Theory of Mind (ToM) Flashcards

Theory of Mind (ToM) in Neurotypical (NT) Development: From Past to Present

Learning Objectives

• Topic: Theory of Mind (ToM)
• ToM in neurotypical (NT) development: Discussing studies by Wimmer & Perner (1983), Zaichik (1991), Bloom & German (2000), Onishi & Baillargeon (2005), Southgate et al. (2007), and Kulke et al. (2017; 2018).
• Goal: To review the study of ToM from its beginnings to the present, covering past and current research, thoughts, and understandings.

What is Theory of Mind?

• Definition: The capacity to predict and explain other people’s behavior based on their internal states of mind (emotions, intentions, desires, beliefs, perspective).
• Encompasses: Actions, reactions, and emotions.
• Example: If you desire something and believe it to be in a certain place, but you don't find it there, you will likely be surprised.

Origins of the Definition of ToM

• Premack & Woodruff (1978): Action-prediction abilities in chimpanzees.
• Example 1: Food is hanging too high for a chimp to reach, but a stool is available.
  • The correct answer involves selecting the picture of the stool.
• Example 2: A human actor is locked in a cage with the key outside of reach, but a stick is available to drag the key closer.
  • The correct answer involves selecting the picture of the wooden stick.

Conclusions from Premack & Woodruff (1978)

• The animals' understanding of human needs and beliefs suggests they possess a theory of mind.

Problem with Chimpanzee Studies

• Chimps may solve the problem without inferring human beliefs or needs, relying instead on perceptual-visual experiences without higher-order cognitive abilities like ToM.
• Question: How do we determine if a human participant truly understands others' beliefs and needs, rather than merely finding a solution?

Researching ToM

• Question: What is an appropriate test to assess understanding of other people’s mental states?
• Answer: The participant must attribute a belief to another person that differs from their own.
  • The participant should not be able to predict the correct response based on their own knowledge of the truth.

Rationale Behind False Belief Tasks

• If a child can predict what another person will do based on a mistaken or false belief, it indicates they are not simply reading the answer from the presented scenario.

False Belief Task Example: Sally-Anne Task (Wimmer & Perner, 1983)

• Characters: Sally and Anne
• Scenario: Sally puts a marble in her basket and leaves. Anne moves the marble to her box. Sally returns.
• Question: Where will Sally look for her marble?
• The correct answer is the basket (where Sally falsely believes it to be).

Videos on False Belief Tasks

• Sally-Anne & Smarties Tasks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jSdOQQpv0
• Appearance-Reality Task: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpu3dC5W70

Appearance-Reality Task

• Procedure: A child is shown an object and asked what it looks like.
  • 3-year-olds might say it looks like a stone.
• The child verifies that the object is actually soft and light (a sponge).
• The child is then asked again what it looks like.
  • 3-year-olds might say it looks like a sponge.
• Conclusion: 3-year-olds struggle to differentiate between appearance and reality, unable to attribute a thought about the object independently of what it really is.

Deceptive Box Task

• Procedure: A child is shown a Smarties box and asked what is inside.
  • 3-year-olds might say Smarties.
• The box is opened, revealing a pencil instead.
• The child is asked what another child would think is in the box.
  • 3-year-olds might say a pencil.
• Conclusion: 3-year-olds cannot reason about thoughts independently of reality or perception.

Publications

• Leslie, A. & Frith, U. 1988 – Autistic children's understanding of seeing, knowing and believing
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32859285/
• Poulin-Dubois, D. 2020 – Theory of mind development: State of the science and future directions
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9050390
• Appearance-Reality Task in 3-year-olds
  • https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1988.tb01104.x
• Tager-Flusberg, E. 2007 – Evaluating the Theory-of-Mind Hypothesis of Autism https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1988.tb01104.x

Developmental Pattern (Leslie, 1987, 1988)

• Learning to represent things is tied to grasping that things can represent other things.
• Beliefs in the mind are represented in the mind by a certain age.
• Understanding that some things can misrepresent others follows from understanding representation.

False Photograph Task (Zaitchik, 1990)

• Involves representation but not mental states.
• Procedure: A child is familiarized with how a Polaroid camera works. A picture is taken of a cat on a chair. While the picture develops, the cat is moved to a bed. The child is asked where the cat is in the picture.
• Typical Findings: 3-year-olds fail, showing the same pattern as in the Sally-Anne task.

Conclusions from False Photograph Task

• Children develop the concept of representation between 4-5 years of age.
• Before this age, they cannot understand that beliefs can 'go out of date' and be false but can be updated with reality.
• The problem with false belief tasks relates to the general ability to form meta-representations.

Pretend Play (Leslie, 1987, 1988)

• Babies under 2 years old engage in pretend play (e.g., using a banana as a telephone).
• By 18-24 months, babies form representations independent of reality and attribute mental representations to others.

Alternative Views (Bloom & German, 2000)

• Children understand pretence and desire by 2 years of age but struggle with beliefs.
• Young children do understand beliefs and false beliefs; the false belief task's construction leads to mistakes.

Critical Questions and Design Issues

• What is the difference between pretence and belief as mental states?
• Why does it take 2 years to go from understanding pretence (2 years) to understanding belief (4 years)?
• The debate is about whether data patterns stem from belief and pretence being different or from how tasks are administered.

Cutting-Edge Evidence: Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

• Show that 15-month-olds understand false beliefs using a violation of expectation (VoE) paradigm.
• Infants use mental states (goals, perceptions, and beliefs) to explain others' behavior from a young age.

ToM Research in Infancy: Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

• Procedural Details: Includes true belief (TB) and false belief (FB) conditions with different colored boxes.

ToM Research in Infancy: Onishi & Baillargeon (2005) Results

• Infants look longer when the actor knows where the object is but looks for it in the wrong box.
• Infants look longer when the actor doesn’t know where the object is but looks for it in the correct box.
• The color of the box (green or yellow) does not affect the results.

Contemporary Research Methods

• Anticipatory Looking Paradigm
• Southgate et al., 2007
  • Study presented 25-month-olds with a nonverbal false-belief test using an eye tracker to measure anticipatory looking.
  • Similar paradigm to Onishi and Baillargeon (2005): An actor witnessed a toy being hidden, and the toy was later removed while the actor was not attending to the scene.
  • Question: Where would children expect the actor to search for the ball?

Anticipatory Looking Paradigm

• Contemporary studies in ToM.
• Videos from Kulke et al. 2018.

Debates: Current ToM Research

• Southgate et al., 2007
• Senju et al., 2010
• Surian & Geraci, 2012
• Kulke et al., 2017, 2018
• Studies looking at Anticipatory Looking: TD and ASC.

Next Week

• How do ToM and language development interact?
• Are they both central in making us uniquely human?