UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Acting upon versus telling about false-beliefs : a comparison of two procedures for accessing young children's… Hala, Suzanne Marie Pauline 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 H34.pdf [ 4.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097783.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097783-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097783-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097783-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097783-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097783-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097783-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097783-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097783.ris

Full Text

A C T I N G UPON V E R S U S T E L L I N G ABOUT A C O M P A R I S O N OF TWO  FALSE-BELIEFS:  PROCEDURES FOR A C C E S S I N G  YOUNG C H I L D R E N ' S E A R L Y T H E O R I E S OF  MIND  by SUZANNE M A R I E P A U L I N E H A L A B.A.  (Psychology), University  of Victoria,  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L FULFILLMENT  1978  OF  THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR THE D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF A R T S , D E V E L O P M E N T A L P S Y C H O L O G Y . in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  Department o f Psychology  We  accept t h i s to  thesis  the required  as  conforming  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A August, ©  1989  SUZANNE M A R I E P A U L I N E H A L A , 1 9 8 9  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  Psychology  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  DE-6 (2/88)  August  ^n  f  i i ABSTRACT This matter  report i s intended t o help arbitrate  o f when i n t h e c o u r s e  children  first  evidence  own a n d o t h e r s ' m e n t a l compared  results  competing support  false  first  lives.  To t h i s  cognitive  understanding  end, t h i s  study  the administration each  of which  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of  their  directly  o f two  has been used  claims regarding the earliest  evidence  development  age a t  to  which  of the p o s s i b i l i t y of  beliefs.  growing,  body of r e c e n t r e s e a r c h has c o n t r i b u t e d t o a  b u t perhaps  premature consensus  that children  under  4  o f age do n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o u n t e r f a c t u a l  beliefs mind. based  early  "theory-like"  assessment procedures,  A substantial  years  some  obtained through  conflicting  children  of their  the unsettled  i n o t h e r s and consequently Much o f t h e e v i d e n c e  lack  i n support  upon t h e use o f an "unexpected  Wimmer a n d P e r n e r  (1983) i n which  where an i n a d e q u a t e l y i n f o r m e d object.  In contrast t o these  recently  developed  children's  abilities  produce a f a l s e - b e l i e f much e a r l i e r - o n s e t Despite  strong methodologic  results  of t h i s  3-year-olds  l a t e - o n s e t view i s  task developed  character will results  by  to predict s e a r c h f o r an  obtained using a  directly  assessed  misleading clues i n order t o offered  strong support  (Chandler, F r i t z & Hala, reasons  investigation  i n the Chandler  theory of  a r e asked  task, which  i n another,  position  change"  findings  t o generate  of t h i s  children  story  hide-and-seek  any e a r l y  f o r a  i n press).  i n favour of accepting the  t h e p o s s i b i l i t y remained  e t a l . study were a  special  that the  p o p u l a t i o n t h a t might a l s o have succeeded i n the change t a s k had they been g i v e n i t .  unexpected  To guard a g a i n s t  this  p o s s i b i l i t y the present study p r o v i d e d a w i t h i n - s u b j e c t comparison of both the unexpected change procedure and the newer h i d e - a n d - s e e k procedure based on the responses ages 3 . 0 ,  3.5 and 4.0 y e a r s .  A f u r t h e r t e s t of  of 30 c h i l d r e n false-belief  understanding was p r o v i d e d by a s k i n g s u b j e c t s t o comment d i r e c t l y upon t h e i r opponent's b e l i e f actions.  based on s u b j e c t s '  own m i s l e a d i n g  As p r e d i c t e d even young 3 - y e a r - o l d s demonstrated the  a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e m i s l e a d i n g c l u e s t o t h e i r opponent but when faced w i t h the unexpected change t a s k these youngest performed p o o r l y .  When responding t o the f a l s e - b e l i e f  based on t h e i r own d e c e p t i v e a c t i o n s , youngest s u b j e c t s  however,  subjects question  even these  showed s t r o n g evidence of understanding the  p o s s i b i l i t y of f a l s e b e l i e f s  i n others.  iv T A B L E OF  CONTENTS  Abstract  i  i  Table of Contents  i v  List  of Tables  v i  List  of Figures  v i i  Acknowledgement  v i i i  CHAPTER  1: I N T R O D U C T I O N  Statement A Synopsis  1  of t h e Problem  1  of Competing Views of Emerging  Theories of  Mind  1  An A l t e r n a t i v e  t o Standard  False Belief  Measures  . . .  Summary o f H y p o t h e s e s CHAPTER  2:  8  METHOD  Procedural  3  9  Summary  9  Subjects  9  Materials  10  Procedure  10  Scoring  15  Unexpected  Change Task  15  Hide-and-Seek Task CHAPTER  3:  Order Part  16  RESULTS  21  and Sex E f f e c t s I: Replication  study  of the Chandler,  22 Fritz  and Hala 22  V  Part  I I : Standard  Unexpected  Change Measure  Deception versus Unexpected  Change Measure  Part  Belief  III:  Predicting False  25 28  i n the Deception  Task  29  Justifications C H A P T E R 4: Details  34  DISCUSSION and I m p l i c a t i o n s  Limitations  37 of the Research  and S u g g e s t i o n s  Findings  f o r Future Research  . . .  37  . . . .  42  REFERENCES  45  TABLES  55  FIGURES  69  APPENDICES  76  A. R e v i e w  of the Literature  B. P r o t o c o l  f o r Unexpected  77 Change Task  117  vi L I S T OF  TABLES  Table  1:  Hiding  S t r a t e g i e s by Age  Table  2:  Presence  Table  3'-  P e r f o r m a n c e on I g n o r a n c e  o r Absence  56  of Deceptive Strategy Question  by Age  .  i n Unexpected  Change T a s k b y Age Table  4:  58  P e r f o r m a n c e on F a l s e  Belief  Question  i n Unexpected  Change T a s k b y Age Table  5:  Ignorance  59  by F a l s e  Belief  i n Unexpected  Change  Task Table  6:  60 Within  Unexpected Table  7:  Subject Comparison  of Hide-and-Seek  and  Change T a s k s  61  P e r f o r m a n c e on I g n o r a n c e  Question  i n  Hide-and-Seek  T a s k by Age Table  8:  62  P e r f o r m a n c e on F a l s e  Belief  Question  i n Hide-and-  S e e k T a s k b y Age Table  9:  Table  10:  Predicted  63  Cells  Predicted  Cells  f o r Conceptual f o r Conceptual  D e f i c i t Hypothesis  11:  Observed  Hide-and-Seek Table  12:  65 Frequencies  f o r False  Belief  Question i n  Task  J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Responses  66 on Unexpected  Change  Task by Age Table  13: by Age  64  Competence  Hypothesis Table  57  J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Responses  67 on Hide-and-Seek  Task 68  vii L I S T OF  Figure  1:  Experimental  FIGURES  Setup f o r Unexpected  Change  Procedure  70  Figure  2:  Experimental  Figure  3:  Comparison  Change Task  Setup f o r Hide-and-Seek  o f Performance Between  and Hide-and-Seek  Task  Procedure  .  72  Unexpected 74  v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  On t h i s p a g e I w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k a l l t h o s e w h o s e h e l p directly contributed t o the successful completion of this p r o j e c t , a n d t h e many o t h e r s w h o s e e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d s u p p o r t s e r v e d t o g u i d e me t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o j e c t . To my s u p e r v i s o r , M i c h a e l C h a n d l e r , I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my d e e p a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e g e n e r o u s a n d t h o u g h t f u l i n t e l l e c t u a l guidance he has p r o v i d e d n o t o n l y i n t h e course of t h i s p r o j e c t b u t a l s o i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f my b r o a d e r a c a d e m i c e d u c a t i o n . I would l i k e t o thank Janet Werker, P e t e r Graf and Glen D i x o n f o r s e r v i n g o n my t h e s i s c o m m i t t e e a n d f o r t h e i r h e l p f u l comments a n d t h e i r e n t h u s i a s m f o rt h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . I w o u l d l i k e t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s made b y A n n a F r i t z as an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e r e s e a r c h group o u t o f which t h e o r i g i n a l measure emerged and I w i s h t o thank h e r f o r h e r d i l i g e n t efforts i n the r e l i a b i l i t y scoring of the data. I would a l s o l i k e t o thank V a l e r i e L l o y d and T r i s h N i e l s e n for t h e i r conscientious assistance with c o l l e c t i n g the data f o r t h i s p r o j e c t a s w e l l a s J a n e t W e r k e r who s o g e n e r o u s l y m a d e t h e m available f o r this project. I w i s h a l s o t o e x t e n d my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e B r i t i s h Columbia C h i l d Study Centre, w i t h s p e c i a l D i x o n and Sue F i s h e r , and t o t h e t e a c h e r s , s t a f f , c h i l d r e n w i t h o u t whose c o o p e r a t i o n a n d p a r t i c i p a t i c o u l d n o t have been completed. Finally, I Sampson f o r h i s t u t o r a g e and t o h e l p i n g me k e e p  University of thanks t o Glen parents and on this project  w i s h t o e x t e n d my d e e p e s t g r a t i t u d e t o J o h n u n f a i l i n g s u p p o r t and h i s good humored computer Graeme H a l a Sampson a n d I a n H a l a Sampson f o r i t a l l i n perspective.  1 CHAPTER  1:  Statement This matter  thesis  first  evidence  own a n d o t h e r s ' m e n t a l compared t h e r e s u l t s of  which  earliest  age a t which  While this  theory-like years  remain  unsettled  o f two competing t o support children  of false  first  evidence  divergent views  t h e other a l a t e - o n s e t view.  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  do i n f a c t  acquire  1988),  early  i n place.  cognitive F o r t h e most into  preliminary  understanding  determining  their  t o be c a p a b l e  of the role  of mental  early-  of Mind children  as  o f some  processes i n  own a n d o t h e r ' s a c t i o n s ( e g . C h a n d l e r , 1982; Wellman,  part,  one o r  promotes an  or early-onset position,  o f age a r e s a i d  pre-  what c o n t i n u e s t o  c a n de d i v i d e d  camps, one o f w h i c h  According t o the f i r s t  some  sometime d u r i n g t h e i r  of Competing Views of Emerging Theories  Leslie,  each  c l a i m s as t o t h e  evidence  events  i s first  and  i n press;  directly  assessment procedures,  when i n t h e i r  o t h e r o f two opposing  Hala,  study  their  g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t among c o n t r i b u t o r s t o  i s just  y o u n g a s 2 1/2 y e a r s  of  beliefs.  the  A Synopsis  development  understanding  end, t h i s  (Olson, Astington & Harris,  of these  the unsettled  cognitive  conflicting  t h a t young c h i l d r e n  development such advocates  To t h i s  knowledge o f mental  school  early  some t h e o r y - l i k e  there exists  literature  of t h e i r  lives.  has been used  the p o s s i b i l i t y  of t h e Problem  i s intended t o help arbitrate  o f when i n t h e c o u r s e  children  INTRODUCTION  Fritz  1985, 1988, i n p r e s s ) .  & By  2 contrast,  advocates of the delayed-onset view maintain  not  around  until  evidence  4 or 5 years  of understanding  o f age t h a t  c a n be s a i d t o h o l d  understanding  o f mind  L e e k a m , & Wimmer, In  support  Bretherton as  of the early-onset  (1984),  f o r example,  i n their  models o f r e a l i t y  in  t o engage i n a c t s  their  their  children  already  (Leslie,  reality  According  (Wellman,  support  beliefs  Advocates  of this  regularly  reported  false  view,  evidence  t o recognize  e v e n when t h e s e  beliefs  that  later  &  beliefs and and  young  of mind. others  standard  have  o f any theory that  held  of  others  o f mind  will act  are objectively false.  presumably tougher minded p o s i t i o n have a substantially  their  Wellman  i n press)  the notion  e a r l y onset p o s i t i o n ,  said to require the ability  upon t h e i r  1988),  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between r e a l  some b a s i c t h e o r y  to this  2- a n d  their  (Shatz,  t o invoke  f o r what i s a r g u e d t o be a more e x a c t i n g  evidence. is  states with  a l l of which  In c o n t r a s t t o t h i s out  play  spontaneous tendency  possess  various  Similarly,  as demonstrated through  t o understand  objects,  that children  employ  speech.  f o r anomalous behaviours  abilities  imaginary  to the fact  competence i n r e p r e s e n t i n g  of pretend  i n contrasting belief  accounting  Perner,  p o s i t i o n i n v e s t i g a t o r s such as  everyday  alternative  1983),  b e l i e f s and,  1988;  o l d spontaneously  a l s o show c o n s i d e r a b l e  Silber,  give  t o some t h e o r y - l i k e  point  3-year o l d s  skill  i t i s  1987).  s t a t e terms  ability  of false  ( e g . G o p n i k &. A s t i n g t o n ,  y o u n g a s 2 o r 2 1/2 y e a r s  mental  children first  the possibility  consequently,  that  onset time f o r  3 children's f i r s t  t h e o r i e s o f mind.  U s i n g an i n g e n i o u s b u t  c o m p l i c a t e d measurement p a r a d i g m , Wimmer and P e r n e r  (1983) and  t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s , f o r example, have p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e establish that age  entirely  "unexpected  c h i l d r e n younger than  l a c k any d e m o n s t r a b l e change" p r o c e d u r e  become a w i d e l y a c c e p t e d understanding  t h e o r y o f mind.  litmus test  In t h i s  procedure  o f an o b j e c t .  absence,  t h e o b j e c t i s moved  changed) t o a second  One d o l l  location.  the concealed object.  then  & A s t i n g t o n , 1988; H o g r e f e ,  l e a v e s t h e room and i n i t s  i l l informed series  i n this  doll  search f o r  Wimmer & P e r n e r ,  Gopnik  1986; P e r n e r ,  Leekam  alter the original  1984, 1985) h a v e s o f a r  measure u n t i l  finding  that  they are approximately  4 years o l d ( f o r a p o s s i b l e exception t o t h i s  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n see  i n preparation). An  In  will  (e.g.  done n o t h i n g t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y  Lewis,  required to  procedure  & Perner,  this  i s unexpectedly  of minor  & Wimmer 1987; Wimmer, G r u b e r  regularly f a i l  a story  the true  i t s location  A subsequent  first  both o f which  Subjects a r e then  m o d i f i c a t i o n s and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s  children  their  subjects are told figures,  (i.e.,  where t h e y t h i n k t h i s  The  children's  have e q u a l a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n about  location  predict  o f young  and, c o n s e q u e n t l y ,  w h i l e i t i s a c t e d o u t w i t h two d o l l initially  4 years of  promoted by t h e s e a u t h o r s has s i n c e  of false b e l i e f  t h e o r i e s o f mind.  approximately  said to  A l t e r n a t i v e t o Standard  a r e c e n t attempt  onset views Chandler,  False Belief  Measures  t o a r b i t r a t e between t h e e a r l y  Fritz  and H a l a  and l a t e  ( i n press) introduced a  4 novel  measurement s t r a t e g y t h a t  abilities  to  deceive  understanding the in  ages of  of  false  1/2  and  2  which they  its  5 years  movements on  the  how  tale  indicating  extracted to  take  to hide  from t h i s  false of  belief  could  theory  hypothetical Chandler et their  own  and  behalf  understanding long  already  of list  false-belief As  of  was  fact  The given  that  using  the  the  who  undertake to  the  a i d of  of  this  The of  purposeful  y o u n g as  2  1/2  deceit, thus  possibility  some  alluded to  measure  On  the of  evidence  already  less passive,  of  false  years  less  strategy  have generated  above,  Wimmer a n d  change measure i n v o l v e s s u b j e c t s  as  of  age  demonstrating  did a  as  t o why  working  these  such d i f f e r e n t Perner's  third  on  belief.  p o t e n t i a l reasons e x i s t  m e a s u r e s may  tell-  d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t when o p e r a t i n g  c h i l d r e n as  of  the  subjects  clear  l e s s v e r b a l l y encumbered assessment  the  away  possibility  disinform others,  With the  gave  presence of  opponent.  a demonstration  doll  confronting  ability  understood  subjects  a  immediately task  game  second  chosen h i d i n g l o c a t i o n .  subjects  mind.  from a  the  "disinform" their  as  their  c h i l d r e n between  hiding operation  treasure  their  taken  study  "treasure"  task  children's  indexing  footprints that  the  a l . ( i n press)  engage i n a c t s  A  of  of  to  only  s u c h d e c e i t was  present  this  of  i n a hide-and-seek  procedure concerned  a c t i v e steps  assumption that  a  playing surface.  s u b j e c t was tracks  In t h i s  took part  complete t h i s  a clear trail  a test  a method of  to hide  Complicating  were r e q u i r e d t o left  as  beliefs.  were asked  experimenter.  which  others  utilized  party  two  results.  unexpected bystanders  who  5 passively  observe  narrative  about a sequence of events  personal  stake.  t h e u n f o l d i n g of a long and h y p o t h e t i c a l  They a r e a l s o  the  specific  informational  and  the various story  what b e l i e f s also  exists  each  that  this  ability those  they  have  required t o process  details  made a v a i l a b l e  c h a r a c t e r s and consequently  i s legitimately  that the relatively  the unexpected  i n which  entitled  poor  to.  no  and remember to  themselves  infer  The  exactly  possibility  showing o f young s u b j e c t s on  change measure i s i n p a r t t r a c e a b l e t o t h e f a c t  and s i m i l a r l y  structured  measures r e q u i r e ,  to consider the possibility  additional  comment u p o n s u c h  expository skills  of false necessary  an understanding.  Finally,  not only the  beliefs, to tell  but also about o r  because  both  m e a s u r e s w e r e n o t a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e same s a m p l e , t h e possibility study  remains  open t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h e C h a n d l e r  somehow c o n s t i t u t e d  a l s o might have passed  an u n u s u a l l y p r e c o c i o u s sample,  t h e Wimmer-Perner unexpected  measure had t h e y been g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y . put  this  last  possibility  within-subject this  comparison  to the test  using both  strength  of these  of t h e assumption  experimental procedures. t h a t young 3-year-olds  the possibility  unexpected  change measures f o r reasons  the youngest  study  direct  3.0 t o 4.5 y e a r s  understand  unnecessary  change  o f t h e two measurement paradigms.  end s u b j e c t s r a n g i n g i n age from  tested  who  The p r e s e n t  by p r o v i d i n g a  et a l .  of false  beliefs,  were  On t h e  do i n f a c t  but continue t o  h a v i n g t o do w i t h  study would  succeed  fail  their  p r o c e d u r a l c o m p l e x i t y i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t subjects of the present  To  even  on t h e  6  deception  measure b u t s t i l l  fail  A second and c o n c e p t u a l l y for  the divergent  results  the unexpected  more w e i g h t y  change  counter  produced by deception  explanation  and unexpected  change measures concerns t h e p r o s p e c t  that the subjects  Chandler,  somehow  Fritz  and Hala  the  behaviour  not  undertake the various  employed w i t h beliefs.  of t h e i r  disinforming strategies of actually  without  interest  i n their  potential  explicit  test  subjects  had completed t h e i r  of this  she  could  part  be e x p e c t e d  of the subjects  opponent t o be t a k e n in  a false  give voice  location  about what they  opponents t o h o l d Because  Fritz  with  manipulating  and Hala  just their  such a c l e a r  until and  opponent  and where he o r  Responses on t h e their  efforts  and t o  deceptive  that they  study  into  One  i s t o wait  expected  that they  search  understand  and can  actions will  cause  t h e m s e l v e s know t o b e  i t was a s s u m e d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s  Chandler, efforts  beliefs  others  the treasure  search.  deceptive  indicate  that these  i nthe  beliefs.  thought t h e i r  that they  i n by t h e i r would  t o lead  of the treasure  their  indicating  other's  any s e r i o u s knowledge o f o r  attempt t o hide  t o begin  to the fact  simply  interpretation  would b e l i e v e about t h e l o c a t i o n  the  they  t h e young subjects  f o rholding to false  reductive  t h e n a s k them d i r e c t l y  t o manipulate  that  manipulating  were a t t e m p t i n g  choices,  able  of the  i n the hide-and-seek task, d i d  i t m i g h t be a r g u e d ,  Chandler e t a l . study wrong b e h a v i o r a l  while  opponent  any i n t e n t  Instead,  study,  task.  i n the earlier  had undertaken t h e i r expectation  opponent's b e l i e f s  false.  that  and o n l y  they as a  hiding were  first  consequence  7 their actions,  r a t h e r than on the b a s i s of some s i m p l e r  behavioral strategy,  i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t even the young 3-  y e a r - o l d s of the present study would c o r r e c t l y respond t o questions about opponents Finally,  beliefs.  i t c o u l d be argued t h a t the youngest s u b j e c t s  in  the Chandler, F r i t z and Hala study simply f o r g o t where they had hidden the t r e a s u r e and so were never i n a p o s i t i o n t o c o n s i d e r simultaneous but c o n t r a s t i v e n o t i o n s about i t s Were t h i s the case,  true location.  then any f a i l u r e on the p a r t of the  subjects  of the present study t o f o l l o w what has come t o be c a l l e d a " r e a l i t y assessment strategy"  (Wellman & B a r t s c h ,  i n p r e s s ) by  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e i r opponent would s e a r c h where the t r e a s u r e was a c t u a l l y hidden c o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t they had ended up d e c e i v i n g themselves  as w e l l as o t h e r s .  That i s ,  responses  of  s u b j e c t s t o " b e l i e f " q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r assumptions about the thoughts or l i k e l y s e a r c h s t r a t e g i e s  of t h e i r opponents are  only i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r own r e c o l l e c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the t r u e l o c a t i o n of the t r e a s u r e .  The responses  of  s u b j e c t s who may have l o s t t r a c k of where they have p r e v i o u s l y hidden the t r e a s u r e would a l l o w room f o r u n c e r t a i n t y as t o what i s a c t u a l l y meant when they i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i r opponent l i k e l y to search i n a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n .  is  To guard a g a i n s t  this  p o s s i b l e source of i n t e r p r e t i v e c o n f u s i o n , the present study i n c l u d e d memory c o n t r o l questions i n the d e c e p t i o n procedure t o ensure t h a t s u b j e c t s r e c a l l e d the a c t u a l l o c a t i o n of treasure.  the  Here the h y p o t h e s i s was t h a t s u b j e c t s of a l l ages  8 would s u c c e s s f u l l y remember where they had hidden the t r e a s u r e .  Summary of Hypotheses In summary, then, the f o u r hypotheses t h a t guided the present study were as f o l l o w s : Chandler,  1) L i k e the c h i l d r e n of  F r i t z and Hala study,  subjects  the  i n a l l age groups to be  t e s t e d w i l l commonly take steps t o d i s i n f o r m t h e i r opponents i n the h i d e - a n d - s e e k task;  2) S u b j e c t s of a l l ages w i l l a c c u r a t e l y  remember the t r u e h i d i n g l o c a t i o n of the t r e a s u r e i n the h i d e and-seek task;  3) The youngest s u b j e c t s  (3-year-olds)  will fail  standard v e r s i o n of the Wimmer-Perner unexpected change measure; w h i l e 4) The same s u b j e c t s w i l l pass a comparable " b e l i e f " q u e s t i o n i n the d e c e p t i o n t a s k . Before proceeding d i r e c t l y t o the s p e c i f i c methods employed to t e s t these hypotheses,  i t might prove u s e f u l to f o l l o w a more  d e t a i l e d summary of the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e t h a t guided the f o r m u l a t i o n of t h i s  inquiry.  The l i t e r a t u r e review p r o v i d e d i n  Appendix A i s meant t o supply t h i s s u p p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .  a  9 CHAPTER 2:  METHOD  P r o c e d u r a l Summary Subjects A t o t a l of 33 c h i l d r e n between the ages of 3.0 and 4.5 of  years  age were r e c r u i t e d from a m e t r o p o l i t a n p r e s c h o o l i n a Western  Canadian c i t y .  C h i l d r e n whose parents gave the  necessary  p e r m i s s i o n were excluded from the r e s u l t s o n l y i f they r e f u s e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n some aspect of the procedure, such as m a n i p u l a t i n g the d o l l f i g u r e or r e f u s i n g t o h i d e the t r e a s u r e i n the h i d e - a n d seek t a s k .  On the b a s i s of t h i s c r i t e r i a t h r e e s u b j e c t s  dropped p r i o r t o a n a l y s i s The  (two 3 - y e a r - o l d s and one 3 . 5 - y e a r - o l d ) .  remaining 30 c h i l d r e n were d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e age groups w i t h  10 s u b j e c t s c o m p r i s i n g each group: -  were  3.4,  mean= 3 . 2 ,  3.5 - 3 . 9 , (range= 4.0 All  5 males and 5 females);  mean= 3.8, - 4.4,  young 3 - y e a r - o l d s  4 males,  mean= 4.2,  6 females) 4 males,  (range=  3.5-year-olds  (range=  and young 4 - y e a r - o l d s  6 females).  s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n both the unexpected change t a s k  and the d e c e p t i o n t a s k .  The order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of these two  measures was counterbalanced w i t h h a l f  of the s u b j e c t s b e i n g  a d m i n i s t e r e d the unexpected change t a s k f i r s t .  The procedures  were c a r r i e d out i n two separate t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s to a v o i d s u b j e c t f a t i g u e and t a s k demand s p i l l o v e r . d e s c r i b e d l a t e r as the " f a l s e - b e l i e f  What w i l l  be  t e s t question" i n the  deception t a s k was always asked immediately a f t e r each s u b j e c t had  3.0  completed h i s o r her own h i d i n g e f f o r t s  and immediately  10 before  their  opponent reentered  t h e room.  Materials Both t h e unexpected change t a s k involved with  t h e u s e o f a 9 2 cm x 8 2 cm w h i t e  a washable  containers  o i l cloth  with  lids  (5 c o n t a i n e r s  t h e unexpected change t a s k ) .  two  3 3 cm h i g h  up  hand puppets  the deception  of chocolate  task  coins  mounted on a wheel w i t h leaving  a s e t of inky  plastic  task  and 2  The u n e x p e c t e d change t a s k  a kitchen  and s m a l l  covered  opaque  f o rthe deception  and a small  used  task  playing surface  m a t e r i a l a n d 20 cm h i g h  for  while  and t h e deception  trinkets  toy c a r (seeFigure sponge,  1)  a "treasure"  a n d o n e 3 3 cm  projecting feet attached  used  made  puppet  which  rotate  f o o t p r i n t s a s t h e p u p p e t i s moved ( s e e  Figure 2). Procedure Unexpected Change As  Task  the strongest  hypotheses presented unexpected This  and most c o n s e r v a t i v e here,  change t a s k  variation  (Perner,  differs  versions  reality  probes a r e used  that  subjects  understand  unfolds.  suggestion,  of this  Again,  younger subjects.  from these  of the  1 9 8 7 ) was  authors'  used.  own  p r o c e d u r e p r i m a r i l y i n t h a t memory a n d throughout  i n an e f f o r t  and r e c a l l  the rather  f o l l o w i n g Perner,  "stop-and-think"  procedure t o help  of the several  revision  L e e k a m & Wimmer,  marginally  earlier  the  t h e most r e c e n t  test  prevent  complicated  that story  Leekam a n d Wimmer's  i n s t r u c t i o n s were i n c l u d e d  impulsive  The o n l y  t o ensure  guessing  on t h e part  i n this of the  s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  present  " u n e x p e c t e d c h a n g e " p r o c e d u r e and t h a t d e s c r i b e d  P e r n e r e t a l . was t h a t ,  i n order  t o insure the c l o s e s t possible  m a t c h b e t w e e n t h i s p r o c e d u r e and t h e h i d e - a n d - s e e k t a s k below,  some o f t h e same t e s t i n g m a t e r i a l s were u s e d  measures.  That  i s , t h e same c o n t a i n e r s  used t o guard a g a i n s t stimulus  materials  by  described  i n both  and s i m i l a r p u p p e t s were  any p o s s i b l e p r e f e r e n c e s  f o r one s e t o f  over another t h a t might confound  subjects'  p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e t a s k s . Subjects with  whom t h e c h i l d r e n h a d g a i n e d  classroom. the to  were s e e n i n d i v i d u a l l y b y a s i n g l e e x p e r i m e n t e r  The t a s k was  some f a m i l i a r i t y  introduced  as a s h o r t p u p p e t show w h i c h  c h i l d r e n were a s k e d t o w a t c h c a r e f u l l y b e c a u s e q u e s t i o n s be a s k e d a t t h e end.  room t h a t c o n t a i n e d opaque c o n t a i n e r s  Two p u p p e t s were shown t o a r r i v e  two d i f f e r e n t  that look  coloured  l i k e miniature  One o f t h e p u p p e t s was c a r r y i n g a s m a l l were made t o p l a y t o g e t h e r away i n t h e r e d c o n t a i n e r . s n a c k t i m e and b o t h l e f t they  w o u l d meet a f t e r  returned played call put  i n the  first  with  with  plastic  toy car.  garbage  snack t o p l a y again.  cans.  The p u p p e t s put i t  The p u p p e t s were t h e n c a l l e d  t h e room i n o p p o s i t e  at a yellow)  t h e c a r and t h e n t o g e t h e r  away f o r  d i r e c t i o n s saying  One p u p p e t  (Katie)  and removed t h e t o y c a r f r o m t h e r e d c o n t a i n e r ,  i t f o r a few m i n u t e s ,  h e r back,  (one r e d , one  were  left  but a f t e r hearing  t h e room o n c e more.  the toy c a r i n the yellow  Soon t h e s e c o n d p u p p e t  d e s i r e t o once a g a i n p l a y w i t h  teacher  T h i s t i m e , however, s h e  container before  (Sam) was  her  she l e f t  t h e room.  shown a b o u t t o r e t u r n and h i s  t h e t o y c a r was  explicitly  stated.  At this  the  subject:  Sam  look  point  " D o e s Sam  followed  probes were  As w e l l ,  provide  details  justifications  justifications  ignorance  and remembered  their  included.  subjects  test  questions  The  as they  been found t o underestimate  young preschool  performance on f a l s e - b e l i e f  tasks  were  included here  The h i d e - a n d - s e e k  may  (see Perner  have had w i t h  the  by  asked  to  adequacy of scores have  on t h e previously  e t a l . , 1987) any  but  difficulties  task.  task  change measure  as c l o s e l y  al.  p r o c e d u r e was  modified  the  p r o c e d u r e was  shortened  (3)  was  used  important  were  In the i n t e r e s t s of making the hide-and-seek task unexpected  other  children's  as an a i d t o i l l u m i n a t i n g  such young s u b j e c t s  will  i n f o c u s i n g on t h e  subjects  responses.  of  subject  a l l the  d i d not influence subjects'  and f a l s e - b e l i e f  questions  strategies described  Finally,  for their  asked  t h e t o y c a r i s ? " , "Where  a l l of the various  were  were  asked t o insure t h a t the  e t a l . (1987) t o a s s i s t  relevant  questions  In addition to the test  t h e sequence of events  details.  these  know w h e r e  f o r the car?".  memory a n d r e a l i t y  Perner  the following test  rather than  they  had exhausted t h e i r  This  shortening  that  simple  was  practice with  as p o s s i b l e , t h e Chandler  i n s e v e r a l m i n o r ways. and a s t a n d a r d i z e d  requiring subjects  t o continue  the materials  notably trials until  strategies.  t h e aim of minimizing  have on c h i l d r e n ' s p e r f o r m a n c e on l a t e r In a d d i t i o n , r e a l i t y  Most  number o f  r e p e r t o i r e of deceptive  done w i t h  match t h e  any e f f e c t s  and p r o c e d u r e s  might  trials.  a n d memory c o n t r o l p r o c e d u r e s ,  which  et  were not a p a r t of the o r i g i n a l Chandler et a l . d e c e p t i o n study, were i n t r o d u c e d t o determine whether the s u b j e c t s remembered where they h i d the t r e a s u r e .  T h i s procedure once again p r o v i d e d  a b e t t e r match t o the unexpected change measure, a more j u d i c i o u s comparison. separate h i d i n g e f f o r t s false-belief  Finally,  and allowed f o r  f o l l o w i n g each of  their  s u b j e c t s were asked e x a c t l y the same  t e s t q u e s t i o n s which were used i n the  unexpected  change p r o c e d u r e . Subjects again were seen i n d i v i d u a l l y , experimenters,  t h i s time by two  both of whom were f a m i l i a r t o the s u b j e c t .  The  t a s k was i n t r o d u c e d as a h i d e - a n d - s e e k game t h a t i n v o l v e d h i d i n g a small t r e a s u r e somewhere on the game board so t h a t the opponent c o u l d not f i n d i t .  One experimenter ( E l ) remained w i t h the  s u b j e c t throughout the procedure t o p h y s i c a l l y a s s i s t i n the h i d i n g o p e r a t i o n , remind the s u b j e c t of the r u l e s of the game and to ask the r e q u i s i t e probes and t e s t q u e s t i o n s . experimenter (E2) acted as the opponent.  The second  To ensure s u b j e c t s had  a grasp of the b a s i c concepts of the game a b r i e f  warm-up t r i a l  without the puppet was conducted i n which the c h i l d took one t u r n as f i r s t f i n d e r then as h i d e r .  These t r i a l s were not i n c l u d e d i n  the s c o r i n g and were used i n s t e a d as a method of i n t r o d u c i n g the goals and r u l e s of the game. named Toni was i n t r o d u c e d .  After this  s h o r t warm-up a puppet  I t was e x p l a i n e d t h a t Toni was  r e a l l y the owner of the t r e a s u r e and i t was the c h i l d ' s job t o h e l p Toni h i d e the t r e a s u r e .  The experimenter then demonstrated  how Toni c o u l d be made t o walk across the board,  and a t t e n t i o n  14 was drawn t o t h e c l e a r t r a i l left  behind.  damp k i t c h e n subject the  At this  of inky  p o i n t t h e t r a c k s were w i p e d away w i t h  sponge t h a t was l e f t  and E l t o o k t h e f i r s t  room w h i l e  a v a i l a b l e f o r l a t e r use.  turn  i n the finders' role,  E2 h i d t h e t r e a s u r e  When t h e s u b j e c t  reentered  failed  This  step  trial  and t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e t r e a s u r e .  served  leaving  t h e f o o t p r i n t s were e x p l i c i t l y  t o ensure  between t h e I f the subject  t o make u s e o f t h e f o o t p r i n t s i n t h e s e a r c h  treasure  The  t h e room, a c l e a r s e t o f f o o t p r i n t s  s u b j e c t s made t h e p o t e n t i a l c o n n e c t i o n  footprints  a  i n one o f t h e c o n t a i n e r s .  marked t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e t r e a s u r e . that  f o o t p r i n t s t h a t t h e puppet  pointed  f o r the  o u t and t h e  repeated. I n t h e s e c o n d and most c r i t i c a l  became t h e s u b j e c t ' s t i m e E2 l e f t subject  part of t h e procedure i t  turn t o a c t i n the role of hider,  t h e room.  The f i r s t  experimenter then reminded t h e  o f t h e r u l e t h a t t h e puppet Toni  treasure  and s i m p l y  initiated  by t h e s u b j e c t .  a trail  subject  that the goal  Once t h e t r e a s u r e  was h i d d e n ,  were  thereby  o f f o o t p r i n t s on t h e b o a r d , E l r e m i n d e d t h e was t o make i t h a r d f o r E2 t o f i n d t h e  and asked t h e s u b j e c t  probes a k i n t o those used  how t h a t c o u l d b e done.  Reality  i n t h e P e r n e r e t a l . unexpected change  p a r a d i g m were u s e d t h r o u g h o u t .  When t h e s u b j e c t  his  o r h e r h i d i n g e f f o r t s E l asked  the  treasure",  questions  must be u s e d t o h i d e t h e  a s s i s t e d i n c a r r y i n g out whatever t a s k s  leaving  treasure  and t h i s  "show me".  were a s k e d b e f o r e  Finally,  had completed  "Do y o u remember where y o u h i d t h e two c r i t i c a l  E2 was c a l l e d  back:  test  (1) The  "ignorance" (2)  The  question,  "false-belief"  When E 2  first the  failed  asked  signaled the true  a t t e m p t E2 was was  provided  "Where s h a l l  asked t o j u s t i f y the into  unexpected  has acted  i t on t h e f i r s t  tell  another  look?". strategically,  attempt.  chance.  E2 t o l o o k  or explain their these  After  At this  now".  point by  Subjects  h i d i n g s t r a t e g i e s but as justifications  d i d not  E l  to  f o r deception  s t r a t e g i e s as deceptive  were with  enter  or  A maximum o f t w o m o r e h i d i n g t r i a l s  e x a c t l y as d e s c r i b e d  i s ? " ; and  l o c a t i o n of the treasure  given  we  the scoring of these  repeated  E2  further opportunity  change t a s k  nondeceptive.  "Where w i l l  i f the subject  E2's a c c i d e n t l y f i n d i n g  subject  being  E2 know w h e r e t h e t r e a s u r e  question,  returned,  surreptitiously prevent  "Will  were  then  above.  Scoring U n e x p e c t e d Change As  i n the Perner  p r o c e d u r e was false-belief "Where w i l l correctly  e t a l . (1987) study  employed. test  Sam  Subjects  question  look  were  i f they  placed.  which the t o y c a r a c t u a l l y Similarly,  scored  was  subjects  the  question, by  i n which t h e t o y c a r had i n who  followed  a  "reality  pointing t o the container i n  l o c a t e d were  who  scoring  as p a s s i n g  responded t o the  Subjects  assessment s t r a t e g y " by i n c o r r e c t l y  failed.  a dichotomous  f o r t h e t o y c a r when he r e t u r n s ? "  pointing to the container  f a c t been o r i g i n a l l y  Task  responded  scored  as  correctly  having that the  u n i n f o r m e d p u p p e t w o u l d n o t know w h e r e t h e t o y c a r was  were  a  16 scored as p a s s i n g the ignorance t e s t q u e s t i o n . While not used t o determine p a s s / f a i l performance on t h i s task,  subjects  a l s o were asked to j u s t i f y t h e i r answers.  These  responses were coded dichotomously as t o t h e i r adequacy. Hide-and-Seek Task S c o r i n g f o r t h i s measure of f a l s e - b e l i e f  understanding i s  somewhat more complex than f o r the unexpected change procedure as there e x i s t several possible  strategies  attempting to deceive t h e i r opponent. (in press), subjects'  set  Chandler,  c o u l d employ i n F r i t z and Hala  out a t y p o l o g y of d e c e p t i o n s t r a t e g i e s  responses were r e l i a b l y p l a c e d .  t y p o l o g y orders the v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i c subjects  subjects  This five  i n t o which level  actions a v a i l a b l e to  i n terms of the c e r t a i n t y they p r o v i d e t h a t  the  deception  has a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d but t h i s order does not r e f l e c t any assumptions r e g a r d i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s of complexity of s t r a t e g i e s . specific  increasing  Once a c t i o n s are assigned t o a  l e v e l w i t h i n t h i s t y p o l o g y a f u r t h e r dichotomous  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n can be made i n t o d e c e p t i v e - n o n d e c e p t i v e order t o f a c i l i t a t e comparison w i t h r e s u l t s on the  actions  in  unexpected  change t a s k . The f i r s t l e v e l i n t h i s t y p o l o g y ,  l e v e l 0,  categorizes  as  nondeceptive both those a c t i o n s t h a t are t o t a l l y devoid of any apparent attempt at d e c e p t i o n ( e . g .  leaving clear footprints  to  the l o c a t i o n of the t r e a s u r e ) ,  and a l s o any a c t i o n s t h a t might  c o n c e i v a b l y have had d e c e p t i v e  intent,  be u n e q u i v o c a l l y coded as d e c e p t i v e .  but were too ambiguous t o Responses assigned t o  this  latter  category  withholding had  of  included  e v i d e n c e by  on  the  p a r t of the  peeking during location that  the  of the  involved  obscuring The  Level  and  d)  remaining l e v e l s  destroying  clues  left  of the  evidence,  c)  not  containers location; t h a t E2  telling  E2  that  b) was  not  the  attempts at h i d i n g the  treasure  i r r e l e v a n t but  deception  tracks. their  Level  2,  simple  not  includes  a l l a t t e m p t s on  the  part  o r more s e t s o f a d d i t i o n a l t r a i l s  The  final  was  4,  destroying  u s e d whenever s u b j e c t s  false trails  original  (no.  only misleading  the  purposes of the  and  1 in this  data  clues  to  of the  f o r the  analyses  in levels  2,  3,  producing  of  reported  false lay  false  of  removal  of  resulting in  opponent t o f o l l o w .  t o be  and  2),  to  look  container.  strategy  strategy  s c o r i n g scheme were c o d e d as  responses scored  subjects'  producing  some empty  f o o t p r i n t s (no.  the  subject  e v i d e n c e and  the  remove  that they  3,  combined t h e  3) w i t h  s e t of t e l l - t a l e  represents  Level  and  action.  w i p i n g up  suggesting  empty c o n t a i n e r .  one  level  concern  s e c r e t keeping,  i n t e n t and  lying,  o p p o n e n t by  trails,  level,  typology  t h e h i d i n g p r o c e d u r e by  i n an  leaving  original  simple  i n c l u d e s those attempts to  treasure  the  any  "smokescreen" of  the  producing  the  t o make s u r e  beyond attempts a t  during  attempts t o mislead  trails,  that  e v i d e n t l y i n v o l v e some d e c e p t i v e  1,  a)  clues.  puppet's t e l l - t a l e  for  subject  some s o r t o f  r e s p o n s e s w h i c h go instead  to t h e i r  h i d i n g procedure;  treasure;  as:  making sure  b e e n moved were r e t u r n e d  efforts  any  such a c t i o n s  For  below l e v e l s  n o n d e c e p t i v e and  4 were c o u n t e d as  0  only  evidence  18 of c l e a r  deception.  S c o r i n g of the f a l s e - b e l i e f hide-and-seek  t e s t q u e s t i o n asked d u r i n g the  procedure i s a l s o a somewhat more complex t a s k than  f o r the unexpected change procedure which simply r e q u i r e s s u b j e c t t o i n d i c a t e i n which of two c o n t a i n e r s the p a r t i a l l y informed puppet w i l l  the  only  look f o r the concealed toy c a r .  While e x a c t l y the same t e s t q u e s t i o n was asked i n the h i d e - a n d seek t a s k ,  what counts as a c o r r e c t response  to s u b j e c t  and even from t r i a l  to t r i a l  differs  from  subject  depending upon the  type  of h i d i n g s t r a t e g i e s employed.  If,  f o r example,  l e f t o n l y one c l e a r ,  set  of t r a c k s l e a d i n g to an empty  container,  but f a l s e ,  then the most r a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n the s u b j e c t  make i s the E2 would search i n t h a t s i n g l e container.  a s u b j e c t had  If,  however,  falsely  could  nominated  the s u b j e c t has produced t r a c k s t o  of the remaining c o n t a i n e r s ,  then the most r a t i o n a l  all  response  would be t h a t E2 would be o b l i g e d t o look i n each and every container.  In f a c t ,  many s u b j e c t s spontaneously  consequence  of t h e i r h i d i n g e f f o r t s  appreciated  and would counter by s a y i n g  "But I w i l l t e l l her to look i n t h i s one" i n d i c a t i n g one of falsely  nominated c o n t a i n e r s .  There a l s o e x i s t e d the  p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u b j e c t s might respond i n any one of ways t h a t were a l l i r r a t i o n a l a v a i l a b l e evidence  (e.g.  the  real several  i n t h a t they were u n r e l a t e d t o  the  s u g g e s t i n g t h a t E2 would look i n a  c o n t a i n e r t h a t had no c l u e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t treasure).  this  A s p e c i a l case of t h i s  contained  l a r g e r c l a s s of  the  irrational  responses i s p r o v i d e d by responses i n which the s u b j e c t  indicates  19 t h a t E2 would look i n the c o n t a i n e r t h a t a c t u a l l y concealed treasure,  d e s p i t e the presence  otherwise.  Responses  of t h i s  of a v a i l a b l e evidence  the  indicating  s o r t are r e f e r r e d to here as a  r e a l i t y assessment s t r a t e g i e s because s u b j e c t s employing them appear to be b a s i n g t h e i r assessment of a n o t h e r ' s b e l i e f s upon the s t a t e of the world as i t  r e a l l y i s r a t h e r than as the  might have reason to b e l i e v e  i t to be.  Note t h a t while the term  r e a l i t y assessment might i n some s i t u a t i o n s achievement  in cognitive  development  other  connote an  i n t h i s case i t c a r r i e s a  more n e g a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n and i s meant t o c h a r a c t e r i z e f a i l u r e on the p a r t of c h i l d r e n to d i s t i n g u i s h what i s r e a l l y the case from what t h e i r opponent has a r i g h t t o b e l i e v e available.  Responses  based on the  based upon such r e a l i t y assessment  s t r a t e g i e s are p r e c i s e l y those which young 3 - y e a r - o l d s to r o u t i n e l y make i n the unexpected change Given t h i s  evidence  range of p o s s i b i l i t i e s  are s a i d  task.  the s c o r i n g of  subjects'  responses i n v o l v e d p l a c i n g them i n t o a dichotomous c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of r e a l i t y assessment s t r a t e g i e s versus assessment s t r a t e g i e s .  rational  The term r a t i o n a l assessment s t r a t e g i e s  serves as a c o n t r a s t to r e a l i t y assessment s t r a t e g i e s and draws a t t e n t i o n to the f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s employing such s t r a t e g i e s a t t r i b u t e t o t h e i r opponents courses f o l l o w on the b a s i s of evidence i n d i c a t e d above,  of a c t i o n t h a t  a v a i l a b l e to them.  i t was t e c h n i c a l l y p o s s i b l e  rationally A l t h o u g h , as  for subjects  to  generate "nonrational" responses other than those r e s u l t i n g from the a p p l i c a t i o n of a simple r e a l i t y assessment s t r a t e g y ,  such  choices were r a r e (n=2).  Whatever e l s e they might s i g n a l ,  d i d not i n d i c a t e t h a t the s u b j e c t s  they  understood the l i k e l y impact  of a v a i l a b l e evidence upon E 2 ' s search response and so were c o n s e r v a t i v e l y counted here as i n s t a n c e s  of r e a l i t y assessment  strategies. A s i m i l a r course of a c t i o n was taken i n those few (n=2)  i n which s u b j e c t s  f a i l e d to a c t d e c e p t i v e l y .  might have been made t o exclude these s u b j e c t s  instances  While a case  on the grounds  t h a t s i n c e a l l of the a v a i l a b l e evidence p o i n t e d to where the t r e a s u r e was a c t u a l l y l o c a t e d , for subjects strategy.  no r e a l o p p o r t u n i t y was a v a i l a b l e  to employ any s t r a t e g y but a r e a l i t y assessment  Again,  i n an e f f o r t t o choose a course of a c t i o n t h a t  d i d not favour the hypotheses g u i d i n g t h i s were counted as t r u e i n s t a n c e s  study,  these cases  of a r e a l i t y assessment  strategy.  21 CHAPTER  The is  central  mental  deceptive these  younger than  some t h e o r y - l i k e lives,  a c t s on t h e b e l i e f s  into  three  Chandler,  Fritz  investigation concurrent  and Hala  study  was p r e d i c a t e d .  attempt  on an a l t e r n a t i v e  colleagues  importantly, attempt  i n this  hinge,  study.  who a r e a b l e t o a c t i v e l y  following  questions, are  of these  the results  originally  summarizes t h e  of the e a r l i e r *  task,  from  a  the standard  i n t r o d u c e d by Johnson and  e t a l . 1987).  present  Finally,  the results question,  from  standard  into  the deceptive  of a  deceive  unexpected  and most  novel  change  h i d i n g paradigm  also understand  promote f a l s e  Perner  upon w h i c h t h e  Here t h e key i s s u e i s whether  misleading actions actually  this  p o p u l a r i z e d b y Wimmer a n d  t o transport the key "belief"  measures r e g u l a r l y  The  t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e same  (see Perner  of results  t h e consequences of  of others.  false-belief  Part three w i l l  interpretation  featured  t o engage i n  ( i n p r e s s ) , upon which  (1977) and subsequently  their  ability  own a n d o t h e r s '  P a r t two d e s c r i b e s r e s u l t s  to evaluate  "unexpected change measure"  and  of t h e i r  The f i r s t  to replicate  t o answer  o f age do i n f a c t  t o answer t h e s e  sections.  o f an attempt  Maratsos  was i n t e n d e d  h i d i n g p r a c t i c e s and t o a n t i c i p a t e  organized  subjects  4 years  by t h e i r  which are intended  findings  study  understanding  as evidenced  deceptive  results,  RESULTS  question which t h i s  whether c h i l d r e n  possess  3:  beliefs  that  children their  i n others.  22 Order The  appropriateness of t h i s  presentation  of the results  separate findings actually  from  independent  variance any  necessarily  of the order  t o have any s i g n i f i c a n t of these tasks.  serial  the different  B a s e d o n a oneway a n a l y s i s  any  and Sex E f f e c t s approach  presupposes  false-belief  i n which  As that  effect  on t h e performance  Parenthetically,  a second  effect  supporting  theory  as young as t h r e e years an opponent  of false  oneway a n a l y s i s o f  of the data  from  Fritz  and Hala  e t a l . study  o f age t o o k  i n a hide-and-seek  belief  demonstrated  appropriate  game,  already had a  and, consequently,  study  both  working  some o p e r a t i v e  o f mind. Following  the scoring  Chandler  e t a l . study  research  report,  strategies table  the Chandler  the conclusions that they  understanding  of subjects i n  f o r sex of subject f o r  of t h e Chandler,  described earlier,  steps t o deceive  collected.  subjects.  I : R e p l i c a t i on  children  measures a r e  t h e y were  of t h e measures, w a r r a n t i n g t h e combination  Part  that the  o f v a r i a n c e , t a s k o r d e r was n o t f o u n d  r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t  b o t h male and female  to the  and f u r t h e r  an i n i t i a l  introduced i nthe  described i n Chapter  examination  of the types  employed a c r o s s t h e t h r e e age groups  1) p r o v i d e s a c l e a r  subjects  conventions  of this  study  demonstration  didactively  this  of deceptive  studied (see  t h a t even t h e  undertake  2 of  youngest  t o deceive  their  23  I n s e r t t a b l e 1 about opponents. the  In l i n e  Chandler  subjects'  et a l . study,  responses  a g r e e m e n t was present  with the  obtained Before  overall  results  the  is  important  to  based  (a t o t a l  study.  of  just  scoring  categories outlined  subjects the  (27%)  analyses  and  was  their  of  are  because the  performance across  convention  t o each of table.  the  response  this  i s an  such  responses  of  by  choice  especially  in  the  examination  no  on  one  first  w i p i n g up  the  of h a l f  (50%)  effective  are  less  are  lying  clearly or the  two fact  one to  or the  assess  than  laying  responses  were c a u t i o u s l y excluded  i n terms This  that the  strategy  subjects.  h i d i n g technique,  deception  their  trials.  the  interpretable of  as  false  from the  any  other  p u p p e t ' s t r a c k s was of  of  and  grounds f o r assuming t h a t on  a  Consequently,  trials  i n t e n t i o n was  these  although  l a r g e number  hiding trials. only  hiding  several  In b r i e f ,  a sufficiently  a l s o accommodated t h e  destroying evidence  initial  raters  subjects' individual  performance would occur  and  (100%)  f o r a c t i n g d e c e p t i v e l y , s u b j e c t s were s c o r e d  best  scoring  the  r e p o r t e d were based  subject's best  capacity  how  allowed,  given  trials,  in  of  t o a more d e t a i l e d  in this  Further, because there  these  independent  assigned  two.  of  26%  8 subjects) perfect  c o m p l e t e d o n l y two  t o be  approximately  found  u s i n g t h e hide-and-seek t a s k , however, i t  describe  three t r i a l s  on  proceeding  were summarized  of  of  scoring reliability  b e t w e e n two  efforts  total  high  here  list  the  fact  attempts tracks, of  of  the While that at  such  unambiguous  measures of d e c e i t . alone  or averaging  misleading  Given t h i s trials  p i c t u r e of  one  p r a c t i c e , r e l y i n g upon t r i a l  and  subjects'  two  would have c r e a t e d  abilities  to a c t i v e l y  one  a  disinform  others. As  can  various  be  types  s e e n f r o m a f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f t a b l e 1, o f h i d i n g s t r a t e g i e s u s e d by  are d i s t r i b u t e d As  i n the  of the  who  Chandler,  overall  f r o m an  relatively Fritz  ability  any  those  "security  f u n c t i o n s " by  a c t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be  T h e r e i s an  this  withholding  species  satisfied  on  to t h e i r  of d e c e p t i v e  original intent.  evidence",  or d e s t r o y i n g of  as  tell-tale  just  how actually i s .  r e g a r d i n g human  1986)  the  actual wiping  i n v o l v e s a much more a c t i v e e f f o r t  and  most o f w h i c h i s (e.g.,  in  this  i n returning  playing surface) up  of the  a strategy for  s u b j e c t s t o r e a c h b a c k w a r d s i n t i m e and  this  nondeceptive  of evidence  p o s i t i o n on  age  as  serve  of d e c e p t i o n  deception  t r a c k s w h i c h i s r e f e r r e d t o h e r e as  comes  purpose of  demonstrating caution  The  groups.  s i n g l e measure  regarded  c l e a r about  withholding  simply  be  f o r the  ( e . g . M i t c h e l l & Thompson,  measurement p a r a d i g m containers  the best  said to only  stringent definition  t o count the  age  of c h i l d r e n at each  category  t o be  active literature  three  subjects  young s u b j e c t s t o d e c e i v e  Consequently,  I t i s important  conservative  study,  proportions  were r e l e g a t e d t o t h e  responses.  the  h i d i n g e f f o r t s t h a t can  analysis,  evidence  across  Hala  of these  unambiguously d e c e p t i v e .  proof  and  examination of the  evidenced  other  evenly  individual  the  on  eliminate  puppet's  "destroying  the  as  part  of  tell-tale  25 evidence  of their  sort might w e l l  earlier  behaviour.  have been argued  t o be a type  and  thus,  excluding these highly  the  category of deception clearly  hypothesis theory  efficient  o f mind.  Even u s i n g t h i s  responses  into  Insert c a n be seen  strategies  hiding  stringent  criteria,  2 about  here  by an e x a m i n a t i o n  of this  table,  subjects  (93%) acted d e c e p t i v e l y .  Hierarchical  analysis  was a p p l i e d  starting  fit.  The a n a l y s i s  effects  of the interaction be r e j e c t e d  effect  o f t a s k performance  data  there  (G  2  (G  support criteria capable  data  iteration  some  and  to find  acts,  almost a l l loglinear  with a saturated t h e model o f b e s t  o f age and t a s k performance  = 1.692,  2  2, p =  provides the best  effect  obtained by Chandler  f o rthe claim  f i t t i n g model f o r  o f age and t h u s  indicate  that  are i n keeping  e t a l . and a g a i n p r o v i d e  t h a t e v e n when v e r y  a r e employed c h i l d r e n  are zero  .59) a n d t h a t t h e o n e way  = 1 . 6 9 , 4, p = . 7 9 ) . T h e s e r e s u l t s  i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  with those  from  r e v e a l s t h a t t h e m o d e l t h a t t h e t w o way  cannot  the  practices  already possess  table  model and u s i n g a backward  this  o f d i s i n f o r m i n ga c t  d e c e p t i v e and nondeceptive  t o these  of  works a g a i n s t t h e present  t h a t even young 3-year-olds  dichotomizing  as  As such,  conservative  as young as 3 years  strong  scoring  o f age a r e  of acting deceptively.  Part A second  I I : Standard  focus of t h i s  Unexpected  Change  Measure  r e s e a r c h was u p o n t h e r e s p o n s e s  of  these same s u b j e c t s to Wimmer and P e r n e r ' s standard unexpected change t a s k .  The methods employed here c l o s e l y conform t o  the  r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s c o r i n g procedure r e c e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d by Perner et a l .  (1987), which i n c l u d e d  s e v e r a l memory and r e a l i t y probes e n l i s t e d to ensure t h a t subjects task.  a c t u a l l y f o l l o w the convoluted p l o t s r e q u i r e d by t h i s  Three such c o n t r o l questions were asked of  f o l l o w i n g the unexpected change: 2)  1)  subjects  "Where i s the toy c a r now?"  "Where d i d K a t i e and Sam (the two puppets) put the t o y c a r at  the beginning?";  and 3)  "Did Sam see the toy c a r b e i n g moved?".  These c o n t r o l questions were answered c o r r e c t l y by a l l  subjects.  Ignorance t e s t q u e s t i o n . Subjects responded t o the f i r s t t e s t q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g whether the absent puppet knew where the toy c a r was e i t h e r c o r r e c t l y by r e p l y i n g "no" or i n c o r r e c t l y by s t a t i n g "yes".  As  shown i n t a b l e 3 the r e s u l t s are i n l i n e w i t h p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h (e.g.,  Hogrefe, Wimmer & Perner,  Wimmer & Perner,  1983)  1986;  Perner et a l . ,  1987;  with almost a l l of the young 3 - y e a r - o l d s  having responded i n c o r r e c t l y w h i l e most of the 3 . 5 - y e a r - o l d s and all  of the 4 - y e a r - o l d s responded c o r r e c t l y .  Hierarchical  l o g l i n e a r a n a l y s i s demonstrates t h a t the b e s t f i t t i n g model one i n which age and t a s k success i n t e r a c t and t h a t a t e s t the two way e f f e c t s of age and t a s k success are zero i s (G2  = 21.66,  2, p < .001).  I n s e r t t a b l e 3 about here  is that  rejected  27 False-belief  test  Responses of performance either  had  pass.  last  indicated held  the  subjects to the  q u e s t i o n of  standard  "Where w i l l  Sam  when s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d  appropriately he  question  by  l o o k i n g i n the  seen the  t h a t Sam toy  car.  would The  look  t h a t Sam  fail.  i n the  results  Look?"  original  car put), or  when u s i n g t h i s  false-belief  understanding,  those  recently obtained  80%  of  toy  c a r as  this  3-year-olds the  place  indicated other  t h a t Sam  would  (G2  interaction = 11.654,  Ignorance  2,  developmental  age  effect p  "Versus"  Contrary a  elsewhere  <  would  as  act (i.e.,  when s u b j e c t s  where  mistakenly  c o n t a i n e r t h a t now  actually  (e.g.  the  3.5-  search  i n the  actually  left  Perner the  would  change measure  search. and  i t .  a l . , 1987)  way  f i t and  alters  the  of  the to  correctly  w h e r e he  Hierarchical two  with  In c o n t r a s t  4-year-olds  location  the best  significantly  et  of  with  actual location  i n which the  provides  as  here  unexpected  choosing  i n d i c a t e s t h a t a model  t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e and  scored  f i n d i n g s were comparable  i n w h i c h Sam  puppet f i g u r e had  analysis  this  the  poor performance most of  were  shown i n t a b l e 4 show t h a t ,  standard  mistakenly  belief"  container  I n s e r t t a b l e 4 about predicted,  "false  and  the  loglinear  effects  deletion  of of  goodness of f i t  .01).  False-belief  to the  f i n d i n g s of  l a g was  found  Hogrefe e t a l . (1986),  to exist  between the  i n which  ability  of  28 subjects  to  subsequent at  first ability  a l l ages  fail  after  these  pattern.  the  5  tasks  together,  group passing  ignorance  e q u a l i t y of  (McNemar P-1)  and  responses to the  Deception  measures of  of  other  hidden  objects.  Consistent  the  with  Insert  of  a withinproportions  reported  consistency  in  found  in  here  Change  reported  Measure  by  Chandler et a l . , various  the  study  Figure  results  into  of  age  of  3 depicts  f i g u r e 3 about observed  this  false  4 years beliefs  on  guided  again are  about  a direct  subjects  hypotheses that  d i f f e r e n c e t o be  reverse  questions.  performance of the  are  of  f i n d i n g s based upon  leading another  groups comparison of  most s t r i k i n g  high  c h i l d r e n w e l l under the  actively  results  or  question  for correlated  5 about  results  e i t h e r pass  showing the  the  subjects  same n u m b e r s  proportions,  test  their  false-belief  Unexpected  unexpected change,  demonstrate t h a t of  two  the  as  with  table  the  i n sharp contrast to  tasks.  question  two  versus  In agreement w i t h  location  the  i n d i c a t e the  Insert  capable  with  and  question,  c o n s i s t e n t l y tended to  a n a l y s i s u s i n g McNemar's t e s t  subjects'  but  question,  "false-belief"  These f i n d i n g s , along  which t e s t s the table  "ignorance"  pass the  study  i n e a c h age  failing  subject  to  in this  both of  subjects  pass the  the  between-  these this  two study,the  here i n these  data  occurs  in  the  young  3 - y e a r - o l d age  group.  Whereas o n l y  s u b j e c t s p a s s t h e u n e x p e c t e d c h a n g e measure, ability  to act deceptively  subject  c o m p a r i s o n p r o v i d e s an e v e n  20% o f t h e s e  90% d e m o n s t r a t e d  i n the hide-and-seek task.  A  3-year-olds i n t h i s  the  d e c e p t i o n t a s k t h a n on t h e u n e x p e c t e d c h a n g e t a s k .  competing  by two  tasks.  study performed  c a n be  10 o f t h e s u b j e c t s who  false-belief  An  significant  (p<.01) i n d i c a t i n g  subjects  differences that  responding c o r r e c t l y  Part In  6 about  III: spite  i n performance  interpreted actually in  on t h e two  tasks  in  d u r i n g t h e unexpected change p r o c e d u r e .  i n t h e D e c e p t i o n Task  of the i m p r e s s i v e performance  in this  unambiguously  o f young  t h e q u e s t i o n may  as p r o o f t h a t t h e s e y o u n g  generating f a l s e b e l i e f s  3-year-olds still  a p p a r e n t l y d e c e p t i v e way  appreciated that their  w i t h i n t h e new  pattern.  proportions  s u b j e c t s had more d i f f i c u l t y  Predicting False Belief  acting  table  i n the  showed t h e r e v e r s e  for correlated  o b s e r v e d on t h e h i d e - a n d - s e e k t a s k , as t o w h e t h e r  two  here  were c a p a b l e o f t a k i n g d e c e p t i v e a c t i o n  a n a l y s i s u s i n g McNemar's t e s t  reveals  on t h e  t h e u n e x p e c t e d c h a n g e measure o f  table  h i d e - a n d - s e e k t a s k w h i l e no  on  Table 6  s e e n by an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s  failed  Insert  within-  significantly better  contingency t a b l e of performance As  the  stronger demonstration that  the  shows a two  young  can  opponents.  The  be  subjects  m i s l e a d i n g a c t i o n s would  in their  remain  result  inclusion  hide-and-seek t a s k of a p a r a l l e l v e r s i o n of the  30 standard  "false-belief"  unexpected settling  Before  uncertain  proceeding  i t was  to  necessary  actually  treasure.  Subsequent to  or nondeceptive,  as  treasure.  Across  years  old)  on  to  reminded  be  this the  only of  subject's opponent,  the  an  examination  of  these  to  determine whether  any  method  of  had  hidden  on  the  h i d i n g strategy, whether  "Show me".  i n d i c a t e d the  trial  results,  subjects  t h e r e f o r e were asked  true  actions this  a direct  a l l subjects one  central to a l l  as  treasure?",  correct i f subjects  i s so  intended  remembered where t h e y  subjects  h i d the  that  matter.  themselves  where you  question  c h a n g e m e a s u r e s , was  this  however,  test  and  respond  trial was  remember  Responses were  a l l trials  l o c a t i o n of  single trial  you  a c t u a l l o c a t i o n of  d i d not  this  "Do  deceptive  the  had not  only  one  and  treasure. effect  included  the subject  correctly  the  scored  (3  needed  Although of  misleading  i n any  of  the  analyses. Ignorance Question Additionally, assessing belief"  the  table  "Will 7,  E2  the  subjects'  will  be  ignorance  increase  Insert  the  more c e n t r a l i s s u e  responses to the  p e r f o r m a n c e on briefly question  know w h e r e t h e  shows an  task  to turning to  subjects'  question"  p e r f o r m a n c e on (i.e.,  prior  adequacy of  questions,  "ignorance  i n Hide-and-Seek  the  examined. i n the  treasure  more p e r i p h e r a l Subjects'  as  can  i n correct responses with  t a b l e 7 about  here  "false-  hide-and-seek  is?"),  of  be age.  task  seen  in  Hierarchical  loglinear  model f o r these interact  and  data  that  variables  i s zero  line  the  with  contrast  analysis indicates that  i s one  the  model t h a t the  must be  results  to previous  i n w h i c h age  rejected  from the results  (G  reported  answering the  generally  easier, e s p e c i a l l y f o r the  considerable  found  young s u b j e c t s w h e t h e r E2 E2  was  understand  will  effect  know w h e r e t h e  performance  2,  of p  Hogrefe et d i d not  youngest  these  <.05). but  al.  treasure  more t h a n one  subjects,  and  that this  marked  i t remains  a m b i g u o u s how  Given the  attempt  question e v e n an  at  in  (1986),  two  be of  leave such  a n s w e r i n g when  i s .  In  appear to  These f i n d i n g s  t h e m s e l v e s t o be  asked  fact  finding  that  the  i s temporally adult  should  not  answer  question. Question  i n Hide-and-Seek  In c o n t r a s t to those with  standard  this  study  unexpected  own  by  E2  look?"  deceptive  approximately scored  results  an  25%  of  agreement once a g a i n even the  obtained  to the  w h e n i t was  hiding efforts. subjects'  independent  Task  change measures,  responded c o r r e c t l y  "Where w i l l  their  of  way  fitting  t o p r e c i s e l y what q u e s t i o n  each t r i a l  False Belief  of  task  question  on  this  by  i t more d i f f i c u l t .  generally allowed  treasure well  ignorance  room f o r d o u b t as  and  = 8.725,  2  best  unexpected change t a s k ,  correctly  whom a c t u a l l y  two  the  here 80%  of  posed As  i n the  with  the  young 3-year-olds  As  can  succeeded  be  subjects  test  of  responses,  question  with  in  question  context  hiding  responses to t h i s  found.  elsewhere  the  false-belief  rater for reliability  being  and  were  100%  s e e n i n t a b l e 8,  in providing a  70%  "rational"  32 as opposed to a " r e a l i t y " based response to t h i s t e s t  question  I n s e r t t a b l e 8 about here on t h e i r b e s t d e c e p t i v e t r i a l .  Loglinear analysis  indicates  t h a t the model t h a t the two way e f f e c t s of age and t a s k performance are zero cannot be r e j e c t e d  (G  = 1.30,  2  2, p =  .53).  The best f i t t i n g model i s found f o r o n l y the one way e f f e c t of t a s k performance ( G 2 = 1.30,  4, p = .86).  A more s t r i k i n g way t o  examine these f i n d i n g s and how they compare t o r e s u l t s  from  standard unexpected change measures i s p r o v i d e d by the use of p r e d i c t i o n analyses the f i t  (VonEye & B r a n d t s t a d t e r , 1988)  which compared  of the observed data t o two competing models.  For  comparison purposes the f i r s t of these competing models l a b e l l e d the  is  "conceptual d e f i c i t hypothesis" i n response t o  s t r o n g c l a i m put f o r t h by Perner et a l .  (1987).  the  A c c o r d i n g to  t h i s model c h i l d r e n younger than 3.5 t o 4 were s a i d t o  suffer  from some u n s p e c i f i e d " c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t " which prevents them from understanding the p o s s i b i l i t y of f a l s e - b e l i e f The second model, r e f e r r e d t o here as the hypothesis". ( i n press)  i n others.  "conceptual competence  f o l l o w s from the e a r l i e r Chandler,  F r i t z and Hala  study and holds out t h a t s u b j e c t s who take  effective  a c t i o n t o d i s i n f o r m others a c t u a l l y understand t h a t t h e i r deceptive e f f o r t s  will  i n f l u e n c e the b e l i e f s  behaviours of t h e i r opponents.  as w e l l as  The conceptual d e f i c i t  generates the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t the 3 - y e a r - o l d s  i n the  the hypothesis  present  33 study fail  might  succeed  unexpected  strategies actually  i n the  hide-and-seek task,  change t a s k s by  predictions).  f o r the A  hidden  hypothesis,  false  Table  based upon t h e  may  be  beliefs  capable  (Perner  et  of  as  conceptual young as  3 years  and  upon t h e  misleading  should  recent  table 9 for of  cell  this  demonstration the  that  holds  out  3.5of  same By  contrast,  t h a t even c h i l d r e n  follow a rational  opponent w i l l  some  possibility  f o r young 3-year-olds.  already  would  here  understanding  predict that their  assessment  b e l i e v e and  c u e s made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e m  (see  act  t a b l e 10  for  predictions).  Insert Because both conceptual succeed included  the  at t h i s i n the  task,  conceptual  subjects  analyses.  equally  vary  the  across  t a b l e 10  about  here  deficit  hypothesis  competence models p r e d i c t t h a t  distributed  the  9 about  competence h y p o t h e s i s  strategy  cell  (see  still  assessment  a l . 1 9 8 7 ) , w o u l d make t h i s  withholding prediction only the  treasure  would  opponent  somewhat more g e n e r o u s r e a d i n g  Insert  year-olds  following reality  when a s k e d t o p r e d i c t where t h e i r  search  but  A  4-year-olds  age  expected  the will  group were  frequencies  (n = 5 i n each c e l l ) ,  rows.  a c t u a l observed  The  in this  and  as  age  not  were  i s not  free  to  p r e d i c t i o n a n a l y s i s based upon t h e s e  frequencies  reported  i n t a b l e 11  failed  to  and  34  Insert find -.4,  strong support precision  =  in  the  The  observed  conceptual  stronger The  as  hypothesis,  model does not  the  two  competing hypotheses are  ability than  indicating  that  reduce the  frequency  low,  error  distribution.  c o n t r a s t , r e c e i v e d much =  .5,  z = 2.24,  p(z)  =.03).  i s higher  than  that  When t h e  this  obtained  d e l s of  these  compared i n terms of  their  overall  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m was  found  ( z = 3.83,  hypothesis  the  by  d e f i c i t hypothesis.  power, the  significant  .24),  (del =  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s based upon  for  predictive  d e f i c i t hypothesis  significantly  precision  relatively  conceptual  here  =  expected  hypothesis,  ( d e l =.5,  while  about  conceptual  compared t o  value  11  z = -1.03, p(z)  ability  support  precision  f o r the  .25,  subscribing to this  Table  p<.001) i n d i c a t i n g  that the  to  be  conceptual  i n v o l v e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e r r o r r e d u c t i o n  conceptual  deficit  hypothesis.  Justifications In  addition to their  change and  the  justifications  a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e on  of  their  responses  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s were s c o r e d  exact  nature  responses The  the  questions  Change  on  both  these  dichotomously  p o s e d and  were somewhat d i f f e r e n t  Unexpected  unexpected  hide-and-seek t a s k s , s u b j e c t s were asked  these  of  the  the  i n each  for  measures. i n both  While  cases,  appropriate  task.  Task  A f t e r making t h e i r  p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t w h e r e Sam  would  look  the  35 for  the  asked held  car  "Why  i n the will  t o be  standard  he  those  look  subject  other  or h i s to the  scored  as  I f , however,  statement all,  (e.g.  their  analysis  "He  offering  as  The  s u c h as  results  two  responses are  that  a model  best  f i twith  significant the  belief  was  scored  the  way  the  car"  test  justification  table  12  12  about  is rejected  (G2  =  the  mistaken  and  so  or  that  car  said  could  being  nothing  For  failed  this to  n e c e s s a r i l y were  f o r Sam's  false  indicate that  adequate  in  this  increases  15.38,  2,  to the  p. <  .001)  and  provides  the  for  fact  this that  to predict that  s c a r c e l y be  the  justification  responsibility  failed  the  some " d e s i r e "  variables interact  already  the  analysis reveals that and  Much of  i f a  here  age  two  up  express  justifications  e f f e c t s of  had  car"),  question  such  see  only  those  and  example,  inadequate.  i s t r a c e a b l e , however,  young s u b j e c t s w o u l d be  and  adequacy of  data.  finding  as  shown i n t a b l e  i n which these the  put  responded w i t h  adequate as  zero  For  d i d not  with the  were  t o have a more  location.  t h a t Sam  Hierarchical loglinear  model t h a t the  responses  were  Sam's l i k e l y  opportunity  new  false-belief  Insert age.  to  subjects  c o r r e c t even though i t d i d not  subjects  no  measurement c o n t e x t  of  appropriate  a l l s u b j e c t s were i n c l u d e d  scored  of  car's  justification  answer the  with  l a c k of  wants t o p l a y  correctly  belief.  and  "because t h a t ' s where they  pertinent facts,  moved.  at  as  answered  r e s p o n s e was  there?"  t h a t made s o m e r e f e r e n c e  legitimate beliefs, to date opinion  unexpected change t a s k  most  Sam's  expected  to  36 justify The  beliefs  that they  Hide-and-Seek After  E2  had  searched  demonstrated  f o r and  their  their  to find  s t r a t e g y t o E2  justified  unexpected  c h a n g e t a s k , an  their  reported  of  adequate  i n table  13.  applied which  to these  the  two  justifications and  are  t h a t a model  the best  effects  first  table  13  of  age  f i tf o r the  data.  these  about  As  as  how  you  having  with  to this  across  the  question  was  age  groups i s  analysis  was  here  finding  t h a t the model  p r o p o r t i o n of  rejected two  E2  physically  judged  loglinear  and  treasure i n  somehow a c t e d d e c e p t i v e l y .  justifications  z e r o must be  i n which  "Tell  i f they  adequate response  data producing the  way  or  the  I f s u b j e c t s were  they were  Hierarchical  Insert  to  deceptive actions.  dependent upon s u b j e c t s h a v i n g frequency  to find  the treasure".  actions verbally  adequately  The  failed  t a s k s u b j e c t s were asked  f o r her  able to explain  hold.  Task  the hide-and-seek made i t h a r d  d i d not  (G  2  variables  = 6.56,  in  adequate 2,  interact  p  <  .05)  provides  37 CHAPTER 4:  DISCUSSION  D e t a i l s and I m p l i c a t i o n s of the Research F i n d i n g s The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n addressed i n t h i s study was whether c h i l d r e n as young as t h r e e years of age do a l r e a d y demonstrate an understanding of the p o s s i b i l i t y of f a l s e b e l i e f ,  and  consequently t o possess some r e a l i f f l e d g l i n g theory of mind. The present r e s u l t s c l e a r l y r e p l i c a t e d e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by Chandler,  F r i t z and Hala ( i n press) by once again  demonstrating t h a t c h i l d r e n as young as t h r e e years of age are a b l e t o take a c t i v e steps t o d i s i n f o r m others about some t r u e s t a t e of a f f a i r s , f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h e n i n g the e a r l i e r c o n c l u s i o n that,  well before t h e i r fourth birthday,  such young p r e s c h o o l e r s  are w e l l aware t h a t o t h e r s are capable of h o l d i n g f a l s e  beliefs.  Nevertheless,  fail  these same c h i l d r e n t y p i c a l l y continue t o  Wimmer and P e r n e r ' s unexpected change measure. difficulty  The d i f f e r e n t  l e v e l s of these two measures was c l e a r l y demonstrated  by the f a c t t h a t while 90% of the 3 - y e a r - o l d s t e s t e d were a b l e to p r o v i d e s o l i d evidence of t h e i r a b i l i t y t o d i s i n f o r m o t h e r s , only 20% of t h i s sample would have been judged capable of understanding the p o s s i b i l i t y of f a l s e b e l i e f had they been evaluated u s i n g o n l y the Wimmer-Perner measure.  This  p r o v i d e s s t r o n g e r support f o r the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , popular o p i n i o n ,  evidence  contrary  to  the standard unexpected change measure does not  p r o v i d e a m i n i m a l l y complex method f o r e s t i m a t i n g young c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l i e s t understanding of f a l s e b e l i e f s .  Other  f e a t u r e s of these data a l s o serve to counter v a r i o u s methodologic c r i t i q u e s t o which the e a r l i e r Chandler et a l . study remained open.  F o r example, the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study confirm t h a t  the  c h i l d r e n who served as s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study d i d not d i f f e r i n any important r e s p e c t from o t h e r samples p r e v i o u s l y a d m i n i s t e r e d the unexpected change procedure, thus d i f f u s i n g any argument t h a t the success of s u b j e c t s here o r i n the Chandler, F r i t z and Hala study c o u l d be due t o h a v i n g stumbled upon some s p e c i a l l y competent s u b j e c t sample.  Similarly,  the f i n d i n g t h a t  subjects  of a l l ages a c t u a l l y remembered where they had hidden the t r e a s u r e speaks s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t they somehow l o s t t r a c k of the t r e a s u r e ' s t r u e l o c a t i o n and thus f a i l e d t o understand the c o n t r a s t between where the t r e a s u r e was i n f a c t and where E2 might m i s t a k e n l y b e l i e v e  i t t o be.  Had t h i s study ended with t h i s r e p l i c a t i o n e f f o r t p o s s i b i l i t y would s t i l l demonstrated e f f o r t s  have remained t h a t ,  to d i s i n f o r m t h e i r opponents,  o l d s only imagined themselves  subjects  their these 3 - y e a r -  t o be m a n i p u l a t i n g the b e h a v i o u r ,  but not the mental s t a t e s or b e l i e f s might s t i l l  despite  the  of o t h e r s .  That i s ,  have been argued t h a t the d e c e p t i v e e f f o r t s  it  of these  simply represented some b e h a v i o r a l s t r a t e g y c a r r i e d out  i n t o t a l ignorance of the e f f e c t t h e i r a c t i o n s might have upon the b e l i e f s  of t h e i r opponent.  I t i s f o r j u s t t h i s reason t h a t  the Wimmer-Perner unexpected change measure of understanding has r e s t e d i t s failure in  false-belief  case upon c h i l d r e n ' s success or  p r e d i c t i n g the s e a r c h behaviour of an o n l y p a r t i a l l y  39 informed puppet c h a r a c t e r . only s u b j e c t s who  The  c o n s i s t e n t argument has been t h a t  have a l r e a d y mastered a conception  of  the  p o s s i b i l i t y of f a l s e b e l i e f c o u l d a n t i c i p a t e t h a t others  will  behave i n ways t h a t run c o n t r a r y t o events as they a c t u a l l y are by f o l l o w i n g courses of a c t i o n c o n s i s t e n t with the information  misleading  at t h e i r d i s p o s a l .  When a p p l i e d t o c h i l d r e n ' s own  apparent attempts t o  an opponent the f a l s e b e l i e f t e s t q u e s t i o n  provides  mislead  a useful  check on whether such h i d i n g e f f o r t s are i n f a c t based on some comprehension of other's  capacity for false b e l i e f .  t h a t most of the 3-year-old  c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study  The  fact  accurately  p r e d i c t e d t h e i r opponent's l i k e l y f u t u r e a c t i o n s based on misleading  c l u e s t h a t they themselves had  credence t o the c l a i m t h a t t h e i r deceptive an understanding of and  l e f t lends  the  strong  a c t i o n s are based upon  an attempt t o i n f l u e n c e the b e l i e f s  of  others. Despite a l l age  the f a c t t h a t between 70 and  90%  of the s u b j e c t s  groups t e s t e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y responded t o  concerning  in  questions  where t h e i r opponent would search f o r the hidden  t r e a s u r e by i n d i c a t i n g one the m i s l e a d i n g  or more of the  cues they themselves had  l o c a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d by  generated ( i . e . f o l l o w e d  what i s r e f e r r e d to here as a " r a t i o n a l assessment s t r a t e g y " ) , and  d i d not p r e d i c t others would search  t r e a s u r e was  i n the l o c a t i o n where the  a c t u a l l y hidden ( i . e . a " r e a l i t y assessment  s t r a t e g y ) , as would have been the case i f they a c t u a l l y were unaware of the p o s s i b i l i t y of f a l s e b e l i e f s , these f i n d i n g s might  40 be  still  be  challenged  m i g h t be  an  artifact  context being is  there  are  "rational"  instance for  of  than  fact  short,  a  one  qualify  as  significance followed results  of  this  rational.  the  a  While  subjects  had  hiding place, some o t h e r  nominated  simple  be  treasure  qualify  any  follows  or  p o i n t i n g to the  generated  there  examining only  nominated  Looking  at  being  the  those  single set  misaligning only  across  instance  of  a l l subjects  were found.  were r a t i o n a l  Of  of  one  these  that  these  more  of  a c h e c k on  as  false of  the  78%  the  strategies.  this  likely  tracks or empty  single  of  this  where  a l l trials,  these,  assessment  frequently  subjects  cases  In  the  as  such a  and  than  coded  a single container  laying a  every  fact  r e s p o n s e s t o be that  true  "rational".  so  an  because  a l l of  t h a t young s u b j e c t s  by  as  same i s n o t  i s equally  consequence of  by  e i t h e r by  container  the  of  and,  the  i n such a random f a s h i o n ,  had  falsely  given  search  i t i s judged u n l i k e l y  such occurrences  responses  course  means s u c h as  containers.  to  more ways  could  This  assessment  c u e s t h a t n o m i n a t e more  pointing to  observation  were responding may  "rational".  results  argument would attempt t o m i n i m i z e  f o r randomly  possibility  23  of  rational  m i g h t be  opportunity  study  line  That i s , w h i l e  strategy",  deceptive  place  these  present  response that  assessment  left  i n the  single hiding location  i s only  likely  such a  that  some o f  strategies that provide  possible hiding location, as  grounds t h a t  "realistic".  "reality  responses that  locations  of  the  in a  there a  the  deceptive  when c h i l d r e n h a v e one  of  n a t u r a l l y always  consequently,  on  falsely a  total  the Among  the  by  four 3 - y e a r - o l d s (3)  who used such a s i n g l e - f a l s e - t r a c k  s i m i l a r l y answered with a r a t i o n a l assessment  strategy  75%  strategy,  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t E2 would look o n l y i n the c o n t a i n e r marked by the tracks.  C l e a r l y then,  even when the p o s s i b i l i t y  of a c o r r e c t  response by chance i s maximally reduced, these young s u b j e c t s continued to a c t i n ways t h a t suggest t h a t t h e i r opponent would be l e d by a v a i l a b l e evidence t o b e l i e v e themselves knew to be  something which they  false.  A second argument t h a t might be l e v e l l e d put f o r t h here t h a t s u b j e c t s '  " r a t i o n a l responses" i n d i c a t e an  u n d e r l y i n g concept of f a l s e - b e l i e f  understanding i s t h a t when  s u b j e c t s were asked where E2 would look they m i s i n t e r p r e t e d such questions t r a c k s lead?".  a g a i n s t the c l a i m  simply  as something l i k e  A counter to t h i s  "Where do the  argument can be p r o v i d e d by an  examination of only those cases where s u b j e c t s took steps eliminate a l l t e l l - t a l e  tracks.  to  While the h i d i n g s t r a t e g y  of  l e a v i n g no t r a c k s does not q u a l i f y as unambiguously d e c e p t i v e the s c o r i n g typology used h e r e ,  such a s t r a t e g y  in  does p r o v i d e an  o p p o r t u n i t y t o observe how s u b j e c t s proceed i n the absence of perceptual clues  (i.e.  footprints).  argued t h a t the s u b j e c t s of t h i s "belief"  questions  That i s ,  if  study succeeded  it  i s to be  i n answering  simply by n o t i n g where the a v a i l a b l e  led,  then any s u b j e c t s u s i n g such a p r i m i t i v e s t r a t e g y  fail  to respond i n a seemingly  cues were m i s s i n g .  "rational"  tracks should  way whenever a l l  As a t e s t of t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y  a l l of  such  the  responses of s u b j e c t s t h a t r e s u l t e d i n the p l a y i n g s u r f a c e  being  42 left  e m p t y o f t r a c k s was e x a m i n e d  efforts  t h a t met t h i s  indicating or her  criterion  separately.  t o do s o .  suggestion  availability  container  Such a p p r o p r i a t e  that  subjects  i n a l l of the containers,  because t h e subject  responses  simply  of the perceptual  24 h i d i n g  79% r e s u l t e d i n p r e d i c t i o n s  t h a t E2 w o u l d need t o l o o k  i n some s i n g l e f a l s e  Of t h e  would  speak a g a i n s t  based t h e i r  tell  any  p r e d i c t i o n s upon t h e  cues provided  by various  false  trails. Taken t o g e t h e r , strong  evidence  year-olds  i n support  already  consequently  Limitations  of  this  study  features  their  with  i n the deception  just  subjects  what  some o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s change measures o f  complex.  access  specific  measurement  are passive  task  Research  i n that  these  subjects  false  procedures  observers  who  from  young  a r e age  In t h e unexpected  change  must  s e t of conditions  to relevant  and  o f mind.  3-year-olds  that  3-  belief  prevent  comprehend and remember a complex  a story character's  contrast,  ability  the fact  subjects  theory  remain about  unexpected  reflect  even young  of false  f o rFuture  change t a s k  or unnecessarily  f o r example,  that  provide  shown b y t h e y o u n g e s t  numerous q u e s t i o n s  simply  inappropriate  affect  and Suggestions  As o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r ,  may  process,  some f l e d g l i n g  the clear abilities  persons experience  task,  possess  demonstrating  context.  belief  of the conclusion  of t h e unexpected  adequately  f i n d i n g s a r e seen t o  understand the p o s s i b i l i t y  already  Despite  a l l of these  information.  that In  are active participants  who  invent their  another.  While  sufficient t h e s e two  own  manner of  such  instilling false  beliefs  in  procedural differences might provide  explanation f o r the tasks, this  different  results  c o n c l u s i o n must a w a i t  an  a  provided  by  empirical  demonstration. Another m i g h t be  considered the  rudimentary children to  question that this lower  t h e o r y of mind.  were shown t o be  deceive  another  but  3 years  were not  not  i n the  asked  very  limited  subjects question, w o u l d be  imprudent  necessarily Instead, the  age  such of  questions of  rule  an  failure  3 years  or lack the  interpersonal  children  attempted  to deceive  beliefs  the  children  have youngest  efforts.  t h a t such  It  a failure  of f a l s e  follow  such  such  false  would  belief.  that children  t o comment u p o n t h e to u t i l i z e  their  false-belief  hiding  indicate  of  that these  answered the  to effectively  interactions.  that  false  i t i s possible  ability  younger  et a l . found  emerging understanding  ability  the  likely  could simply  others, despite their  their  While  often successful  are unable  attempting  These young s u b j e c t s were  however t o conclude  out  only of  game.  have adequately  despite their  a  3-year-old  given t h a t 2 1/2-year-old  verbal abilities  could not  not  Chandler  typically  about the  and  study young  believe.  same h i d e - a n d - s e e k  opponent, however,  i s what  a b l e t o comment u p o n w h a t  included here,  specifically  address  boundary of possessing  In t h i s  of being  even 2 1/2-year-old c h i l d r e n others  age  does n o t  quite capable,  deceived other would a c t u a l l y than  study  under complex  beliefs  knowledge  in  To tap the lower age boundary of t h i s a b i l i t y  i t may  be  necessary t o look beyond even the p r e s e n t d e c e p t i o n measure and to t u r n t o an examination of the spontaneous attempts t o d d l e r s t o d e c e i v e o t h e r s i n everyday  of  social settings.  While  n a t u r a l i s t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s of t h i s s o r t are l i k e l y t o underestimate the presence of such d e c e p t i v e a c t i o n s , due t o t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t nature, i t may  be p o s s i b l e t o access  such a c t i o n s through the use of v a r i o u s d i a r y methods. Over and above any f u t u r e attempts  t o b e t t e r e s t a b l i s h the  lower age boundary of young c h i l d r e n ' s f i r s t t h e o r i e s of mind, t h e r e remain numerous i n t e r e s t i n g and unanswered q u e s t i o n s concerning the l i k e l y a d d i t i o n a l steps t h a t young persons  pass  through i n e v e n t u a l l y a r r i v i n g a t an a d u l t - l i k e theory of mind. S t u d i e s aimed a t b e t t e r understanding t h i s process are a necessary p a r t of any agenda aimed a t a c h i e v i n g an adequate understanding of c h i l d r e n ' s d e v e l o p i n g t h e o r i e s of mind.  45 REFERENCES A n d e r s o n , M.  (1986).  secrecy.  C u l t u r a l concatenation  o f d e c e i t and  I n R. W. M i t c h e l l , and N. S. Thompson ( E d s . ) ,  Deception:  Perspectives  on human and nonhuman d e c e i t ( p p .  323-348). Bretherton,  I. (1984).  minds.  Social referencing  Merri11-Palmer Quarterly.  Bretherton,  I . , & B e e g h l y , M.  states:  (1982).  30, 419-427. Talking  The a c q u i s i t i o n o f an e x p l i c i t  Developmental Psychology. Bretherton,  and t h e i n t e r f a c i n g o f  about i n t e r n a l  theory  18. 906-921.  I . , McNew, S., & B e e g h l y - S m i t h , M.  p e r s o n knowledge as e x p r e s s e d communication:  infancy  ( p p . 333-373).  C h a n d l e r , M. J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) .  (1981).  i n gestural  When do i n f a n t s a c q u i r e  I n N. Lamb, & L. S h a r r o d  o f mind.  (Eds.), Hillsdale  Early  and v e r b a l  a "theory  o f mind"?  Social cognition i n N. J . :  Doubt and d e v e l o p i n g  Erlbaum. theories  o f mind.  In J . W. A s t i n g t o n ,  P. L. H a r r i s , & D. R. O l s o n  (Eds.),  Developing theories  o f mind  York:  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y C h a n d l e r , M. J . , F r i t z , scale deceit: olds'  S. M.  (in press).  Small  D e c e p t i o n a s a m a r k e r o f 2-, 3- and 4 - y e a r  Chevalier-Skolnikoff,  S.  o f mind. (1986).  C h i l d Development. An e x p l o r a t i o n  o f t h e ontogeny  i n human b e i n g s and nonhuman p r i m a t e s .  W. M i t c h e l l & N. S. Thompson ( E d s . ) , Perspectives  New  Press.  A. S. & H a l a ,  early theories  of d e c e p t i o n  ( p p . 387-413).  I n R.  Deception:  on human and nonhuman d e c e i t  (pp. 205-220).  Albany: de  Gelder,  State  B.  (in press).  troubles at  U n i v e r s i t y o f New Y o r k  with  issue.  (1978).  and  Brain  Sciences,  Dennett,  D. C.  (1985).  (continuing  Dennett,  I n J . Verschueren  Amsterdam/Philadelphia:  D. C.  8,  Intentional ascription,  content.  Dennett,  Press,  Beliefs 4,  autism  (Ed.),  and  Pragmatics  J . Benjamins.  about b e l i e f s .  The B e h a v i o r a l  568-570.  When d o e s t h e i n t e n t i o n a l  commentary),  The B e h a v i o r a l  stance  and B r a i n  work? Sciences.  758-766. D. C.  (1987).  The i n t e n t i o n a l  stance.  Cambridge:  MIT  Press. Dunn, J . & D a l e ,  N.  collaboration In  (1984). i n joint  I. Bretherton  social  I a Daddy: pretend  2-year  with  sibling  (Ed.)Symbolic play.  understanding  (pp. 131-158).  olds' and w i t h  mother.  The development o f New Y o r k :  Academic  Press. Fein,  G. G.  (1981).  review. Flavell,  play  C h i l d Development.  J . H.  (1978).  perception. Nebraska  i n childhood:  Nebraska  An i n t e g r a t i v e  52. 1095-1118.  The d e v e l o p m e n t o f knowledge about  I n H. E . Howe J r . , & C. B. K e a s e y  Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n .  Cognitive  Development  1977:  (pp.43-76).  visual  (Eds.),  V o l 25. S o c i a l  Lincoln:  University of  Press.  Flavell,  J . H.  the  mind.  (Eds.),  Pretend  (1988). I n J . W.  Developing  From L e v e l Astington,  1 t o Level  2 knowledge  about  P. L . H a r r i s , & D. R.  Olson  t h e o r i e s o f mind  (pp. 244-267).  New  York: Flavell,  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.  J.  H.,  Flavell,  Development of  the  E.  J . H.,  Flavell,  children's real  &  Green,  F.  L.  appearance-reality  Cognitive Psychology. Flavell,  R.,  15, E.  distinction.  95-120.  R.,  &  Green,  knowledge about the  distinctions.  (1983).  F.  L.  (1987).  apparent-real  Young  and  Developmental Psychology.  pretend-  23  (6),  816-  822. Flavell,  J . H.,  (1980). Effect  of  observer's  of  J . H.,  target. Green,  Development of distinction. Child Flavell,  J . H.,  objects  of  A.,  Green,  distance  F.  L.,  51  Shipstead,  Flavell,  the  &  Astington,  distinction.  Chi1d  & Graf,  children's  (1 S e r i a l S.  G.,  Child J . W.  P.  false  &  Wilcox,  perceptual  Child  (1986).  (1978).  49,  i t s relation the 59,  Development.  in  Young Hiding  1208-1211.  Children's  and  10-12.  212).  to  understanding the  appearance-reality 26-37.  K n o w i n g how  identify  16.  perception:  and  A.  perception  f o r Research  C r o f t , K.  (1988).  S.  appearance-reality  No.  Deve1opment.  to  R.  Development.  belief  (1989).  ability  beliefs.  E.  Society  knowledge about v i s u a l  from others. &  &  Monographs of  of  their  L.,  f r o m t a r g e t on  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l change and  A.  F.  knowledge about the  understanding  Gopnik,  R.,  Developmental Psychology.  Development.  children's  Gopnik,  E.  Young c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about v i s u a l  clarity Flavell,  Flavell,  know:  Young  remember t h e  sources  59i  you  1366-1371.  of  Hogrefe,  G.  false  J . , Wimmer, H., belief:  epistemic  A developmental  states.  Hood, L., & B l o o m , longitudinal  & Perner,  L.  J . (1986).  lag i n attribution  Child  Development.  (1979).  What, when,  study  of early  57.  expression of  Howes,  C.  No.  H u g h e s , M.,  Review. Johnson,  Sharing fantasy:  Child  Development.  & Donaldson,  studying  M.  (1979).  Development.  Social 56.  pretend  play i n  1253-1258.  The u s e o f h i d i n g  games f o r  Educational  ( 2 ) , 133-140.  C. N., & M a r a t s o s ,  mental  verbs:  Think  M.  (1977).  a n d know.  Early  Child  comprehension of  Development.  48. 1743-  1747. Johnson,  C. N., & W e l l m a n , H. M.  understanding Child Johnson,  of mental  Development.  C. N.,  conception  (1980).  verbs:  Children's developing  Remember,  know a n d  guess.  51, 1095-1102.  & Wellman, of t h e mind  H. M.  (1982).  and b r a i n .  Children's developing Child  Development.  53.  222-234. LaFreniere,  P.  humans.  (1988). I n R.  intelligence: intellect Oxford:  A  causality.  i n Child  the coordination of viewpoints. 31  a b o u t why:  181  (1985).  toddlers.  of  567-582.  a n d how  Monographs of t h e S o c i e t y f o r Research Serial  Ignorance vs.  W.  The o n t o g e n y o f t a c t i c a l B y r n e & A. W h i t e n  Social  i n monkeys, Claredon  deception i n  (Eds.), Machiavellian  e x p e r t i s e and t h e e v o l u t i o n o f apes,  Press.  a n d humans  (pp. 238-252).  49 L e e k a m , S.  R.,  & Perner,  children's  L e m p e r s , J . D.,  Unpublished  Flavell,  development  Monographs.  de  London: Leslie,  95.  (1982).  Gelder  A.  Belief  E.  R.,  perception.  Lewis,  C.  19-46).  and  Olson  J . E.  New  York:  A.  knowledge  Psychology  of pretense I n J . W.  for  In  B.  80-93).  belief:  the  A s t i n g t o n , P. t h e o r i e s of  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  (in preparation).  Firefly  w h a t a t a n g l e d web".  deceit  The  L.  mind  Press.  Three-year-  Conceptual  deficit  or  artifact.  (1986).  (Eds.),  (1977).  of t a c i t  (Eds.), Developing  olds ' problems w i t h f a l s e  Lloyd,  of  Kegan P a u l .  R.  & Osborne,  linguistic  processor  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n (pp.  development of t h e o r i e s of mind.  (pp.  J . H.  Genetic  Some i m p l i c a t i o n s  D.  active  Young  representation i n infancy.  ( E d . ) , Knowledge and  and  disbelief:  3-53.  Routledge  Harris,  an  & Flavell,  Discursive  (1988).  and  manuscript.  i n very young c h i l d r e n  concerning visual  A.  (1987).  c o n c e p t i o n of t h e mind as  information.  Leslie,  J.  Deception: (pp.  communication  I n R.  W.  Mitchell  P e r s p e c t i v e s on  113-128).  and  Albany:  &  deception: N.  S.  human and  "Oh  Thompson  nonhuman  State University  o f New  York  Press. Lucariello,  J.  (1987).  Spinning fantasy:  the knowledge base. Mawby, R.  & Mitchell,  analysis  of  R.  Child W.  Themes,  Development.  (1986).  deception i n sports.  Feints I n R.  58. and W.  structure,  and  434-442. ruses: Mitchell  an & N.  S.  50 Thompson  (Eds.),  nonhuman  deceit  New  Press.  York  McCune-Nicolich, Structure with  R.  I n R.  W.  Mitchell,  Mitchell  W.,  Newman, D.  games  & N. S.  University of  symbolic  52,  functioning:  785-797.  S.  York  (Eds.), deceit  York  deception.  Deception: (pp. 3-31).  Press.  (Eds.),  o n human a n d nonhuman  (1986).  State  and p o t e n t i a l p a r a l l e l s  Thompson  U n i v e r s i t y o f New  o f New  o n human a n d  A framework f o r d i s c u s s i n g  & T h o m p s o n , N.  Perspectives University  Toward  o n human a n d nonhuman  State  R.  Albany:  C h i l d Development,  (1986).  Perspectives Albany:  (1981).  of e a r l y pretend  W.  Perspectives  (pp. 313-322).  Lorraine.  language.  Mitchell,  Deception:  (1986).  deceit.  Deception:  Albany:  State  Press.  The r o l e  of mutual knowledge i n t h e  development of p e r s p e c t i v e  taking.  Developmental Review.  6,  122-145. Olson,  D.  R.,  Astington,  Introduction. Olson York: Perner,  (Eds.),  D.  Astington,  Developing  J . (1988).  R.  141-172). Perner,  I n J . W.  a n d H a r r i s , P. P.  L.  (1988).  L. H a r r i s , a n d D.  t h e o r i e s of mind  (pp. 1-15).  R. New  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.  Connecting and  J . W.,  Developing  mental Olson New  spaces.  (Eds.), York:  J . , L e e k a m , S. R.,  difficulty  with  false  semantics I n J . W.  Developing  f o r t h e o r i e s o f mind; Astington,  P.  L. H a r r i s ,  t h e o r i e s of mind (pp.  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. & W i m m e r , H. belief:  (1987).  Three-year-old's  The c a s e f o r c o n c e p t u a l  deficit.  British  J o u r n a l of Developmental  b,  Psychology,  125-137. Perner,  J . , & W i m m e r , H.  unexpected the  change  (1987,  --  development of  July).  Misinformation  Paradigms f o r t e s t i n g  epistemic state  and  hypotheses  attribution.  about  Unpublished  manuscript. Piaget,  J., &  New Pillow,  I n h e l d e r , B.  York: B.  H.  Basic  Books.  (1987).  Early  knowledge. Poulin-Dubois, the  Unpublished D.,  &  Shultz,  understanding  intentionality. Olson New  P r e m a c k , D.,  The  manuscript, T.  R.  as  & Woodruff,  G.  The  source  The  o f human b e h a v i o u r : I n J . W.  a  of  child.  of Minnesota.  development  From agency  A s t i n g t o n , P.  L.  Harris,  t h e o r i e s of mind  (1978).  of the  University  (1988).  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  of mind?  psychology  understanding  (Eds.), Developing  York:  theory  (1969).  of  to & D.  R.  (pp.109-125).  Press. Does t h e  B e h a v i o r a l and  chimpanzee have  B r a i n S c i e n c e s . 4,  a  515-  526. Russow,  L.  M.  (1986).  I n R.  W.  Mitchell,  Perspectives Albany: S e l m a n , R.  on  Deception: and  N.  human and  State University  L.  (1980).  An  S.  the  delights  growth  of  interpersonal  York:  Academic  Press.  of  philosophical perspective.  Thompson  (Eds.),  nonhuman d e c e i t o f New  analysis  Games a n d  A  of  York  understanding  41-51).  Press.  "pure"  deception.  (pp.  Deception:  perspective taking:  I n R. (pp.  L.  Selman,  49-68).  New  The  Shatz,  M.,  of  Wellman,  mental  verbs.  reference Shultz,  H. M. , & S i l b e r ,  S.  (1983).  The  A systematic investigation  t o mental  state.  T. R. & C l o g h e s y ,  K.  C o g n i t i o n . 14,  (1981).  awareness o f i n t e n t i o n .  of the f i r s t  301-321.  Development of  Developmental  acquisition  recursive  Psychology.  17. ( 4 ) ,  of avian  distraction  456-471. Sordahl,  T. A.  display:  (1986). Variation  antipredator (Eds.), deceit  Evolutionary aspects i n American  behaviour.  Deception:  avocet  I n R. W.  and black-necked  Mitchell  stilt  & N. S. T h o m p s o n  P e r s p e c t i v e s o n human a n d nonhuman  (pp. 87-112).  Albany:  State University  o f New  York  Press. Stein,  N. L . & L e v i n e , L. J . ( 1 9 8 5 ) .  development of c h i l d r e n ' s  The o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d  knowledge about t h r e e  emotional  states. Taylor,  M.  & Flavell,  Children's  J . H.  understanding  appearance and r e a l i t y . V a s e k , M.  E.  (1986).  deception (Eds.), deceit  (1984).  Seeing  of the distinction  between  Child  55. 1710-1720.  Development.  L y i n g as a s k i l l :  i n children.  Deception:  and b e l i e v i n g :  I n R. W.  The d e v e l o p m e n t o f  Mitchell  & N. S. T h o m p s o n  P e r s p e c t i v e s o n human a n d nonhuman  (pp. 271-292).  Albany:  State University  o f New  York  Press. von  E y e , A. & B r a n d s t a d t e r , J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . hypotheses statistics.  using statement  Evaluating  calculus  I n P. B. B a l t e s ,  D.  and  developmental  nonparametric  L. F e a t h e r m a n ,  & R.  M.  Lerner (pp. Wellman,  (Eds.), L i f e - s p a n development and behaviour  61-97). H. M.  Hillsdale,  (1985).  The g r o w t h  Academic  (1988).  about t h e mind.  of reflection  First  steps  I n J . W.  I n S. R.  (pp. 169-206).  The Yussen San Diego:  Bradford  ( i n press).  i n the child's  theorizing  A s t i n g t o n , P. L. H a r r i s , t h e o r i e s o f mind  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  W e l l m a n , H. M.  a n d D.  (pp. 64-92).  R.  New  Press.  Children's early  t h e o r i e s o f mind.  Books.  W e l l m a n , H. M. & B a r t s c h , K. reasoning  ( i n press).  about b e l i e f s .  W e l l m a n , H. M. & E s t e s , D. entities:  S. & P e r n e r ,  of lying:  Wimmer, H., G r u b e r ,  connotation  Cognition.  (1986).  Early  understanding  Child  S. & P e r n e r ,  of lying:  J . (1984).  Lexical  of Experimental  conception  children's  of  mental  Child  57, 910-923.  Wimmer, H., G r u b e r , conception  Young  A reexamination of childhood realism.  Development.  Journal  t h e o r y o f mind:  of cognition.  (Eds.), Developing  York:  Erlbaum.  Press.  W e l l m a n , H. M.  Olson  Lawrence  The c h i l d ' s  development of concepts (Ed.),  NJ:  (Vol. 8),  Moral  of "to l i e " .  Young  realism-moral Psychology.  J . (1985). intention  children's  subjectivism.  37. 1-30.  Young  children's  and t h e denotation and  Developmental  Psychology.  21, 993-  995. Wimmer, H., & P e r n e r , Representation  J . (1983).  Beliefs  and c o n s t r a i n i n g  about  function  beliefs:  o f wrong b e l i e f s i n  54 young c h i l d r e n ' s understanding 103-128.  of deception.  Cognition.  13,  55 TABLES  56 Table Hiding  1  S t r a t e g i e s by  Age  Age Hiding  3.0  Strategy  yrs  3.5  a  yrs  4.0  1  Withholding  0  1  0  Tampering  1  0  0  Lying  0  1  2  Disinforming  6  2  3  3  6  5  Disinforming Tampering  a  n  plus  = 10 e a c h a g e  group  yrs  57  Table 2 Presence or Absence of Deceptive S t r a t e g y by Age  Age a Hiding Strategy  3.. 0 y r s  3.5  yrs  4.0  Non-Deceptive  1  1  0  Deceptive  9  9  10  Note.  Non-deceptive s t r a t e g y w i p i n g up t r a c k s .  i n c l u d e d simple w i t h h o l d i n g and  Deceptive s t r a t e g y i n c l u d e d l y i n g i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h other s t r a t e g y , p r o v i d i n g f a l s e c l u e s , p r o v i d i n g f a l s e c l u e s and d e s t r o y i n g a c t u a l evidence. a  n = 10 each age group  yrs  Table  3  P e r f o r m a n c e on I g n o r a n c e Q u e s t i o n i n U n e x p e c t e d Change T a s k by Age  Age Ignorance question  3.0  yrs  3.5  a  yrs  4.0  Fail  9  3  0  Pass  1  7  10  a  n  = 10  e a c h age  group  yrs  Table  4  P e r f o r m a n c e on F a l s e B e l i e f Q u e s t i o n i n U n e x p e c t e d Change T a s k by Age  Age False Belief question  3.0  yrs  3.5  yrs  a  4.0  Fail  8  3  1  Pass  2  7  9  n  = 10 e a c h a g e  a  group  yrs  Table Ignorance  by  False  Belief  5  i n Unexpected  Ignorance False Belief question  Question  Fail  Pass  Fail  6  1  Pass  1  22  McNemar  Change  ( N = 3 0 ) , p. =  1.0  Task  Table of  Within Hide-and-Seek  6  Sub.iect Comparison and U n e x p e c t e d Change  Tasks  Deception False Task  Belief No  Yes  Fail  2  10  Pass  0  18  McNemar  (N = 3 0 ) , p  <  0.1  Table 7 Performance on Ignorance Question i n Hide-and-Seek Task by Age  Ignorance question  Age 3.0  yrs  a  3.5 y r s  4.0  Fail  5  2  0  Pass  5  8  10  a  n = 10 each age  group  yrs  Table  8  P e r f o r m a n c e on F a l s e B e l i e f Q u e s t i o n i n H i d e -• a n d - S e e k T a s k b y A g e  Age Strategy  3.0  yrs  3.5  a  yrs  4.. 0 y r s  Reality Assessment  3  2  1  Rational Assessment  7  8  9  a  n = 10  e a c h age  group  Table Predicted  Cells  9  f o r Conceptual  Reality Assessment  Deficit  Rational Assessment  Age  a  3.0  yrs  Pb  NF*  3.5  yrs  P  P  4.0  yrs  NP  P  a  n  b P c NP  = 10  each  age  = Permitted  group  Cells  = Non-permitted  Hypothesis  Cells  Table Predicted  Cells  Age  10  f o r Conceptual  Reality Assessment  a  Competence  Rational Assessment  3.0  yrs  NP<=  Pb  3.5  yrs  NP  P  4.0  yrs  NP  P  a  n  = 10  b  P  = Permitted  c NP  each  age  group  Cells  = Non-permitted  Hypothesis  Cells  Table  11  Observed Frequencies f o r False B e l i e f i n Hide-and-Seek Task  Response Age  a  to False  Reality Assessment  a  Belief  Question  test  Rational Assessment  3.0  yrs  3  7  3.5  yrs  2  8  n = 10 e a c h a g e  group  question  Table  12  J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Responses on U n e x p e c t e d Change T a s k by Age  Age Justification No Yes  a  n  = 10  e a c h age  3.0  yrs  3.5  a  yrs  4.0  10  4  3  0  6  7  group  yrs  Table  13  J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Responses on H i d e - a n d - S e e k T a s k by Age  Age Justification  a  n  3.0  yrs  3.5  a  yrs  4.0  No  4  2  2  Yes  6  8  8  = 10 e a c h a g e  group  yrs  69 FIGURES  FIGURE 1  Experimental  Setup f o r Unexpected  Change P r o c e d u r e  FIGURE  Experimental  2  Setup f o r Hide-and-Seek Procedure  73  74 FIGURE 3  Comparison of  Performance  Between Unexpected Change Task and Hide-and-Seek Task  75" Figure 3 Comparison of Performance B e t w e e n Unexpected Change Task and Hide-and-Seek Task  100  76 APPENDICES  77 APPENDIX  R E V I E W OF  Evidence  Supporting EarlyThe  According lines  of  to the  evidence,  younger than rudimentary  evidence  are  young as  2 or and  age  From t h i s  2 1/2  the  real  of  the  years  it  allows their  normal  pretend  psychology  suggest  understand events  age,  of mind  the  lines  of  that children  as  distinction  t o which  (e.g.  those  beliefs  According  to Leslie  of  such  a dramatic  a literature  these  primary  From t h i s  such  of  shift  representations  i n the  pretend  review  carried  out  that from  emergence  1981)  of  some e a r l y  gestures  as  of  child's  (McCune-Nicolich, emergence of  1988)  world  same e v e n t s  perspective the  view  (1982;  o n l y a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the  abilities  first  early-onset  refer.  young c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s  the  this  between  concerning  associated with the  months of  or theory  literature  referents.  While  of possessing  of  "decoupling"  of mind.  considerably  i n support  play constitutes  usually  children  evidence  metarepresentational sort  converging  a l r e a d y show e v i d e n c e  also a metarepresentation  for a  there are  perspective interlocking  world  p l a y r e q u i r e s not  i s , but  Positions  View  suggest  t o engage i n a c t s of p r e t e n s e . pretend  Late-Onset  view  seen t o converge which  line  comes f r o m  onset  intentional-state  1985).  One  Early-Onset  early  of  LITERATURE  Versus  a l l of which  4 years  Wellman,  beliefs  THE  A  the theory  emerge a r o u n d by  Fein  (1981)  12  a  78 suggests that continue 15  these  t o be p r i v a t e and i d i o s y n c r a t i c u n t i l  t o 20 m o n t h s .  that  I t i s this  come t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t  representations, fledgling  would  theory  pretend  o f mind.  both t o hold  play  understand that others.  That  a metarepresentation  o f age. play  context  involving preschool  months engaged (1984) a l s o  their  siblings.  C l e a r l y then,  seem c a p a b l e o f e n g a g i n g demonstrating t h e i r  the ability  i s simultaneously social  pretend  held  play  f o r example,  Howes  i n a  found  initiated  naturalistic  (1985) found  that a l l  social  shared  play.  Dunn a n d D a l e  i n t e r a c t i o n 2-year olds  i n pretend  by around i n pretend  ability  pretend  games w i t h  2 t o 3 years  and  older  o f age c h i l d r e n  play  with  another  thus  t o represent  that  the other  was  pretending. A second  line  has  6 7 % a t 27-28 months a n d 5 0 % a t 21-23  i n sibling  e v e n some 1 8 - m o n t h o l d s  1988),  and a l s o t o c l e a r l y  Similarly,  peers,  i n cooperative  found that  (Leslie,  24 t o 2 9 m o n t h - o l d s  mothers.  30 m o n t h s ,  pretense  o f t h e r e p e r t o i r e o f c h i l d r e n as  context  play  over  children  non-social  L u c a r i e l l o (1987),  pretend  children  with  a t which  play  represent  i s , while  Depending upon t h e c o n t e x t ,  i n a familiar  around  pretend  seem t o n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e  been d e m o n s t r a t e d t o be a p a r t  that  can  such a metarepresentation  young as 2 y e a r s  some t i m e  some m e t a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s  would  t o such  others  place  reality  l a y i n g t h e groundwork f o r t h e emergence o f  appear t o r e q u i r e  social  by  thus  of  emergence o f s o c i a l  appears t o mark t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l  first  a  alternative representations  of evidence  i n support  of the claim  that  also  children theory use  younger  of mind  of mental  children mental want  t h a n 4 y e a r s o f age  i s p r o v i d e d by state  terms.  verbs  1985).  an  essential  of  internal While  obviously  that  spontaneous  years, f o r  example,  i s insufficient  1982;  S h a t z , Wellman and  and  Bretherton,  Silber,  f o r being able to express a  1983; Beeghly  knowledge  there also  occurring  made f r e q u e n t a n d causation.  intentional  that  i f not  fully  terms  from  and  speech  Johnson 2 1/2  found  and  and  strongly  aged  that their  Wellman  t o 3-year  (1980)  mental  terms  S h a t z , Wellman and  Silber  (1983)  that  comes f r o m who  Hood  subjects  have  olds bracket together  events to which  simply parrot  of  psychological  them as b e l o n g i n g t o  evidence against the p o s s i b i l i t y  the  study  2 t o 3 1/2 young  of  suggests  In a l o n g i t u d i n a l  of children  understand  the actions  terms  e l a b o r a t e d grasp of  appropriate references to  their  state  i s evidence that  f o r example,  Similarly,  demonstrated  such  evidence f o r concluding the presence  have a b a s i c  (1979),  such mental  remember, know, w i s h , hope  meaning of these terms.  the n a t u r a l l y Bloom  of  h a v i n g some b e g i n n i n g t h e o r y o f m i n d i s  simply parroting  conventional  and  2 1/2  initial  states.  these c h i l d r e n  different  1981;  prerequisite  a t h e o r y of mind,  children  children's  R e f e r e n c i n g s u c h e v i d e n c e , B r e t h e r t o n and  have argued  Further  around  into  Bretherton & Beeghly,  McNew & B e e g h l y - S r a i t h ,  and  At  such as t h i n k ,  ( B r e t h e r t o n 1984;  (1982)  studies  some  h a v e b e e n shown t o s p o n t a n e o u s l y employ a v a r i e t y  state  Wellman  already possess  found  they such  categories  refer. young  Wellman t h a t by  (1985) around  2  80 1/2  years  these  children  mental  distinguish study old  seem t o u s e  state verbs  Estes  (1986) found  f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g mental  very  e r r o r s when s o r t i n g  age  taken  children  together  can  from r e a l i t y ,  world  h a v e no  as  they  and that  others'  not  emotional  found  appropriate  that  ensue.  t h a t by  2 1/2  into  intention the  makes a  are  and  linked.  responses  events.  and  made  These  three years  from,  of  exists  that populate  diverge  similar  the  their  things  3 years  to others  and  of  age  connections  Levine  charged (1985),  f o r when e i t h e r  and  children  the  for  the a match  (1988)  were a b l e  to  found  attribute  to view various actions i n r e l a t i o n  s t r o n g l y suggests  t e r m s goes b e y o n d mere m o u t h i n g o f  the  children  that their words and  or  a c t u a l outcomes  Shultz  That p r e s c h o o l  own  indicates  to anticipate  between someone's d e s i r e s and  their  connections  affectively  able  Poulin-Dubois  of  p o i n t and  S t e i n and  called  i n t e n t i o n s t h a t prompt them.  make s u c h  events  children's understanding  lives  Similarly, to  year  concerning  t h a t by  beliefs  recent 3  only that a mental world  3-year o l d s are  emotional  mismatch occurs that  I n a more  y o u n g p r e s c h o o l e r s make a p p r o p r i a t e  to which they  example,  nonreal  clearly  m a j o r i t y of  nonmental  i n , or otherwise  between v a r i o u s mental e n t i t i e s actions  and  of  are.  research  even v e r y  real  and  also that the  counterpart  actually  Related  but  that the  s t r o n g l y suggest  understand  apart  more s a l i e n t  answer q u e s t i o n s  criteria  findings  the  external referents.  subjects could correctly  few  least  i n c o n t r a s t i v e ways t h a t  them from t h e i r  W e l l m a n and  at  use  again  of  to  readily mental  implies a  81 basic  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f how s u c h m e n t a l  entities  might  affect  actions. Very young c h i l d r e n have a l s o  demonstrated  some c o n c e p t i o n o f j u s t w h e r e m e n t a l  entities  some b a s i c  n o t i o n s o f how t h e y a r e g o v e r n e d .  children's  understanding of the brain  Wellman, found, that  f o r example,  the brain  physical and  1982) 3-year  processes.  brain  dreaming,  and mind  theory-like  (Johnson  v e r y much l i k e  and mental  were  t h e mind i n  saw t h e b r a i n  as  something  f o rmental  and remembering.  i s limited,  &  processes but not other  entities  from b e h a v i o r s and r e s p o n s i b l e  as t h i n k i n g ,  In a study of  i s , these young c h i l d r e n  t h e mind  have  a l t h o u g h somewhat i n c o n s i s t e n t ,  to treat the brain  That  they  o r i g i n a t e from and  and t h e mind  was s e e n t o c o n t r o l m e n t a l  by a s s o c i a t i o n  distinct  olds,  that  actions  While t h i s  such  concept of  i t d o e s s h o w e v i d e n c e f o r some  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what a mind  i s and what i t might  control. On t h e b a s i s that  of a l lthe studies  above,  b y 2 1/2 t o 3 y e a r s o f a g e c h i l d r e n a l r e a d y  access t o and knowledge understand t h i s external and  cited  mental  of t h e workings domain n o t only  world, but also  emotions A third  of  have  of t h e mental as d i s t i n c t  clear  some w o r l d , and  from t h e  as a determinant of t h e a c t i o n ,  thoughts  others.  major  source of evidence i n support of t h e early  emergence o f c h i l d r e n ' s  theories  into visual  taking  Piaget's  i t seems  perspective  assertion  that  o f mind d e r i v e s  abilities.  from r e s e a r c h  In response t o  preschool c h i l d r e n remain  unable t o  82 understand t h a t others may view the same o b j e c t (Piaget & I n h e l d e r ,  1969), F l a v e l l  differently  (1978) proposed t h a t t h e r e  i n f a c t more than one l e v e l of p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g , and t h a t first  the  of these l e v e l s i s achieved a great d e a l e a r l i e r than  P i a g e t proposed. first  is  F l a v e l l maintains t h a t at l e v e l  come t o understand t h a t i f  1 children  a n o t h e r ' s v i s u a l access t o an  o b j e c t o r event i s r e s t r i c t e d o r obscured i n any way, then t h a t other w i l l not see the o b j e c t . ability,  a c c o r d i n g to F l a v e l l ,  The l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s  level 1  i s t h a t although young 2- and 3-  year o l d c h i l d r e n seem capable of determining what another may or may not see,  it  i s not u n t i l they are 4 o r more t h a t they  achieve  the l e v e l 2 a b i l i t y t o understand how others may d i f f e r e n t l y construe the same c o n t e n t .  The now c l a s s i c and widely r e p l i c a t e d  v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g study of Lempers and F l a v e l l  (1977) can  be used to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n .  subjects  In t h i s  study  were exposed t o a p i c t u r e of a t u r t l e which appeared t o be l y i n g on i t s back t o one observer and r e s t i n g on i t s another.  own f o u r f e e t  to  In t h i s procedure, 3-year o l d c h i l d r e n demonstrated an  understanding t h a t when the o t h e r has a b s o l u t e l y no v i s u a l access t o the t u r t l e they see n o t h i n g at a l l , but s t i l l f a i l  to  understand t h a t from t h e i r d i f f e r e n t viewing p o s i t i o n s they and the other w i l l  see the t u r t l e i n d i f f e r e n t  Somewhat o l d e r c h i l d r e n (4 years o l d ) , achieved a l e v e l  orientations.  who are s a i d to have  2 u n d e r s t a n d i n g , were a b l e not o n l y t o  understand who c o u l d or c o u l d not see the t u r t l e at a l l , but a l s o how they and others see  it.  While l e v e l 2 p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g i s  83 d e c i d e d l y more mature than i t s  precursor, achieving level  i n s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t f o r the young c h i l d . t h a t f o r a c h i l d to achieve f u l l  level  Flavell  1 i s no  (1978) maintains  1 competence he o r she  must understand t h a t i n order f o r another person to see  an o b j e c t  four c o n d i t i o n s must h o l d : 1) at a minimum one of the o t h e r ' s  eyes must be open and  unencumbered; 2) the o t h e r ' s  eyes must be o r i e n t e d i n the d i r e c t i o n of  the  object; 3) t h e r e must not be any p h y s i c a l o b s t r u c t i o n s o b s c u r i n g the o b j e c t from the o t h e r ' s v i s i o n ; and 4) what the c h i l d has v i s u a l access to i s  independent  from  what the other sees. By 3 years of age most c h i l d r e n c l e a r l y evidence understanding of a l l of these aspects of l e v e l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g ( F l a v e l l , 1977, Green & W i l c o x , 1980; Donaldson,  1979).  Lempers & F l a v e l l ,  1 visual  Flavell,  1977;  Flavell,  Hughes and  Some r e s e a r c h suggests an even younger onset  age on s i m p l i f i e d l e v e l (1978),  i n press;  a full  f o r example,  1 tasks.  Flavell,  S h i p s t e a d and C r o f t  u s i n g a r e s e a r c h design t h a t t e s t e d L e v e l 1  v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g i n terms of c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to h i d e an o b j e c t from another,  found t h a t even 2 1/2  year o l d s knew how  to d e p r i v e another of v i s u a l access to an o b j e c t by p l a c i n g behind an opaque s c r e e n ,  thus demonstrating t h a t they c o u l d  d i s t i n g u i s h between what they and others  saw.  While proponents of the l a t e - o n s e t view  (e.g.  Hogrefe,  it  84 Wimmer & as  Perner,  evidence  reasons to earlier  1986)  f o r the  understanding  (e.g.  Pillow,  a  stimulus  found or  t h a t even  absence of  attribute  knowledge of  understand that perceptual  social  engage i n p r e t e n s e  and  understanding situation.  colour  of  that and  recent  children's  of  knowledge  an  Thus,  i n the  access  puppets,  infer  an  the  to  Pillow  presence  perceptual  object  that those  experience  correctly  t o whoever  who  had  not  c h i l d r e n seem  real  world  determines  had  seen i t to  is a result and,  one's  largely  of  as  such,  mental  undisputed  c h i l d r e n demonstrate the  the  mental world.  somewhat l a t e r ,  i n cooperative  Use  and  cognitive c a p a c i t i e s which of  join  more  young c h i l d r e n c o u l d  i t i s c l e a r and  age  some u n d e r s t a n d i n g  years,  for  event.  then, of  support  where d i f f e r e n t i a l  someone's  information  an  are  taking with  correctly  i t s colour.  to  of  3 years of  on  taking  there  i s the  a person's knowledge or b e l i e f  general  to  indirect  for subjects  understood  of  of mind,  i s a source  study,  could  the  that perceptual  In  variety  but  access  representation  1/2  provided  That i s , these  ignorant  believe  In t h i s  1 perspective  relevant  that perception  knowledge based  w o u l d be  a theory  1 perspective  3-year-olds  object,  of  level  a c h i e v e m e n t as  level  was  seen the  accept  Particularly  1987).  array  experience.  2  this  onset view.  early  not  existence  consider  work t h a t c o n n e c t s  do  others  social can  understanding  of  of  but  s t i l l play,  prior  by  a  i n d i c a t e at  V e r y e a r l y on  pretend  represent  use  that  least  children to  3  demonstrating  an  a contrary-to-fact  mental  s t a t e terms and  the  85 parameters as  of mental  does l e v e l  1 visual  possessing these some e v i d e n c e also  capable  action  entities  also  emerge a r o u n d  perspective taking.  candidate elements  suggesting that of combining  list  elements  of accomplishments,  however,  to this  a  t h e o r y of mind t o c h i l d r e n  is  to this  late-onset view The  In  contrast  t o those  that  to predict  In spite  contributors legitimate  literature  In addition to  as young as 3 years a r e  (Wellman & B a r t s c h , i n p r e s s ) .  impressive  same t i m e ,  o f a t h e o r y o f mind t h e r e i s  children  these  this  this  t h e r e a r e many  who a r e s t i l l  unwilling  will  View  supporters of the early-onset view  children  a s y o u n g a s 2 1/2 w i t h h o l d i n g t o some  theory  o f m i n d , t h o s e who s u p p o r t t h e n o t i o n o f a l a t e r  claim  instead  that  point  i n this  aspect of young c h i l d r e n ' s  advocates  of the early-  essential  pivot  a theory. that  3-year that  label  " t h e o r y o f mind". Perhaps  evidence  t h e most c e n t r a l  critics  (1983) and t h e i r  late-onset view  do a l l t h a t i s still  has as i t s  while  f o r such  acknowledging  others claim  f o r them,  n o t enough t o warrant t h e  and c e r t a i n l y  of the early-onset view colleagues.  turning  claims of  t o take as evidence  of t h e late-onset view,  argue  prolific  versus  olds can i n fact a l l such  onset  cognitive  between t h e competing  what one i s w i l l i n g  Supporters  early  who  basic  4 o r 5 y e a r s o f age marks t h e c r u c i a l  This debate  I t  now b e t u r n e d .  credit  development.  to credit  u n d e r t h e a g e o f 4.  attention  Late-Onset  of  another's  among t h e m o s t  a r e Wimmer  These authors  and Perner  see the a b i l i t y  of  children litmus  t o understand opposing o r false  test  important that  f o r any t h e o r y o f mind.  as a c r u c i a l  In is  this  beliefs  test  mind b u t t h e debate children  remains  out instead  actually  on mutual  authentic  one adheres  young c h i l d r e n  states which  correspond.  simultaneously,  know t h a t  knowledge cannot  states  1986) and  i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r one t o know  of beliefs  Thus t e s t s  of  i n o t h e r s must go b e y o n d  mutual  understanding that  of belief  i s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether w i t h t h e sources from which (1989)  found  the source of t h e i r  that  has been  young c h i l d r e n they originate.  that  children's  One d i m e n s i o n  identify  any  i t i s o n l y when d i f f e r e n t i a l a c c e s s t o  occurs that  and Graf  such  occur  a c o h e s i v e t h e o r y o f mind.  Gopnik  some  which are  i n o t h e r s (Newman, may  world,  t o which  knowledge t o demonstrate  beliefs  they and  have  be shown t o r e q u i r e  beliefs  that i t  the real  Understanding b e l i e f s  a n o t h e r may n o t s h a r e o n e ' s b e l i e f .  recently  agree  such c h i l d r e n  intentional  while the understanding of f a l s e  understanding  should  to a theory of  d i f f e r from  f o r evidence that  understanding of b e l i e f s  information  o n e ' s own  o p e n a s t o when i n t h e l i v e s o f  working understanding of those  based  d i f f e r from  t o understand  supporters of the late-onset view  i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t  beliefs  a r e a number o f  occurs.  t h e main,  hold  which  of whether  others have i n t e n t i o n a l and  There  as t h e r e a l  a n d c o n v i n c i n g r e a s o n s why t h e a b i l i t y  a n o t h e r may h o l d  stand  beliefs  examined  connect For  example,  3-year-olds d i d not accurately  own b e l i e f s .  These r e s u l t s  appear  87 inconsistent w i t h those year-olds based  on another's  however, study on  correctly  differ  obtained  inferred  by P i l l o w  t h e presence  i n some o t h e r  important  These two s t u d i e s ,  aspects.  In Pillow's  s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o p r e d i c t what a n o t h e r  Gopnik and Graf after-the-fact  study  of perceptual  would  olds  where t h e i r  own k n o w l e d g e o r b e l i e f s o r i g i n a t e d  the  nature  The d i f f i c u l t y  given  that these of b e l i e f s  accurately a  t o know.  i n t h e Gopnik and Graf  possibility  choosing  The  i n contrast required subjects to explain  a task which requires a p o t e n t i a l l y  the right  know  information.  more c o m p l e x a b i l i t y  comment u p o n how o n e comes t o know a t h i n g r a t h e r t h a n has  3-  o r absence of knowledge  perceptual experience.  the basis of the a v a i l a b i l i t y  from,  (1987) i n which  study  experience  what  one  by t h e 3-year-  does n o t p r e c l u d e t h e  y o u n g s u b j e c t s h a v e some u n d e r s t a n d i n g b u t may  reflect  among t h r e e  to  their  plausible  of  lack of expertise i n  alternative  sources f o r  belief.  Much o f t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h on c h i l d r e n ' s d e v e l o p i n g theories classic  o f mind  i n some d i r e c t  l i n e a g e t o t h e now  work o f t h e e t h o l o g i s t s Premack and Woodruff  which they  attempted  demonstrate  deceptive work f a l l s  to illustrate  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  consequently  the  stands  some t h e o r y  strategies.  of the false  o f mind through  While  arguing  short of i t s intended  possibility  t h a t chimpanzees  that possession  beliefs their  (1978) i n could  of others  and  use of v a r i o u s  t h a t Premack and Woodruff's  mark, D e n n e t t  (1978) l e a v e s  open  o f some t h e o r y  of mind might  be  d e m o n s t r a t e d by u s i n g what he p r o p o s e s  as t h e  "minimal  88 experiment" Dennett's test  f o rattributing  minimal  experiment  of false-belief Before  several  taking  different  d e c e p t i o n t o an organism. on which  understanding  t o which  and Pernor's  of t h i s  procedure  Perner  remain  procedures. test  t h a t persons  values.  satisfy  of t h e recent Chandler, this  task.  according t o Perner assign  values t o t h e models.  world  oldchild  another social with  Mental  p r o v i d e no s u c h refers  might believe pretend  the truth,  & Hala,  at this  i n press)  earlier  distinguished  t o a dream t h e r e  t r u t h values f o r the reason  what t h e y  from  cannot truth  used their  real-  i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t  involving  Similarly,  claims at variance  an awareness o f  t h a t no one i n s u c h  t o be t r u e .  models and  F o r e x a m p l e i f a 3-  t h a t dream t o be r e a l i t y .  need n o t i n v o l v e  appear  age c a n do,  i s assign conflicting  evidence.  play while clearly  assumes t h e p r e t e n s e  (with the possible  s t a t e t e r m s e v e n when  a n d when a d e q u a t e l y  referents  with  none o f t h e methods  values t o these models, authors,  Wimmer  (1987) t h e  et a l , i s t o represent alternative  appropriate truth  appropriately  Fritz  What c h i l d r e n  y e t do, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e  year  t o date,  as  i n the child's  may h o l d b e l i e f s  At least  attention  of other  lies  by supporters of t h e e a r l y - o n s e t view  exception to  truth  such  L e e k a m a n d Wimmer  o f a t h e o r y o f mind  t o understand  conflicting  by the r e s u l t s  According t o Perner,  of the presence  ability  used  unimpressed  and t h e  i t h a s b e e n p u t , some  n e e d s t o b e p a i d t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f why a u t h o r s and  (1983)  i s based.  up a d i s c u s s i o n uses  Wimmer  I ti s  conflicting interactions  What i s r e q u i r e d i n t h e c a s e o f  conflicting only  truth values  does the  variance  child  The is  to  occur  colleagues  tasks  around  t o be  measures,  according  to  perspective  she  assign  i n c l u d i n g the  reality  or  these  that  t o be  of  unexpected level  age,  f o r success  only  the  an  saw  a l s o how  they  must h o l d  i n mind what they  the  may  other  with  their  perceive  own  press;  Flavell, child  1986;  the  it  i s .  Flavell  different  object An  At  as  separate  the  the  i n some way  real  same o b j e c t  of  to  and  of  follows,  2 of  visual  understand  access  could  which  see  i s , children  understand  may, and age  be  distinction  1983,  1984)  models of  from the  could  Green,  i t appears  object  3 years  &  & Flavell,  upon c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n sponge.  object  which  Perner  This  That  but  true.  appearance-  level  visual  see  appearance-reality  Taylor  two  model of truly  the  Flavell,  hold  themselves  values,  taking.  that object.  that  a number  ability  at  that  conflicts  view.  Similarly, in  the  on  because F l a v e l l ' s  differential  but  truth  not is  model t o be  change procedure,  t a k i n g i n v o l v e s not  also  i s assumed by  whether another person with object  false  2 perspective  authors,  a l , i s that  t r u e but  such c o n f l i c t i n g  4 years  et  a p r o p o s i t i o n or model  deems t h i s  responsible  and  to Perner  takes  simultaneously  ability  said to  his  understand  w i t h w h a t he  another person  according  1987;  the  f o r example, handling (Taylor &  may  Flavell,  i n mind at model look  be  Green  of like  the  1984)  the  object  a rock  but  children  a rock  or  as  really  cannot understand  e i t h e r as  &  the  once,  shown t o be  Flavell,  apparent but  represented  Flavell,  also requires that  reality and  (e.g.  a can  that a  sponge  90 depending  on  the observer's point  using variations  of  tasks,  Gopnik  3-year  old subjects  their  and  current  further  found  difficult support that the  A s t i n g t o n (1988) were unable  possible that  of  to Flavell's  a thing  themselves  know t o be  related  belief  detail  false.  false  belief  cognitive  The  Change  basic  feature  change t a s k and which  the  information. privy  variation  because  something  more  tasks  lending  & Green,  which  i s said  t o form  1983)  grasp  they  that  a basis  the f o r many  i t seems p a r t i c u l a r l y  that  The  important  a d e q u a t e l y gauges i t s  following  o f Wimmer a n d  section  describes i n  change  measure.  Perner's original i s that  turn  figure)  a story  of events has  procedure  no  i n which  about  which  knowledge.  (Wimmer a n d  unexpected  i t creates a context  another have d i f f e r e n t i a l  Subjects are t o l d  upon t h i s  authors  Paradigm  s u b j e c t and  (a d o l l  treat  c h i l d r e n must  of the f a c t  i t s many v a r i a t i o n s  t o an u n e x p e c t e d  protagonist  These  Flavell,  s t a n d a r d Wimmer-Perner unexpected  Unexpected  to  their  only  In view  abilities  i n young c h i l d r e n .  this  tended  of  i s necessary f o r understanding  another can b e l i e v e  t o have a measurement procedure emergence  and  as t h e  (Flavell,  a p p e a r a n c e - r e a l i t yd i s t i n c t i o n that  in  t o succeed  over half  than the f a l s e - b e l i e f  assertion  understanding false  other  that  study  false-belief  the a p p e a r a n c e - r e a l i t y t a s k s were  the notion  The  found  i n both types of tasks.  f o r the children  understanding of  In a s i m i l a r  s t a n d a r d a p p e a r a n c e - r e a l i t y and  representation  representation  of view.  access  they are the  I n one  Perner,  1983)  to made  story such the  child  91 watches a scene playhouse Maxi,  enacted  b y a m o t h e r and s o n d o l l  c o n t a i n i n g two c u p b o a r d s .  have j u s t  r e t u r n e d from  cupboard play. from  A i n Maxi's presence.  and, among o t h e r  cupboard  recent  The c h o c o l a t e i s p l a c e d i n  Then M a x i l e a v e s t h e h o u s e t o  A, g r a t e s a l i t t l e  n o t back i n cupboard  "explicit"  then t o l d test  that  t o make a c a k e ,  q u e s t i o n s asked  B.  transfer.  Maxi w i l l  The s u b j e c t i s  want some c h o c o l a t e .  of the subject a t t h i s  point are "Will  M a x i know where t h e c h o c o l a t e i s " and more i m p o r t a n t l y Maxi l o o k f o r t h e c h o c o l a t e " .  with the o r i g i n a l then they  location  I f s u b j e c t s answer  contrast,  they  chocolate  ( i . e . Cupboard B ) , t h e y a r e s a i d  understanding  o f t h e c o u n t e r f a c t u a l n a t u r e o f f a l s e b e l i e f s and o f t h e s o r t promoted by advocates  Wimmer a n d P e r n e r ' s t o be a powerful about  of the  t o l a c k an  e a r l y - o n s e t v i e w a r e d i s c o u n t e d a s h a v i n g no  thoughts  A)  I f , by  w i t h t h e a c t u a l new l o c a t i o n  o t h e r forms o f evidence,  proved  correctly  f a l s e b e l i e f s and  some o p e r a t i v e t h e o r y o f mind.  respond  "Where  of t h e c h o c o l a t e ( i . e . cupboard  are credited with understanding  assumed t o p o s s e s s  I n more  t a s k t h e s u b j e c t i s reminded  unexpected  upon h i s r e t u r n ,  and p l a c e s t h e  A, b u t i n c u p b o a r d  versions of t h i s  t h a t M a x i does n o t s e e t h i s  will  items,  D u r i n g M a x i ' s a b s e n c e t h e m o t h e r removes t h e c h o c o l a t e  chocolate,  The  in a  The m o t h e r and t h e boy,  shopping  some c h o c o l a t e h a s b e e n p u r c h a s e d .  figure  original  unexpected  status. change  paradigm  impetus t o o t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o  t h e mental  lives  l o c a t i n g t h e t h r e s h o l d f o r such  of the  of other persons, an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  children's  and w h i l e relatively  late,  92 as  compared t o t h e c l a i m s o f those  section,  i tdoes  younger age t h a n still  earlier  Selman, two  p l a c e t h e emergence o f t h i s  has been suggested  major  advantages i n this  investigators not,  b y many s t u d i e s b a s e d  1981).  In particular,  o f t h e Wimmer-Perner paradigm  area.  The f i r s t  successfully  i n t h e main,  concerns  designed  dependent upon o r confounded  thinking.  Much o f t h e p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h i n t h i s  to verbally  upon c h i l d r e n ' s  Perner  achieve  simply  p o i n t t o t h e cupboard  for  this  the chocolate.  often  i n which  This paradigm  based  and h i g h e r l e v e l  with  verbal reports.  they  also  which  young  area c l e a r l y  was  Wimmer a n d  t h i n k Maxi  subjects will  look  avoids the recursive, role-taking  o n c o m p e t i t i v e game  strategies  these  what they a r e  o f many e a r l i e r  1980; S h u l t z & Cloghesy,  previous  that  p r o c e d u r a l advance by h a v i n g t h e i r  assessment procedures  level  articulate  explicit  noninterpretable nature  (Selman,  upon  an assessment procedure  abilities  reliant  at a  there are  over  the fact  children's  over  ability  measures of c o n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g ( e . g .  1980; S h u l t z & C l o g h e s y ,  research  is  i n fact  discussed i n the preceding  1981),  strategies  i n which  were m a n i f e s t  both  lower  i n the very  same  action. Since  1983 t h e o r i g i n a l  assessment paradigm  has been used  these  authors  and t h e i r  these  earlier  findings  f o rchildren  unexpected  w i t h numerous v a r i a t i o n s  colleagues, i n order t o both and i n an e f f o r t  t h a t makes t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g difficult  Wimmer a n d P e r n e r  of false  younger than  t o determine  belief  4 years.  change by  replicate what i t i s  so apparently , What f o l l o w s  i s a  93 synopsis  of  The  the  f i n d i n g s from these  original  s e t of  studies which  unexpected  change paradigm  attempt to  locate children's first  of  others  at  several studies.  (Wimmer &  a y o u n g e r age  than  had  understanding  i n the  of  first this  experiment  study  school  ranged from  clearly  years,  4 years  showed t h a t w h i l e  answered the  test  questions,  year  failed  so.  In a  and  t o do  4-year o l d s , the  including  authors  "stop-and-think"  impetuous responses  given  condition  was  displaced  w h i l e M a x i was  condition  facilitated  unexpected the  majority  minority The  on  (76%)  (41%)  by  very  out  and  passing  passing  the  the In  with their  disappear  of  of  the  then the  beliefs  9 years. 6-  to  The  9-  experiment  to guard  was  to  5-  involving  3-  task  easier  A was  disappear  standard and  4 year  not  simply the  disappear on  olds,  c o n d i t i o n but  unexpected  the  removed from  performance  f o r the  by  "disappear"  found that only the  only  olds  4-  against  chocolate  in  results  year  m a j o r i t y of  room b u t  such  ages examined  young c h i l d r e n .  Perner  the  an  change  only  with a  paradigm.  b e l o w c h a n c e on a l l  performance  (30%  correct) occurring  condition.  a number of  colleagues  best  involved  a t t e m p t e d t o make t h e  3-year o l d s performed p o o r l y  conditions,  second  improvement i n the  change t a s k s  to  the  instructions  Wimmer a n d  the  the  also included i n which the  scene e n t i r e l y .  1983)  standard  findings that placed  correctly olds  this  been proposed p r e v i o u s l y .  i n response to e a r l i e r  the  Perner,  understanding  Consequently,  middle  introduced  related  e x p e r i m e n t s Wimmer, P e r n e r  a l s o have u t i l i z e d  correct responses  on  and  their  their  94 unexpected  change t a s k  exclude  subjects  further  participation  abilities Perner,  said  as a c r i t e r i a l t o be  lacking  i n studies  1984;  1985)  screening  procedures the youngest  a l o w e r age  study which  4 1/2-year  the e a r l i e r  1/2-year  false-belief olds.  No  of other r e l a t e d  and  included  4-years on  as an  remains  f a r from perfect,  i n t h e more r e c e n t  P e r n e r , 1984,  1985).  The  of the  the  earlier  not performance while  Wimmer  i n any  and 57%  experiment more r e c e n t i n the  only  66% of  of these  Leekam number  p a s s i n g t h e unexpected change measure  o l d s were i n c l u d e d  years  ranging from  found a dramatic increase  still  active  were 4  o l d could lying  &  In these  found i n the o r i g i n a l  u n d e r s t a n d i n g (91%) b u t  3-year  (Wimmer, G r u b e r  a t on t h e b a s i s  under  from  a s t a n d a r d unexpected change t e s t ,  (1987)  olds  subjects  to  cognitive  & P e r n e r , 1987).  In the studies  s t u d y t o 68%  Perner study 4  arrived  than that  still  (Wimmer, G r u b e r  of  on  better  Perner a r t i c l e ,  and  limit  belief.  olds  substantially  in  (Leekam  suggested children  comprehend f a l s e of  t h e o r y of mind  o r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e mind  of information  age,  any  such as t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of l y i n g  processor  of  measure w i t h which  of  4-year  screening  studies. Additional resulting  studies  i n which understanding of f a l s e  f r o m a n e n e x p e c t e d c h a n g e was  a d d r e s s e d h a v e shown f a i r  t o good  but performance  olds  studies. that  by  3-year  H o g r e f e , Wimmer a n d  56% of t h e i r  4-year  olds  beliefs  among t h e c e n t r a l  performance  f o r 4-year  topics olds,  remains poor across a l l the Perner  (1986), f o r example,  found  passed the f a l s e - b e l i e f questions  while  only  English olds  17% o f t h e 3-year olds  samples Perner  a n d Wimmer  passed t h e t e s t questions  year olds.  infer  measures  i n which  the protagonists  olds,  with  only  significantly standard  beliefs  also found  original this  performing  belief  failed  was  remind  based  In this  i n which  study,  Perner,  throughout t o  c h i l d r e n o f who h a d a c c e s s t o w h a t i n f o r m a t i o n .  found  age groups w i t h  f o r the older  performing  almost a t c e i l i n g  correct.  stumbling  i n addition to  i n s t r u c t i o n s , probes were used  refinements  With  a s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t was 4 t o 4 1/2-year  olds  ( 9 6 % ) a n d 3 1/2 t o 4 - y e a r o l d s  In spite of these  of  on t h e  ( 1 9 8 7 ) r e m o v e d some o f t h e p o t e n t i a l  these methodological  75%  to accurately  c a n be p a i n t e d  i n an a r t i c l e  "stop-and-think"  (1988)  false.  Wimmer-Perner paradigm  t o c o r r e c t performance.  than  had been subsequent t o a  of false-belief  appears  rather  Gopnik and A s t i n g t o n  3-year olds  belief  subjects t o  beliefs  young c h i l d r e n ' s understanding  blocks  poor  i n a variation of the  t h e most generous p i c t u r e t h a t  L e e k a m a n d Wimmer  simplified  continued  regularly  Similarly,  by another,  of their  3 8 % o f t h e 3-  were n o t r e q u i r e d t o  change measure which r e q u i r e d  held  demonstration that Possibly  using  own p r e v i o u s l y - h e l d f a l s e  found t h e majority s t a t e what t h e i r  only  65% of 4-year  and chance performance f o r 4-year  above chance.  unexpected  false  subjects  t h e 4 1/2-year o l d s  comment u p o n t h e i r the  (1987) found t h a t  (in press),  beliefs,  performance f o r3-year o l d s  Based on A u s t r i a n and  compared w i t h  Wellman and B a r t s c h  false-belief  d i d so.  improvements,  t h e youngest  now group  96 of  3 t o 3 1/2-year o l d s c o n t i n u e d t o perform  correct).  Based on t h e s e  modified  their  children  who a r e 4 - y e a r s  beliefs,  currently  transition  f i l l  that  regarding exact  understand  3 years  the nature  1987 a r t i c l e  the authors  i n which  have  they held that  o f age o r o l d e r u n d e r s t a n d  allowing  Despite then  children  their  position  false  understanding  what appears ages,  these  about b e l i e f s  authors  confidently  of false  In fact, i n  beliefs  i n others.  L e e k a m a n d Wimmer  go so f a r a s t o  deficit  that wholly blocks children  y o u n g e r t h a t 3 1/2  holding  t o any s o r t  beliefs.  the  of belief  about  things considered, the available  cognitive  evidence  on  from  children's  t h e o r i e s o f mind c o u l d h a r d l y be more c o n t r a d i c t o r y .  one s i d e  there are those  who s e e e v i d e n c e performances those  maintain  do n o t  t h a t t h e r e may b e s o m e a s y e t u n s p e c i f i e d  early  begins  o f age o r younger d e f i n i t e l y  Perner,  of these  possibility.  beliefs  i n a broad  of various false-belief  i m p r e s s i v e body o f evidence  unable  of the early  common t o 2- a n d 3 - y e a r o l d s .  proponents  themselves.  advocates  abilities  Two p o s s i b l e Either  t o understand  t h a t speaks solutions  children  i n others, as Perner  methodological  onset  variety  On view  of  On t h e o t h e r a r e  m e a s u r e s who h a v e a n against that  to this  younger than  the nature  dilemma  suggest  3 1/2 o r 4 r e a l l y a r e  of b e l i e f s ,  specifically  false  et a l . maintain, or there exist  insufficiencies  a  t o be a g r e a t d e a l o f back  suggest  All  only  t h a t 3 1/2 t o 4 y e a r s may r e p r e s e n t  p e r i o d during which  t o emerge. and  earlier  recent results  poorly (24%  o r confounds  that prevent  some  standard  97 unexpected such  change measures o f f a l s e - b e l i e f  abilities  to light  Proponents Perner,1986;  (Chandler, F r i t z  of the delayed  Perner,  1983) c l a i m  respond  t o standard unexpected from  those  incompatible truth these  authors,  t h a t what  the  such  possibility  they themselves  beliefs  that another  without  view  (Hogrefe  i n support  while  of this  when t h e y p a s s  counterfactual,  correctly belief  to assign According t o  understand  actually  that  mistakenly  understanding of  deem t r u e a p r o p o s i t i o n  which  that i s claimed t o separate  understanding Both  of false  belief,  the data  and t h e  tough-minded view  may b e d o i n g  t h e unexpected  endorse  from  are very the early-onset  something  fundamentally  change t a s k s .  Leslie  represent certain ( i n press),  i n v o l v e s a decoupled  false,  who  &  That i s ,  t h a t e v e n 2 - y e a r o l d s who c a n e n g a g e i n p r e t e n d  p l a y m u s t i n some s e n s e  nor  might  &  1 9 8 7 ; Wimmer  I t i s this  a n d e v e n some who o t h e r w i s e  insisting  pretense  beliefs  e t a l . 1986).  concede t h a t c h i l d r e n  different  simply cannot  false  know t o be f a l s e  those  Wimmer  change measures o f f a l s e  t o be t r u e .  subjects with a proper  persuasive  & Wimmer,  v a l u e s t o t h e same p r o p o s i t i o n .  those  arguments  (Hogrefe,  separates children  3-year o l d s q u i t e  false  i n press).  who d o n o t i s t h e a b i l i t y  t h o s e who h o l d t o o b j e c t i v e l y judge  properly bringing  & Hala,  view  i n press; Perner  Perner,  attribution  onset  from  situations  f o r example,  expression which  i n that a l lparticipants  suggests i s neither  i n the pretense  understand  that the pretense  i s not real.  decoupling  r e p r e s e n t s an accomplishment  Even  as that true  a r e meant t o  i f such  that i s logically  98 different not,  from understanding  however,  n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w that these  accomplishments understanding date. is  are t o t a l l y  false  beliefs  I t i s entirely  arrived  heels  apart  incompatible other  from  truth  experience  difficulty  that  inference plays  task. can to  Leslie  represent infer  from  unexpected &  a false  i n responding  change paradigm  him.  of those  1987;  and t h a t  of  a number o f  to the  standard i s the  the unexpected  i t is false belief.  role  change  but are  In the  years unable  standard  1983; P e r n e r ,  Leekam  must i n f e r where Maxi has a r i g h t  i s , based  on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  i n press)  change measure  of f a l s e  incidental  i n f e r e n c e problem.  belief  In order  (1987) added a  i n f e r e n t i a l complexity  may  Perner  have  be  to test  to  available to  i n press;  3-year o l d s have w i t h  unexpected  minimized  notion  c h i l d r e n as young as 3  and Wellman & B a r t s c h ,  a n d Wimmer  exists  (Wimmer & P e r n e r ,  some o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y  Perner  this  complexities  A number o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( L e s l i e ,  Wimmer, that  subjects  on t h e  play.  correctly  to a false  later  young c h i l d r e n might  i n understanding  a situation  the chocolate  there  with  counterfactuals  closely  f o r or against  a s t o why  belief  of  very  i n pretend  however,  One  another,  a concept  or at least  (1988) suggests t h a t  Wimmer, 1 9 8 7 )  believe  on t h e s c e n e a t a much  any c l a i m s  Wimmer-Perner procedure.  cognitive  arriving  t o engage  more mundane r e a s o n s  i t does  f r o m one  possible that  values,  i n others  divorced  at simultaneously  of the a b i l i t y Quite  counterfactuals  &  suggested  the  standard  i n managing this  "misinformation for false-belief  this  possibility  story"  which  attribution.  These a u t h o r s better still (in  than  i n previous  w e l l below chance  press)  have a l s o  false-belief inferential of  found that  the  step  complex form,  these  (37%).  Similarly,  to  Even i n t h i s  any  definitive,  test  they  original  special  with  an  were Bartsch  standard this  explicit  statement  inferentially  continued  false-belief  the  upon t h e  eliminate  beliefs.  demands o f  source of  i s intended  3-year o l d s  somewhat  Wellman and  a variation  subjects  not  performed  correct responses  providing  however,  f i n d i n g s are  the  their  introduced  answering the  inferential be  by  3-year o l d s  studies  paradigm that  protagonists  correctly  while  to  have  difficulty  questions.  do  less  Although  suggest the  heavy  W i m m e r - P e r n e r m e a s u r e may  difficulties  occasioned  by  this  ( i n press)  have  not  procedure. Alternatively, suggested that complexities  Chandler,  there  inherent  candidate  i n the  the  (1983) p o i n t i t was  to  i n an  attempted to  subjects  belief  by  simply  look.  unexpected this  very  effort  an  optimal  assessment of  beliefs.  high  The  degree of  same l i m i t a t i o n  to minimize t h i s fluency  pointing to this  procedural  as  belief the  oast  children's such competence  Wimmer a n d  i n the  Perner  work of  problem that  others  they  a p o s s i b l e confound about the  location  otherwise  first  verbal  change procedure.  express t h e i r  Despite  Hala  Wimmer-Perner p r o c e d u r e t o  counterfactual  remove v e r b a l  having  would  as  p o s s i b i l i t y i s the  demanded by  and  of  and  were enough unnecessary  doubt upon i t s s t a n d i n g understanding  Fritz  useful  by  protagonist's  where they thought arrangement,  the  Maxi  100  rather  complex  narrative  c o n t i n u e t o make h e a v y comprehension  of the story  abilities.  story  that  elements  on t h e p a r t their  Consequently, even  of  performance  subjects  false  beliefs  required  their  which c h i l d r e n promoted  in  tool  Consider the following In t h e f a i r y t a l e trying  Everyday  reduce  problems  used  removed  may  from  and a r e  observers t o a tale  which  i s acted  grounds,  Chandler e t a l . ( i n press)  change paradigm  i s a less  f o rdetermining the earliest  paradigm  involving  The r a t i o n a l e  than  point at  In i t s place  - Prerequisites  f o rt h i s  and  choice  i s detailed  Criteria  scenes: o f Hansel and G r e t e l  to fatten  t h e wicked  H a n s e l u p t o make a t a s t y  she asks him t o s t i c k  they  the study of  follows.  Deception  is  story  e v i d e n c e such a t h e o r y o f mind.  that  failings  dramatically  they are personally  t h e unexpected  i n children.  the section  a l l the  figures.  an a l t e r n a t i v e  deception  with  best understanding of the p o s s i b i l i t y  t o be p a s s i v e  assessment  probes  test.  party  On t h e s e a n d r e l a t e d  optimal  combine  O b v i o u s l y , any  quarter would  simply because  f o r them u s i n g d o l l  have argued t h a t  when e x p l i c i t  i n t h e s t a n d a r d Wimmer-Perner paradigm  of the third  instead  story  can successfully  i n this  nevertheless  i tcannot be e s t a b l i s h e d  one c o h e s i v e u n i t .  on t h i s  t o demonstrate  the action  out  into  subjects  of subjects  Second, fail  young  used  demands upon c h i l d r e n ' s  are used throughout t h e n a r r a t i v e , certainty  problems  h i sfinger  witch  meal.  out of t h e  cage  so  she  Hansel,  may  knowing  substitutes witch w i l l meal. of  has  b e l i e v e him  t o be  and,  aches  knowing  t h a t he  home i n b e d .  short-sighted, the  t o make much o f  achieves the desired  test  t o d a y f o r w h i c h he  although i n truth  a l l o v e r and  Sam,  i n order that  too thin  t o get out of bed  has  Everyday,  a  effect  demise.  a spelling  t h a t he  i s becoming.  a bone f o r h i s f i n g e r  refuses  morning  f a t he  t h e w i t c h t o be  prolonging his  Sam  how  I n d o i n g so H a n s e l  "Sam"  the  feel  like  when h i s m o t h e r c a l l s he  feels  h i s stomach  a spelling  test  i s unprepared.  fine,  he  i s upset.  decides that  Hansel, thus postpones  him  complains  H i s mother, Sam  an  should  unpleasant  event.  The  Black-necked S t i l t  family) notices its  a p r e d a t o r nearby  eggs b u t which t h e b i r d  Stilt  injured prey  and  bird.  which produces The  of  firefly  safe  a P h o t i n u s male.  shorebird could  threaten  away.  The  i n the form  the impression of the seemingly  (Sordahl,  mimics  female Photinus f i r e f l y  drive  display  predator follows  the nest i s l e f t  A female Photuris  which  cannot  commences a d i s t r a c t i o n  "wing-flagging"  the  ( a member o f t h e  resulting  When t h e m a l e  of an easy  1986).  the mating  in  signals  of  i n the  attraction  l a n d s and  approaches  not stay  102 her  t h e P h o t u r i s female  a t t a c k s and devours him ( L l o y d ,  1986).  What a l l o f t h e p r e c e d i n g common i s t h a t  some t a r g e t  b e h a v i o r a l sequences have i n  (person,  witch,  animal,  i n s e c t ) was  p e r s u a d e d t o a c t u p o n some p i e c e o f " m i s i n f o r m a t i o n " . witch  acted  as i f Hansel's  finger  really  The  was t o o t h i n .  wicked  Sam's  m o t h e r b a s e d h e r d e c i s i o n t o k e e p Sam a t home o n t h e e v i d e n c e hand, wild  false bird  female the  one d o i n g  by one.  firefly  broad  definition  of true deceit.  concept  of deception  a widespread result  confusion over  that the simple,  birds,  as apparent  (Mitchell,  would be t o  literature  automatic,  1986),  unpleasantries  by manipulating  confusion of c r i t e r i a deceptive  primates  i twould  render  such  who a t t e m p t  the beliefs  with  "genetically as t h e f e i n t s  i n t h e broken-wing d i s p l a y s o f ground  and perhaps h i g h e r  as  i n general  f o r deception  a r e o f t e n lumped t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p r e m e d i t a t e d  children  these  of any u s e f u l meaning.  criteria  seemingly  i s simply  we m i g h t a c c e p t  the deception proper  and  nesting actions of  to avoid  of others.  Given  this  seem t o b e i m p o s s i b l e t o u s e  a c t s on t h e p a r t o f a c h i l d  a  In the  whereby d e c e p t i o n  a l l but devoid  with  b u t do t h e a c t i o n s o f  To do s o , h o w e v e r ,  throughout  preprogrammed" behaviour ruses  went o f f on a  i n s t e a d of mating  A l l were d e c e i v e d  c a r r y i n g out of misleading behaviour  There e x i s t s  the  The w o u l d be p r e d a t o r  the misleading c o n s t i t u t e deception?  of a very  instances the  i t was.  chase and t h e P h o t i n u s  was e a t e n  context the  though  at  a s a way o f  illustrating  103 t h a t he argues any  or we  she  has  a theory  are warranted  p l a n t o make u s e  o f mind as  t o do.  of  can  be  outline  The truly  first  deceptive  requiring targets can  be  the  said  other  active  r e q u i r e d of  participation  a result  system  of  deceiver  correspond  given  meaning  the  signs are If  other types  shared and  Sally's  normally  that her course teeth.  Sally  events,  Without  a wet  such  a marker  taken  Thompson, a  such  of  action before i t  time,  1986).  as  context the  Deception interactions of  the  i n them a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of with the  state  communication,  to  of the world  as  t o be s u c c e s s f u l must o c c u r  1986)  within  where b o t h  a common u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of  a  the what  signify. to brush  she  her  toothbrush,  tooth-brush  teeth before  with her  friends  might t r y t o deceive  understanding  a shared  social  dynamic  Consequently,  her  a  to qualify  the b e l i e f s  i s i n a h u r r y t o be  her  in  i s to  d e c e i v e r s and  (Mawby & M i t c h e l l ,  simply wetting her f a t h e r shares  of  of  father tells  want t o t a k e t h e  f a t h e r by  of  t a r g e t must share  to play, but  doesn't  of both &  to produce  d e c e i v e r b e l i e v e s i t t o be. like  any  within  d e c e i v e r somehow m a n i p u l a t e s as  as  step  deceptive.  deceit (Mitchell  a way  first  features i s that i n order  as  section  states i n others  a c t i o n s must o c c u r  t h a t does not  deception,  out  these  to occur  i n such  reality  truly  such  of t h e i r  whenever the  the  of  as  the  a measure of d e c e p t i o n  w h a t s h o u l d be  classified  previous  Consequently,  young c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge of b e l i e f clearly  the  demonstrating that i n the  signifies  meaning t h i s  and  her her  belief  normal  recently  deception  going  brushed  could  not  104 take  place.  there for  Imagine f u r t h e r t h a t  i s no w a t e r  clean  Sally  teeth,  Sally  i s given  and t h e M a r t i a n  1985,  Sally  would  case  mother; b i r d  dynamic  other.  sign  that  toothbrush  strategy  because  l a c k a common g r o u n d o f  grounds i tcould  shared  folk-psychology  (Dennett, Martian's  be argued f o r each o f o u r  of this  and p r e d a t o r ;  interaction  interaction  took place.  or dialogue  section  by one p a r t y  f o r example,  message t h e female  mating c a l l  that  however,  i s sending  some s o r t o f  i s whether a l l of  meaning.  may h o l d  i tmight h o l d  of  c l e a r meaning t o t h e female t h a t  without  implying  these  In t h e case of t h e contend that  while  t h e c l e a r meaning o f a  the entirely  equally  any u n d e r s t a n d i n g  Sam  and a response by t h e  one m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y  t o t h e male,  and Witch;  A l l i n v o l v e some i n i t i a t i o n  i n v o l v e a system of shared  fireflies,  (Hansel  fireflies)  What i s l e s s t h a n c l e a r ,  examples  dinner  on h e r p a r t  different but  i s i n sight that  the signal  be m i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a m a t i n g message by t h e male o f t h e  other  genus. In a d d i t i o n t o being  and  f o rensuring  Sally's  as a deceptive  w o u l d h a v e no M a r t i a n  examples a t t h e beginning  will  i s not a  and a c t i o n s .  On s i m i l a r  the  In this  planet  1987) w i t h w h i c h t o p r e d i c t and t o m a n i p u l a t e t h e  thoughts  and  the responsibility  would t h e n be f u t i l e  meaning.  on whose  a n d s o f o r whom a w e t t o o t h b r u s h  has brushed h e r teeth.  wetting  a Martian,  embedded w i t h i n a s o c i a l  based on a system o f shared  deception  i s that there  meaning,  a third  interaction  prerequisitef o r  must e x i s t between t h e two p a r t i c i p a n t s  105 some c o n d i t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t i a l which the potential likely in  t o be a b l e  deciding  importantly to  the  (1978) l e v e l child  different only  misinform  deceiver  arrive  (Vasek,  involved  by u s i n g  observer  at a different  t o inform, Dennett  i n assessing  involved  that  failure  i t s rival  t o inform  on t h e p a r t  excused by t h e c l a i m argues t h a t  hasn't  access  a minimally  that  Flavell's  t o fewer or Iti s  i s present  that  or to  (1987) i l l u s t r a t e s t h e  vervet  i n a  information  vervet  In this  of the f i r s t  The  complex experimental  has that  case  vervet  On t h e s e  be  i n which a  monkey.  be c e r t a i n  potential  might  are two-fold.  the f i r s t  of ignorance.  seem  not t o inform,  to withhold  seen i t .  prepared  i n which the  such knowledge  instance  as  understanding.  t o s e t up a s i t u a t i o n  i n this  cannot be c e r t a i n  that  i twould  as an example t h e problems t h a t  the opportunity  I need  relevant  p e r s o n s who h a v e a c c e s s  seen t h e python n o r can t h e observer thinks  of  taking ability  approaching python from a r i v a l  difficulties  Just  and be  as a p r e r e q u i s i t e  1986).  i n attempting  i s afforded  t o me.  distribution  recognition of d i f f e r e n t i a l  others  encountered monkey  other  has t h e opportunity  difficulties  an  perspective  will  available  requirement  1 visual  when t h i s actor  of t h i s requires  facts  That i s , you a r e n o t  needs a l s o t o r e c o g n i z e  t o deceive  understands that  information  i f a l l of the information  differential  On t h e s t r e n g t h  ability  me  t o act i s already  on t h i s  to relevant  recognizes.  t o deceive  the deceiver  capitalize  facts.  the  how  deceiver  access  vervet about  major The  actually the vervet simple  can always  grounds  Dennett  paradigm f o r  be  106 determining include  whether deception  evidence that  actively  the  misinform his  Finally, conditions,  given  the  a mixture  into a  misinform.  An  or  her  this  with  access the  that  as  who  1986;  Mitchell,  of  acts  intentionality  i n the  criteria  consequence of  allowing  only  innate  behaviorally While the leading  Stilt's  the  misleading, sorts  of  in a  set  to  of  This  fact that  the  in a  nest  i t i s unlikely that  with  or  the  i n t e n t i o n i n mind.  It  is  out  that  separates that  agreed  of  upon  i n c l u s i o n of has  and  the  of  clarifying  cases which appear  to  responding  specific  situation.  be  effective in  as  such i s c e r t a i n l y  same b e h a v i o u r o c c u r s  many s p e c i e s  him  Chevalier-Skolnikoff,  d i s p l a y may  away f r o m t h e  provides  deceive.  generally  deception  s t e r e o t y p i c way  in  has  carried  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways o f  s i t u a t i o n s across  plan  to  such  to  messages s u c h as  exclude those  suggests that any  m u s t be  1986;  1986).  "broken-wing"  predator the  or  not  from what are  Russow,  turn  exists  simply  central criteria  (Anderson,  us  or  misleading  1986;  involve  deceive  c o n s t i t u t e s the  deceptive  he  essential information  acts  to  definite intention  a common l a n g u a g e p a r t n e r  femme-fatale f i r e f l i e s , truly  necessary  she  many m o r e p r i m i t i v e t y p e s the  ingredient  prerequisite  or  deceptive  to  way.  i s the  to  to  a c t u a l l y undertaken  understanding that  to  that  would need  above mentioned  act  opportunity  requirement  purposefully  the  deceptive  has  i n some  leavening  some i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h differential  rival  actor's  taken place  deceiver  a l l of  final  has  i n the  ground n e s t i n g  individual birds R a t h e r one  might  are say  same birds acting that  107 this  sort  of a u t o m a t i c b e h a v i o u r which has  another t o have a f a l s e into be  the organism's  considered This  the  part  any  fully  belief  in  this  acting  of a deceiver  of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y s t i l l  satisfactory  i t s favorite  intentionally  its  actions  its  master would  t h e dog  the  false  belief  chair  i s illustrative  was  truly  d e c e i v e r must be  of what i s  reference  t h e dog,  The  dog  t o be  unless  i t s master  out with  that  i s with  can  the intention  door dog  beliefs?  into  outside,  clearly  be  planned  the  t o i t s master's  w i s h e d t o go  we  lacking  may  have  B u t was  well  i t s master  i f i t went t o t h e  t r y t o seduce  he,  carried  holding thereby  Dennett as  show t h a t  the  of m a n i p u l a t i n g  deceptive intent,  i t cannot  be  deceptive. codicil  acting  f o r the target  believes  with  Dennett's  I t may  chair.  on  however, f o r  so t h a t  of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y .  going t o the door.  the master,  Thus a f u r t h e r  intend  runs t o the door  action  t o go t o t h e d o o r t o l e t i t o u t ?  master's b e l i e f ,  considered  of deception.  vacate i t s favorite  that  as p l a n f u l  a l t h o u g h t h e dog's a c t i o n s were m i s l e a d i n g  by  dog's a c t i o n  preprogrammed  insufficient,  the understanding that  i t s master  interpreted  causing  consequently cannot  who  intentionally  suggests that  its  by  intentionally  Did  causing  with  remains  definition  unelaborated notion  operating  and  of  intentional.  simple notion  leave  i s i n some s e n s e  response repertoire  known e x a m p l e o f t h e dog will  the result  false  to the requirement that  intentionally  t o t a k e as t r u e (Vasek,  1986).  i s that  he  a  potential  o r she must  a message t h a t he Without t h i s  or  addition  also  she to  our  108  i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a i t would be i m p o s s i b l e t o exclude those cases where an a c t o r may  i n t e n t i o n a l l y send a message which has the  r e s u l t of m i s l e a d i n g another but which was own  based on the a c t o r ' s  mistaken b e l i e f r a t h e r than any i n t e n t t o deceive. Finally,  i t i s necessary t o add t o a l l the c r i t e r i a a l r e a d y  l i s t e d the requirement t h a t the p e r p e t r a t o r of any c a n d i d a t e a c t of  d e c e p t i o n must a l s o r e c o g n i z e t h a t he or she i s d e c e i v i n g the  other. "War  Consider the o r i g i n a l r a d i o broadcast of Orson W e l l s '  of the Worlds".  Although the b r o a d c a s t i n g s t a t i o n announced  a d i s c l a i m e r a t the b e g i n n i n g of the program t h a t what people were about t o hear was was of  i n fact purely f i c t i o n a l ,  the broadcast  so r e a l i s t i c i n i t s format and d e l i v e r y t h a t a g r e a t number people who  tuned i n part-way through a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t  the Martians had landed and p a n i c ensued. number of people who  In s p i t e of the g r e a t  were d e c e i v e d by t h i s r a d i o account no  d e c e p t i o n can be claimed.  real  Although the producers of the show  c l e a r l y intended f o r t h e i r audience t o hear the r e a l i s t i c  account  of Martians l a n d i n g on E a r t h they d i d not i n t e n d f o r the audience to h o l d a f a l s e b e l i e f about the broadcast b e i n g t r u e as they had p r o v i d e d a c l e a r marker t h a t the program was "as-if"  scenario.  I t i s the presence of j u s t such d i s c l a m a t o r y  markers t h a t separates f i c t i o n a l  works, humour and indeed pretend  s o c i a l p l a y i n young c h i l d r e n from d e c e p t i o n . who  f i c t i o n and o n l y an  The young c h i l d  says t o an a d u l t (or another c h i l d ) " l e t ' s pretend t h a t these  rocks are c o o k i e s " i s o f t e n q u i c k t o add  "but t h e y ' r e not  c o o k i e s " i n case the other person hasn't heard or may  not  really  109 understand  t h e marker  Thus i n o r d e r could to  the other  believes  deceit  will  i n another  That  i s , a potential  judge t h e f a l s e  intention takes  Given  these  as a p l a n f u l  of manipulating  usefulness  above,  o f some t h e o r y  Woodruff  (1978) i n t h e i r  Perner  another's  index  that  inherent  another  of the  m e a n i n g a n d when t h e  out with the  so t h a t t h e other false.  a s a way o f i n d e x i n g t h e  o f m i n d was s u g g e s t e d t o determine  i tgenerated  of the possession  access  c a n be  i s carried  b e l i e v e s t o be  efforts  then,  i n the context of  beliefs  by Premack and whether  and o t h e r s . (e.g.  (1983) have a l s o m a i n t a i n e d  good  victim  have d i f f e r e n t i a l  a c t i o n which  s t a t e s t o themselves  work and t h e responses and  must  acts of deception,  place  victim  of deception  presence  impute mental  deceiver  conditions, deception  t o be t r u e what t h e s e l f The  has t o intend  message as a d e p i c t i o n o f  and systems of shared  and h i s o r h e r intended  characterized  i s i t necessary  f o rthe potential  a l l t h a t has been s a i d  the facts.  t h a t he o r she  affairs.  interactions  deceiver  not only  but the child  be d e f i n e d as a c t i o n s t h a t t a k e  social  evidence  b e l i e v e t o be t r u e what t h e c h i l d  t h a t he o r she i n t e n d s  true state of  can  t o provide  strategies  mistakenly  t o mistakenly  Given  to  belief  t o be f a l s e .  appreciate  the  false  pretend".  f o ra child  make u s e o f d e c e p t i v e  instill  that  "let's  Based on  Dennett,  this  1 9 7 8 ) Wimmer  that deceptive  of a theory  chimpanzees  action i s a  o f mind due t o t h e f a c t  i n the plan f o rdeceit i s the realization  may b e m i s l e d t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g w h i c h  that  i s false.  Thus  110 these  authors  and others  1986)  suggest  that deception  order  beliefs  and consequently  some t h e o r y  of i t s potential  utility  In beliefs  spite  about t h e b e l i e f s  procedures  relying  emergence.  metarepresentation upon d e c e p t i o n  would underestimate steps which, deception  children,  others;  on d e c e p t i v e  of deception  abilities,  ability  successfully  practices typically (1983) p o i n t o u t would s t r o n g l y  also maintained  understanding  due t o t h e a d d i t i o n a l authors,  planning  make t h e c a r r y i n g - o u t o f the passive  are few r e l e v a n t studies of deception i n out f a l l  into  one o f two  r e p o r t i n g of an understanding  of deceit  of deceit within the context  Neither of these  types  by s u b j e c t s younger than  of a  of tasks are performed  5 years  o f age.  In those  where s u b j e c t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o comprehend d e c e p t i v e  or t o p r e d i c t t h e consequent b e l i e f s been l i e d  t o by another,  approximately  ploys  o f s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s who h a d  most c h i l d r e n  5 t o 6 years  Wimmer, G r u b e r & P e r n e r , Similarly  that  belief.  the passive  game.  they  endeavour than  or the production  competitive  of children's  t h e few measurement  most t h a t have been c a r r i e d  major areas:  studies  this  of false  there  as an index  as a measure o f f a l s e - b e l i e f  a more d i f f i c u l t  While  of second  o f mind.  Wimmer a n d P e r n e r  according t o these  understanding  in  of others,  while the natural occurrence  indicate  1986; Vasek,  r e q u i r e s t h e presence  which have been based  have shown a l a t e that  (Chevalier-Skolnikoff,  do n o t s u c c e e d  o f age o r o l d e r  (e.g.  until  Vasek, 1986;  1 9 8 4 , 1 9 8 5 ; Wimmer & P e r n e r ,  s t u d i e s u s i n g c o m p e t i t i v e game p r o c e d u r e s  1983).  (e.g.  Selman,  1980;  Shultz &  their  opponent's b e l i e f s ,  but  also  Cloghesy,  their  they  are  not  i n which  use  i t has  been demonstrated  More r e c e n t l y  5 years  of  on  a  study of  LaFreniere  t h e r e h a v e b e e n two  relying  adult in  were expected  experimenter  their  eyes.  3-year-olds of  were not  answer the  these any  an  experimenter.  not until  ability  to  out  to  carried  deceive. out  "try to fool" Rather  an  than  for deception,  however,  them w h i l e s t a r i n g  S t r a n g e r and  violated  circumstances location  Sullivan  a prohibition,  a c t i o n s and  (1989)  38%  a further  i f i s encouraging  24%  refused  t h a t 62%  young s u b j e c t s a t a minimum w i t h h e l d i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h o u t  i n d u c e m e n t t o do  interpret silent.  the As  so,  responses  Dennett  i t remains of those  d i f f i c u l t to  s u b j e c t s who  (1978) p o i n t s out  procedure  which  deceive.  Such a p r o c e d u r a l paradigm  unambiguously  simply  what i s needed  requires subjects to actively w i l l be  an  straight  at concealing the true  While  by  l i e while being faced with  Lewis,  about t h e i r  their  s u b j e c t s do  somewhat i n t i m i d a t i n g  proficient  about  studies carried  object.  strategies  interrogated  t h a t when 3 - y e a r - o l d s lied  of  to verbally  In contrast,  spontaneously to  who  own  Under t h e s e  the object.  found  location  upon c h i l d r e n ' s  children  the  deception i n preschool children  about the  beliefs  hand  age.  (1988) s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d  experimenter  anticipate  a consistent basis  i n d e p e n d e n t l y t h a t examine young c h i l d r e n ' s In  must  information at  about t h e i r  deceptive strategies  older than  children  only about the  opponent's b e l i e f s  opponent's b e l i e f s , successfully  1981)  take  remained i s a  steps  presented  in  to the  of  112 following  section. The  Given as  the series  a marker of f a l s e  recently the  turned  earliest  the  of potential beliefs  advantages of using  Chandler,  Fritz  age a t which young c h i l d r e n of others.  i n response  systematic  understanding resulting  Paradigm  t o the use of deception  about t h e b e l i e f s developed  Deception  This  and Hala  a s a way o f first  the nature  from  standard  of counterfactual b e l i e f s unexpected change measures  i n others (e.g.,  t o circumvent  "deception"  procedural  p a r a d i g m was d e s i g n e d  shortcomings  change t a s k s w h i l e  incorporating the essential  counterfactuals  i n other  emerging theory  o f mind.  employed by Chandler unexpected  concerning  subjects.  Rather  which in  left  another.  In particular,  being  procedure  unexpected  feature of  asked  evidence  the deception  from t h e standard  along  the complexity  passively listening deception  as e s s e n t i a l  et al. differs  than  a number o f  these  of children's understanding  change paradigm  dimensions  this  persons  Perner,  Consequently,  i n h e r e n t i n more f a m i l i a r  h o l d i n g t o some d e m o n s t r a t i o n  after  t o be  u n d e r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f 3-year o l d s ' a b i l i t i e s i n  their  Perner  was  by t h e authors  1983).  by  press)  entertain beliefs  L e e k a m & W i m m e r , 1 9 8 7 ; Wimmer & P e r n e r ,  the  (in  determining  research paradigm  t o w h a t was c o n s i d e r e d  deception  several  f o ran paradigm Wimmer-  important  of t h e t a s k and r o l e  t o respond  t o a complicated  to test  narrative,  The v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s  t o induce  subjects i n  false  r e q u i r e d by t h i s  of the  questions  were i n v o l v e d i n a hide-and-seek  them o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o attempt  of  game beliefs  procedure  are minimal, p a r t i c i p a n t s are r e a l persons r a t h e r than d o l l figures,  and s u b j e c t s p l a y an a c t i v e r o l e i n m a n i p u l a t i n g the  b e l i e f s of  another.  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  the s u b j e c t s of t h i s  i n t r o d u c e d to a hide-and-seek two a d u l t experimenters.  procedure are  board game i n v o l v i n g the c h i l d and  One experimenter  ( E l ) remains w i t h the  c h i l d throughout the procedure to remind him or her of the  goals  and r u l e s of the game, to p h y s i c a l l y a s s i s t w i t h h i d i n g attempts and to probe f o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n s The second experimenter the s u b j e c t  and E l .  f o l l o w i n g the c h i l d ' s  (E2) e s s e n t i a l l y  actions.  a c t s as an opponent  to  The game c o n s i s t s of s e v e r a l h i d i n g and  f i n d i n g t r i a l s i n v o l v i n g a s m a l l "treasure" which i s t o be hidden i n one of f i v e the board.  c l o s e d opaque c o n t a i n e r s  The board i t s e l f  is  l i n e d up along one end of  covered w i t h o i l c l o t h p r o v i d i n g  a smooth washable p l a y i n g s u r f a c e .  The i n i t i a l t r i a l s i n v o l v e an  attempt to f a m i l i a r i z e s u b j e c t s w i t h the m a t e r i a l s and t o see they can make use of or at l e a s t understand t e l l - t a l e as m i s a l i g n e d c o n t a i n e r s treasure,  or l i d s i n t h e i r search f o r  if  c l u e s such the  and whether they take steps to a v o i d l e a v i n g such c l u e s  i n t h e i r own h i d i n g e f f o r t s .  Once s u b j e c t s seem reasonably  comfortable w i t h the game they are i n t r o d u c e d to a puppet named Toni whose f e e t are mounted on a r e v o l v i n g wheel and who can be manipulated by a handle to move across the board. is  The t r e a s u r e  s a i d t o belong t o Toni and the goal of the t a s k as one i n  which the s u b j e c t  i s asked to h e l p Toni hide the t r e a s u r e so  E2 w i l l not f i n d i t .  T h i s i s not easy as T o n i ' s f e e t  secrete  that  p a i n t l e a v i n g inky f o o t p r i n t s wherever Toni walks.  S u b j e c t s are  then encouraged t o h i d e the t r e a s u r e i n as many d i f f e r e n t ways as they can t h i n k of to make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r E2 t o f i n d . r e t u r n s t o the room a f t e r each t r i a l ,  When E2  i f the s u b j e c t had  attempted any type of m a n i p u l a t i o n of the evidence r e g a r d i n g the l o c a t i o n of the t r e a s u r e E2 was s i g n a l l e d not t o f i n d i t on the first  trial.  Subjects were a l s o g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o  tell  the t r u t h or l i e about the l o c a t i o n of the t r e a s u r e when E2 f a i l e d to f i n d i t on the f i r s t t r y . Using t h i s deception paradigm Chandler et a l . found t h a t even 2 1/2  - y e a r o l d c h i l d r e n were capable of d e c e i v i n g o t h e r s ,  c l e a r l y s u p p o r t i n g the e a r l y - o n s e t view t h a t b e f o r e 3 years of age c h i l d r e n are capable of e n t e r t a i n i n g b e l i e f s beliefs  of o t h e r s .  On the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s  about the  i t would appear  t h a t i t may not be the a b i l i t y t o understand f a l s e b e l i e f s t h a t has evaded most 3-year o l d s u b j e c t s  false  per se  i n the standard Wimmer-  Perner paradigm, but r a t h e r t h e i r a b i l i t y t o comment upon such h i g h e r order b e l i e f s  when q u e r i e d about t h i r d p a r t y s t o r y  c h a r a c t e r s engaged i n a c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y complex n a r r a t i v e sequence.  T e s t i n g t h i s p r o s p e c t was the main purpose of  the  study d i s c u s s e d i n the a t t a c h e d r e s e a r c h r e p o r t . Before attempting t o determine e x a c t l y which of  the  dimensions which separate the Chandler et a l . d e c e p t i o n measure from the Wimmer-Perner t e s t of f a l s e b e l i e f s  a d d i t i o n a l questions  must be asked as to the a c t u a l magnitude of d i f f e r e n c e s  found.  S p e c i f i c a l l y what needs t o be determined i s whether the  results  115 of  the Chandler  special  e t a l . study  a r e n o t due t o t h e i r  p o p u l a t i o n who, h a d t h e y b e e n g i v e n t h e u n e x p e c t e d  measure o f f a l s e  belief  understanding,  adequately  on t h a t t a s k as w e l l .  unexpected  change paradigm  Austrian found  and E n g l i s h  Consequently, children  t h e q u e s t i o n remains  proposed  belief  with the findings unexpected  deception task.  1987).  on t h e  t h a t such  sample  between f i n d i n g s  false  of children  questions.  children's  unexpected  understanding of change t a s k and  Subjects w i l l  I t i s expected  e t a l . (1987), improve  who a r e l e s s  an i n a b i l i t y  direct  range  i n age  t o i n c l u d e t h e age which i s  belief.  of Perner  based  groups.  e t a l . (1987) t o be t h e lower  change t a s k w i l l  demonstrating test  performing  levels  t h e standard unexpected  t o 4.5 y e a r s  understanding  assess  been  Canadian  of t h e d e c e p t i o n and t h e  study w i l l  using both  3.0 y e a r s  majority  the disparity  a c r o s s t h e same t h r e e a g e  considered by Perner for  as t o whether  f o rthe p o s s i b i l i t y  comparison  the newly developed from  have  two paradigms what i s r e q u i r e d i s t o p r o v i d e a  change paradigms The  children  even h i g h e r performance  may h a v e c a u s e d  within-subject  false  out u s i n g samples of  t h a n A u s t r i a n ( P e r n e r , L e e k a m & Wimmer,  In order t o test  these  performed  Some m i n o r d i f f e r e n c e s  performance  i n line on t h e  w i t h age b u t w i t h t h e  than  to correctly  By c o n t r a s t ,  age boundary  that,  3 1/2 y e a r s  s t i l l  answer t h e f a l s e - b e l i e f  even t h e youngest  a  change  Most o f t h e work u s i n g t h e  has been c a r r i e d  children.  might e x h i b i t  differences on  might have  between t h e two c o u n t r i e s w i t h E n g l i s h  somewhat b e t t e r  task.  having tested  s u b j e c t s t o be  tested  are expected  t o make u s e o f d e c e p t i v e s t r a t e g i e s  Chandler  et a l . task.  of  two t e s t i n g  these  deception task which  Any  discrepancy found  procedures  i s expected  between t h e  results  to favour the  i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be e a s i e r  unexpected change t a s k f o r these young  i n the  subjects.  than  the  117 APPENDIX  B  PROTOCOL FOR U N E X P E C T E D CHANGE T A S K S u b j e c t s a r e b r o u g h t i n t o t h e t e s t i n g room where t h e p u p p e t s and m a t e r i a l s a r e s e t u p a s s h o w n i n f i g u r e 1. The p r o c e d u r e i s introduced by t h e experimenter: "Today y o u a r e g o i n g t o s e e a s h o r t p u p p e t show. Watch c a r e f u l l y b e c a u s e I am g o i n g t o a s k y o u s o m e q u e s t i o n s a f t e r i ti s over." The  two puppets a r e i n t r o d u c e d : "This i s K a t i e and t h i s school and l i k e t o p l a y playing with a t o y car. this car."  The  puppets  i s Sam. They a r e f r i e n d s a t together. R i g h t now t h e y a r e They t a k e t u r n s p l a y i n g w i t h  a r e shown t o p l a y  with  the car.  " T h e n t h e y h e a r t h e i r t e a c h e r c a l l i n g t h e m " K a t i e , Sam, t i m e t o c l e a n u p a n d come t o s n a c k . " K a t i e a n d Sam look around f o r a p l a c e t o p u t t h e t o y c a r so they can come b a c k t o p l a y w i t h i t l a t e r . Sometimes they p u t i t i n t h e r e d c o n t a i n e r and sometimes they p u t i t i n t h e yellow container. R i g h t now t h e y p u t i t i n t h e y e l l o w one. " The p u p p e t s container.  a r e shown t o g e t h e r  putting the toy car i n the yellow  " T h e n b o t h K a t i e a n d Sam l e a v e The  p u p p e t s a r e shown t o l e a v e  f o r snack."  t h e room  i n opposite  directions  " K a t i e f i n i s h e s h e r s n a c k f i r s t a n d comes b a c k t o p l a y with the t o y car. She t a k e s i t o u t o f t h e y e l l o w c o n t a i n e r and s t a r t s t o p l a y w i t h i tagain. But then she h e a r s h e r t e a c h e r c a l l i n g a g a i n , " K a t i e , y o u d i d n ' t c l e a n u p y o u r s n a c k t h i n g s , p l e a s e come b a c k . " . Katie t h e n p u t s t h e t o y c a r away a g a i n b u t t h i s t i m e s h e p u t s i t i n the red container. Sam d o e s n ' t s e e h e r p u t i t there. K a t i e l e a v e s t h e room a g a i n . Before Katie c o m e s b a c k , Sam i s a b o u t t o c o m e b a c k . He w a n t s t o play with the toy c a r again."  118 The e x p e r i m e n t e r t h e n a s k s t h e t e s t q u e s t i o n s q u e s t i o n s as f o l l o w s : Test  and t h e c o n t r o l  questions  " D o e s Sam k n o w w h e r e t h e t o y c a r i s ? " "Where w i l l Control  Sam  look  f o r the car?"  questions  "Where i s t h e t o y c a r now?" "Where d i d K a t i e "Did  Sam  a n d Sam  see K a t i e  first  put the toy car?"  move t h e t o y c a r ? "  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097783/manifest

Comment

Related Items