False beliefs or false positives? Limits on children's understanding of mental representation

William Fabricius, Suzanne L. Khalil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We designed several modified false belief tasks to eliminate a confound present in the traditional tasks. The confound would allow children to answer correctly without reasoning about beliefs, by using a "perceptual access" approach to knowing in which they reason that a person who has not seen the true state of affairs will not know and will act incorrectly. The modified tasks incorporated 3 response alternatives (knowledge of the real state of affairs, the false belief, and an irrelevant or unjustified belief), and a yes-no question asked of each alternative. They included versions of the common Maxi, Smarties®, representational change, and appearance-reality tasks, plus a new ("plate") task. In 3 studies (N = 164), children at both 5 and 6 years performed substantially worse on modified tasks compared to traditional versions and gave perceptual access responses in addition to belief-based and reality-based responses. These findings call into question the validity of the traditional false belief task and suggest that more research employing a variety of methods is needed to determine the robustness of young children's understanding of beliefs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)239-262
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Cognition and Development
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2003

Fingerprint

Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Developmental Biology

Cite this

False beliefs or false positives? Limits on children's understanding of mental representation. / Fabricius, William; Khalil, Suzanne L.

In: Journal of Cognition and Development, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2003, p. 239-262.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5123878facf84d4aa93785d640b9e591,
title = "False beliefs or false positives? Limits on children's understanding of mental representation",
abstract = "We designed several modified false belief tasks to eliminate a confound present in the traditional tasks. The confound would allow children to answer correctly without reasoning about beliefs, by using a {"}perceptual access{"} approach to knowing in which they reason that a person who has not seen the true state of affairs will not know and will act incorrectly. The modified tasks incorporated 3 response alternatives (knowledge of the real state of affairs, the false belief, and an irrelevant or unjustified belief), and a yes-no question asked of each alternative. They included versions of the common Maxi, Smarties{\circledR}, representational change, and appearance-reality tasks, plus a new ({"}plate{"}) task. In 3 studies (N = 164), children at both 5 and 6 years performed substantially worse on modified tasks compared to traditional versions and gave perceptual access responses in addition to belief-based and reality-based responses. These findings call into question the validity of the traditional false belief task and suggest that more research employing a variety of methods is needed to determine the robustness of young children's understanding of beliefs.",
author = "William Fabricius and Khalil, {Suzanne L.}",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1207/S15327647JCD0403_01",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "239--262",
journal = "Journal of Cognition and Development",
issn = "1524-8372",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - False beliefs or false positives? Limits on children's understanding of mental representation

AU - Fabricius, William

AU - Khalil, Suzanne L.

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - We designed several modified false belief tasks to eliminate a confound present in the traditional tasks. The confound would allow children to answer correctly without reasoning about beliefs, by using a "perceptual access" approach to knowing in which they reason that a person who has not seen the true state of affairs will not know and will act incorrectly. The modified tasks incorporated 3 response alternatives (knowledge of the real state of affairs, the false belief, and an irrelevant or unjustified belief), and a yes-no question asked of each alternative. They included versions of the common Maxi, Smarties®, representational change, and appearance-reality tasks, plus a new ("plate") task. In 3 studies (N = 164), children at both 5 and 6 years performed substantially worse on modified tasks compared to traditional versions and gave perceptual access responses in addition to belief-based and reality-based responses. These findings call into question the validity of the traditional false belief task and suggest that more research employing a variety of methods is needed to determine the robustness of young children's understanding of beliefs.

AB - We designed several modified false belief tasks to eliminate a confound present in the traditional tasks. The confound would allow children to answer correctly without reasoning about beliefs, by using a "perceptual access" approach to knowing in which they reason that a person who has not seen the true state of affairs will not know and will act incorrectly. The modified tasks incorporated 3 response alternatives (knowledge of the real state of affairs, the false belief, and an irrelevant or unjustified belief), and a yes-no question asked of each alternative. They included versions of the common Maxi, Smarties®, representational change, and appearance-reality tasks, plus a new ("plate") task. In 3 studies (N = 164), children at both 5 and 6 years performed substantially worse on modified tasks compared to traditional versions and gave perceptual access responses in addition to belief-based and reality-based responses. These findings call into question the validity of the traditional false belief task and suggest that more research employing a variety of methods is needed to determine the robustness of young children's understanding of beliefs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4043181722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4043181722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1207/S15327647JCD0403_01

DO - 10.1207/S15327647JCD0403_01

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:4043181722

VL - 4

SP - 239

EP - 262

JO - Journal of Cognition and Development

JF - Journal of Cognition and Development

SN - 1524-8372

IS - 3

ER -