Understanding False Beliefs: A Critical Evaluation
The theory of mind
Believes can be considered on of the greatest endeavours of the human mind; it defines the actions and the drive behind basic human behaviour and responses at times. However the concept of false beliefs and recognition of it can be considered an acquired quality, for instance, it has to be mentioned that the ability of the human mind to recognize false beliefs and act according to them does not develop in the early years of childhood. The theory of mind can be considered as one of the greatest theoretical framework that provides an insight to the process of development of the different mental states like beliefs, intents, knowledge, and even pretence (Barrett, 2011).
According to the theory of mind, the attribute or ability that allows one to attribute not only thoughts and desires, but also beliefs, both justified and false (Perner & Roessler, 2012). On a more elaborative note, it has to be mentioned that this theory provides the individuals with the greatest opportunity to interpret the behaviour of the others, based on their own personal thoughts and beliefs. However, it has to be mentioned here that the ability to attribute different mental states to different individuals depends on the generation of representations, and in turn understanding the behavioural changes in the different individuals can be a very complex mental ability (Heyes, 2014). And many of the authors have devoted time and efforts in researching whether this is an ability that comes inherent to the humans or is it acquired along the developmental years of life (Barrett et al., 2013). This assignments will critically evaluate the article that explores whether the children and the infants can understand false beliefs and critically evaluate the ideas represented by the article, comparing and contrasting it with relevant literature published.
This article suggests that the capability to understand, recognize and act upon false beliefs is a neuronal quality and there is no chronological underpinning on when these abilities develop. Around the age of 4, a child generally undergoes a fundamental change in his own perceptions and understanding the behaviours and responses of others. In this article the authors support the recent research findings that at the age of around 4, a child develops the ability to understand the fact that personal believes of any individual is not a direct reflection of reality and often lacks accuracy. It has to be mentioned that the children often fail at different false belief task and that is the reason depends primarily on the developmental switch from non-representational to representational theory of mind (Scott, 2017).
Research study on infants understanding false beliefs
In this article the authors have experimented on the infants who belong to the age of 15 months old to understand whether they can show the ability of representational theory of mind and can effectively recognize the behavioural response of others based on their false beliefs (Onishi & Baillargeon, 2015). The activity designed by the authors has been kept very simplistic and non-verbal to test the hypothesis, using the method of violation of expectations. The experiment involved two toys, that were hidden from the experiment subject and in their absence the location of both the target and non-target toy was interchanged. Now when then subject reached for the toy again without the knowledge of the location interchange, the experiment judged whether the infants would expect the actor to act on their false belief when concerned with the location of the toy. The prediction of the authors in this case had been that the infants would expect the actors to look for the toy in terms of their false belief regarding the location of the toy and not at the exact location of the toy after the interchange of the location. Elaborating more, the hypothesis of the research study is based on the violation of expectation, and it was also expected that the infants will look at the false belief location of toy reliably longer when their expectations were violated by the actor in the experiment. Coming to the discussion of the results, the looking time period of the infants had been a significant key indicating parameter of the assignment and it has to be mentioned that the there have been many confounding factors in the adjustments of this factor. The looking time of the infants were adjusted with the variance of the actor’s belief regarding the position of the target toy, belief status of the actor and the actor’s action. The results of the experiments in case of the both of the belief statuses, true and false, the children expected the subject actor to look for the toy where the actors believed the toy to be and the infants also looked longer when this expectation of theirs was violated by the actor reaching for the true location of the toy; which contradicted their belief about the toy’s location. Now the difference between the false and true belief can be defined as the fact that when the actors knew the toy’s location of the toy it was considered the true belief and when the actors were not aware of the location interchange and believed the false location to be the real one. Now in both cases, the true or false belief in the actors regarding the position of the toy, the infants expected the actors to look for the toy based on their belief status. Hence, authors could easily prove based on the results of this experiment that the infants already had a rudimentary understanding of the theory of representational mind, and the authors could very easily depict that the infants even at the age of 15 months can realize the fact that others act on different beliefs and the beliefs are representations that might not mirror reality (Onishi & Baillargeon, 2015).
Results and discussion
Discussing the study design of the article, the children selected were an uniform sampling profile involving 15 months old infants. The research method selected for the study had been on the basis of the violation of expectation method is based on the expectancy violation theory that analyses the individualistic response to unexpected violation of any societal expectations. According to the authors, the violation of expectation method is the most suitable method for understanding behavioural response in the children. Another very important strength of the study had been the fact that there were three different familiarization trials given to the subjects to develop a comfortable interest and attention in the children so that they can easily grasp the experiment and the optimal results can be yielded. Coming to the exposure measurement, individualistic exposure measurement was carried out in case of familiarization trial, belief induction trials, and test trials, which resulted in optimal and accurate results.
Critically evaluating the results of the study, the simplified violation of expectation method could very reliably explain that the infants of even 15 months of age have a rudimentary understanding of the belief oriented behaviour. In support, similar finding were discovered in the study of Baillargeon, Rose & Scott (2010) as well, the authors in this article had supported the results of the article under review that the ability of the infants in their 2nd year can easily attribute false belief to people. However, this study has taken the help of spontaneous response task to arrive at a similar verdict in contrary to the article under study. Another study by Träuble, Marinovi? & Pauen (2010), suggests that the infants by the age of 15 months can master the belief inducing tasks. On a more elaborative note, the authors have also discussed that the students could easily demonstrate the flexibility in the infants of this age group to decipher both visual or manual information accesses. On the contrary, the article by Luo (2011), suggests the fact that infants of lesser age (at 10 months) can effectively interpret behavioural choices of others based on false beliefs. Hence, it can be stated that the final verdict of the study has been validated by different other research studies incorporating different study design. It has to be mentioned that different experimental designs and patterns have results that support the outcome of the article under review; hence the results can be considered valid (Devine & Hughes, 2014). The only limitation of the article is the fact that experimental design is linear and the sample size is also small and lacking profound variations, which would have enhanced the generalizability and external validity of the assignment (Helming, Strickland & Jacob, 2014).
Critically evaluating the study results
Conclusion:
On a concluding note it has to be mentioned that this study had been an extremely well executed and planned research that has employed the most useful technique to arrive at the most reliable and valid verdict bout the ability to attribute false belief to others in the infants. Along with that, the verdicts of the study had been supported by many other research studies on the similar field. It has to be mentioned in this context that the theory of mind has only recently been researched for the developmental origin in human minds. This research study is unique in the simplicity of the experimental design and the compact population sampling. Along with that the exposure measurement has also been attempted differentially for the different trials to ensure optimal accuracy and authenticity of the results. Along with that it has to be mentioned, that the lack of confounder adjustment, details on exposure measurement and broad population sampling, are few weaknesses which could have been addressed with a little effort. However, there are potential future implications for the study for further research. Atypical development of the false belief task in case of the autopsy children can decipher whether these children have a deficient development of theory of mind, along with that the field of animal cognition research can also be benefited by the foundation laid by the study.
References:
Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., & He, Z. (2010). False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(3), 110-118.
Barrett, H. C., Broesch, T., Scott, R. M., He, Z., Baillargeon, R., Wu, D., … & Laurence, S. (2013). Early false-belief understanding in traditional non-Western societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 280(1755), 20122654.
Devine, R. T., & Hughes, C. (2014). Relations between false belief understanding and executive function in early childhood: A meta?analysis. Child development, 85(5), 1777-1794.
He, Z., Bolz, M., & Baillargeon, R. (2011). False?belief understanding in 2.5?year?olds: evidence from violation?of?expectation change?of?location and unexpected?contents tasks. Developmental science, 14(2), 292-305.
Helming, K. A., Strickland, B., & Jacob, P. (2014). Making sense of early false-belief understanding. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(4), 167-170.
Heyes, C. (2014). False belief in infancy: a fresh look. Developmental science, 17(5), 647-659.
Luo, Y. (2011). Do 10-month-old infants understand others’ false beliefs?. Cognition, 121(3), 289-298.
Onishi, O.H, & Baillargeon, R, (2015). Do 15-Month-Old Infants Understand False Beliefs?. Science 308. pp. 1-3. accessed on file:///C:/Users/absas/Downloads/1995837_1896000029_lifesponassessment1%20(4).pdf. on 2 February, 2018.
Perner, J., & Roessler, J. (2012). From infants’ to children’s appreciation of belief. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(10), 519-525.
Schmidt, M. F., & Sommerville, J. A. (2011). Fairness expectations and altruistic sharing in 15-month-old human infants. PloS one, 6(10), e23223.
Scott, R. M. (2017). Surprise! 20-month-old infants understand the emotional consequences of false beliefs. Cognition, 159, 33-47.
Träuble, B., Marinovi?, V., & Pauen, S. (2010). Early theory of mind competencies: do infants understand others’ beliefs?. Infancy, 15(4), 434-444.