception as motive for change
• 2) children carry out transformation themselves
• 3) target object not present when FB question
  asked
• 4) protagonists belief is explicitly stated
• 5) country of origin
• 6) emphasis of time frame (for 4 yr olds) -
  where will he look first?
• But basic development trend still observed

21
Learning Outcomes

• Be able to describe and evaluate research on ToM
  development
• Be able to describe and evaluate theories of ToM
  development
• Be able to compare and contrast theories of ToM
  development
• Be aware that the issue of stage-like vs
  continuous development is relevant

22
Reading

• Essential Reading (on Digital Resources)
• Wellman, H.M. (2002). Understanding the
  psychological world developing a theory of mind.
  In U. Goswami (Ed.) The Blackwell handbook of
  childhood cognitive development. Oxford
  Blackwell. pp.167-187. (on Digital Resources)
• Lee, K. Homer, B. (1999). Children as folk
  psychologists The developing understanding of
  the mind. In A. Slater D. Muir (Eds), The
  Blackwell Reader in Developmental Psychology
  Book on restricted loan
• Further Reading
• See pdf handout

23
Questions to ask

• Is the development of ToM continuous or
  discontinuous?
• What are the different theories of the
  development of ToM?
• What does the research into ToM tell us?
• Does the research support the theories?