Search

The ability to understand the mental states of others has sometimes been attributed to a domain‐specific mechanism which privileges the processing of these states over similar but nonmental representations. If correct, then others' beliefs should be processed more efficiently than similar information contained within nonmental states. We tested this by examining whether adults would be faster to process others' false beliefs than equivalent "false" photos. Additionally, we tested whether they would be faster to process others' true beliefs about something than their own (matched) personal knowledge about the same event. Across four experiments, we found a small but reliable effect in favor of the first prediction, but no evidence for the second. Results are consistent with accounts positing specialized processes for (false) mental states. The size of the effect does, however, suggest that alternative explanations such as practice effects cannot be ruled out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The litmus test for the development of a metarepresentational Theory of Mind is the false belief (FB) task in which children have to represent how another agent misrepresents the world. Children typically start mastering this task around age four. Recently, however, a puzzling finding has emerged: Once children master the FB task, they begin to fail true belief (TB) control tasks. Pragmatic accounts assume that the TB task is pragmatically confusing because it poses a trivial academic test question about a rational agent’s perspective; and we do not normally engage in such discourse about subjective mental perspectives unless there is at least the possibility of error or deviance. The lack of such an obvious possibility in the TB task implicates that there might be some hidden perspective difference and thus makes the task confusing. In the present study, we test the pragmatic account by administering to 3- to 6-year-olds (N = 88) TB and FB tasks and structurally analogous true and false sign (TS/FS) tasks. The belief and sign tasks are matched in terms of representational and metarepresentational complexity; the crucial difference is that TS tasks do not implicate an alternative non-mental perspective and should thus be less pragmatically confusing than TB tasks. The results show parallel and correlated development in FB and FS tasks, replicate the puzzling performance pattern in TB tasks, but show no trace of this in TS tasks. Taken together, these results speak in favor of the pragmatic performance account.

The litmus test for the development of a metarepresentational Theory of Mind is the false belief (FB) task in which children have to represent how another agent misrepresents the world. Children typically start mastering this task around age four. Recently, however, a puzzling finding has emerged: Once children master the FB task, they begin to fail true belief (TB) control tasks. Pragmatic accounts assume that the TB task is pragmatically confusing because it poses a trivial academic test question about a rational agent's perspective; and we do not normally engage in such discourse about subjective mental perspectives unless there is at least the possibility of error or deviance. The lack of such an obvious possibility in the TB task implicates that there might be some hidden perspective difference and thus makes the task confusing. In the present study, we test the pragmatic account by administering to 3- to 6-year-olds (N = 88) TB and FB tasks and structurally analogous true and false sign (TS/FS) tasks. The belief and sign tasks are matched in terms of representational and metarepresentational complexity; the crucial difference is that TS tasks do not implicate an alternative non-mental perspective and should thus be less pragmatically confusing than TB tasks. The results show parallel and correlated development in FB and FS tasks, replicate the puzzling performance pattern in TB tasks, but show no trace of this in TS tasks. Taken together, these results speak in favor of the pragmatic performance account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been argued that infants possess a rich, sophisticated theory of mind (ToM) that is only revealed with tasks based on spontaneous responses. A mature (ToM) implies the understanding that mental states are person specific. Previous studies on infants’ understanding of motivational mental states, such as goals and preferences have revealed that, by 9 months of age, infants do not generalize these motivational mental states across agents. However, it remains to be determined if infants also perceive epistemic states as person specific. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to use a switch agent paradigm with the classic false belief violation-of-expectation task. Results revealed that 16-month-old infants attributed true and false beliefs to a naïve agent – they did not perceive beliefs as person specific. These findings indicate that the mechanisms that underlie infants’ implicit attribution of beliefs differ from those assumed for explicit reasoning about beliefs.

The issue of "error", along with the subject of knowledge, is very important for Plato and in the context of defining knowledge as the right belief in Theaetetus, it seeks to explain the possibility of mistaken belief. He offers suggestions to explain the issue of error beliefs. He offers two proposals, one based on the concepts of knowing and not-knowing, and the other based on the concepts of being and not-being, puts two puzzles to believe in error, and both of these are two puzzles to believe in error. Then, he presents three solutions to false belief. Each of these suggestions is carefully reviewed. But all the ways will remain in vain and the efforts are fruitless. Here, Plato seeks to show that the mere reliance on detail as what true knowledge belongs to it, leads to the impossibility of explaining false belief. In this paper, different aspects of the issue of error belief are analyzed to reach Plato's views in the Theaetetus treatise.

It has been argued that infants possess a rich, sophisticated theory of mind (ToM) that is only revealed with tasks based on spontaneous responses. A mature (ToM) implies the understanding that mental states are person specific. Previous studies on infants' understanding of motivational mental states, such as goals and preferences have revealed that, by 9 months of age, infants do not generalize these motivational mental states across agents. However, it remains to be determined if infants also perceive epistemic states as person specific. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to use a switch agent paradigm with the classic false belief violation-of-expectation task. Results revealed that 16-month-old infants attributed true and false beliefs to a naïve agent – they did not perceive beliefs as person specific. These findings indicate that the mechanisms that underlie infants' implicit attribution of beliefs differ from those assumed for explicit reasoning about beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Karen Bartsch (2021), Charlie Lewis (2021), and Beate Sodian (2021) provided thoughtful commentaries on our Society for Research in Child Development Monograph, "Perceptual Access Reasoning (PAR) in Developing a Representational Theory of Mind" (Fabricius et al., 2021). The commentators suggested alternative accounts of our empirical findings, an alternative approach to studying ToM development more generally, and alternative ways to test PAR theory specifically. Here we provide an in-depth response to the various alternatives, as well as a brief overview of the theory and a discussion of two recent alternative accounts that challenge the theory's counter-intuitive prediction that PAR-users will fail true belief tasks. • Response to invited Commentaries on our Society for Research in Child Development Monograph, "Perceptual Access Reasoning (PAR) in Developing a Representational Theory of Mind" (Fabricius et al., 2021) including an overview of PAR theory and evaluation of recent challenges to the theory. • Overview of PAR theory. • Evaluation of recent challenges to to PAR theory. • PAR and innateness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The standard view on explicit theory of mind development holds that children around the age of 4 years start to ascribe beliefs to themselves and others, typically tested with false belief (FB) tasks. The present study (N = 95, 53 female, 41 male, Austrian, 41 to 80 months) systematically investigated the puzzling phenomenon that FB achievers (FB+) fail knowledge (often subsumed under "true belief") tasks: Despite the story protagonist witnessing the displacement of an object these children predict that the protagonist will look for it in its original location. We replicate this result in Experiment 1. Interestingly, some of our children indicated uncertainty about the protagonist's awareness of the relevant event. Thus, in Experiment 2 a new active watching condition was designed to help children understand that the protagonist attended to the critical event. This practically eradicated the knowledge error. Experiment 3 successfully replicated these results. Implications for existing explanations, perceptual access reasoning (PAR, Fabricius, Boyer, Weimer, & Carroll, 2010) and pragmatic difficulties (Oktay-Gür & Rakoczy, 2017) are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Since false belief reasoning requires mental state representation independently of the state of reality, it is seen as a key ability in Theory of Mind (ToM). Although true beliefs do not have to be processed independently of the state of reality, growing behavioural evidence indicates that true belief reasoning is different from just reasoning about the state of reality. So far, neural studies on true and false belief reasoning revealed inconsistent findings in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) and in the right temporo-parietal junction (R-TPJ), brain regions that are hypothesized to play an important role in ToM. To further explore true and false belief reasoning, the present functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study in eighteen adult subjects used methodological refinements such as ensuring that the true belief trials did not elicit false belief reasoning, as well as including paralleled control conditions requiring reasoning about the state of reality. When compared to its control condition, common R-TPJ activity was observed for true and false belief reasoning, supporting its role in belief reasoning in general, and indicating that, at least in adults, also true belief reasoning appears to be different from reasoning about the state of reality. Differential activity was observed in a broad network of brain regions such as the MPFC, the inferior frontal cortex, and the precuneus. False over true belief reasoning induced activation in the posterior MPFC (pMPFC), supporting its role in the decoupling mechanisms, which is defined as processing a mental state independently of the state of reality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The understanding that another person''s belief can differ from reality and that behaviour is guided by beliefs and not by reality reflects an important cornerstone in the development of a Theory of Mind. The present event-related potential (ERP) study had two aims: first, to reveal ERPs that distinguish between false- and true-belief reasoning and second, to investigate the neural changes in the development of false- and true-belief reasoning from childhood to adulthood. True- and false-belief cartoon stories were presented to adults and 6–8-year-old children. Results revealed two waveforms that differentiated between the two conditions: a late positive complex (LPC) associated with the reorientation from external stimuli to internal mental representations and a late anterior slow wave (LSW) associated with stimulus-independent processing of internal mental representations, a process that might be centrally involved in the decoupling mechanism. Additionally, we found developmental effects at an ERP level. Children showed a more posterior localization of the LPC and a broader frontal distribution of the LSW. The results may reflect developmental progress in conceptualizing the mental domain and support the idea that the cortical mentalizing network continues to develop even after children are able to master false beliefs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]