Meta‐Analysis of Theory‐of‐Mind Development: The Truth about False Belief

Meta‐Analysis of Theory‐of‐Mind Development: The Truth about False Belief Research on theory of mind increasingly encompasses apparently contradictory findings. In particular, in initial studies, older preschoolers consistently passed false‐belief tasks — a so‐called “definitive” test of mental‐state understanding — whereas younger children systematically erred. More recent studies, however, have found evidence of false‐belief understanding in 3‐year‐olds or have demonstrated conditions that improve children's performance. A meta‐analysis was conducted (N= 178 separate studies) to address the empirical inconsistencies and theoretical controversies. When organized into a systematic set of factors that vary across studies, false‐belief results cluster systematically with the exception of only a few outliers. A combined model that included age, country of origin, and four task factors (e.g., whether the task objects were transformed in order to deceive the protagonist or not) yielded a multiple R of .74 and an R2 of .55; thus, the model accounts for 55% of the variance in false‐belief performance. Moreover, false‐belief performance showed a consistent developmental pattern, even across various countries and various task manipulations: preschoolers went from below‐chance performance to above‐chance performance. The findings are inconsistent with early competence proposals that claim that developmental changes are due to tasks artifacts, and thus disappear in simpler, revised false‐belief tasks; and are, instead, consistent with theoretical accounts that propose that understanding of belief, and, relatedly, understanding of mind, exhibit genuine conceptual change in the preschool years. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Child Development Wiley

Meta‐Analysis of Theory‐of‐Mind Development: The Truth about False Belief

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/meta-analysis-of-theory-of-mind-development-the-truth-about-false-abyZZIz281
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0009-3920
eISSN
1467-8624
DOI
10.1111/1467-8624.00304
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Research on theory of mind increasingly encompasses apparently contradictory findings. In particular, in initial studies, older preschoolers consistently passed false‐belief tasks — a so‐called “definitive” test of mental‐state understanding — whereas younger children systematically erred. More recent studies, however, have found evidence of false‐belief understanding in 3‐year‐olds or have demonstrated conditions that improve children's performance. A meta‐analysis was conducted (N= 178 separate studies) to address the empirical inconsistencies and theoretical controversies. When organized into a systematic set of factors that vary across studies, false‐belief results cluster systematically with the exception of only a few outliers. A combined model that included age, country of origin, and four task factors (e.g., whether the task objects were transformed in order to deceive the protagonist or not) yielded a multiple R of .74 and an R2 of .55; thus, the model accounts for 55% of the variance in false‐belief performance. Moreover, false‐belief performance showed a consistent developmental pattern, even across various countries and various task manipulations: preschoolers went from below‐chance performance to above‐chance performance. The findings are inconsistent with early competence proposals that claim that developmental changes are due to tasks artifacts, and thus disappear in simpler, revised false‐belief tasks; and are, instead, consistent with theoretical accounts that propose that understanding of belief, and, relatedly, understanding of mind, exhibit genuine conceptual change in the preschool years.

Journal

Child DevelopmentWiley

Published: May 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off