Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription

The concept of Theory of Mind (ToM) has considerably changed since its first proposal. The aim of first human studies was to understand how young children acquire the representation of others’ mental states, in particular beliefs, and how they distinguish them from their own and from reality. The F...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gabriella eAirenti
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-08-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01184/full
id doaj-e2c581330aa8457aa246414323e861b7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e2c581330aa8457aa246414323e861b72020-11-24T23:26:44ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782015-08-01610.3389/fpsyg.2015.01184152471Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascriptionGabriella eAirenti0Center for Cognitive Science, Department of Psychology, University of TorinoThe concept of Theory of Mind (ToM) has considerably changed since its first proposal. The aim of first human studies was to understand how young children acquire the representation of others’ mental states, in particular beliefs, and how they distinguish them from their own and from reality. The False Belief Task was designed to prove the acquisition of this capacity. According to children’s performances in this test the acquisition of ToM has been attested at around four years of age. In last years it has been shown that using spontaneous response tasks also 15-month-old-children could attribute to an agent a false belief about the location of an object. These results have generated the puzzle of belief-ascription: Why do 3-year-old children fail the classical false belief tasks whereas much younger children show the correct expectation in the spontaneous response tasks? In this paper I shall argue that (i) infants and young children, when confronted with the two forms of false belief tasks do not face the same problem and (ii) behind the two testing situations there are different ways to understand theory of mind. I shall propose that what appears in infants is the natural human disposition to intersubjectivity.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01184/fullTheory of Mindintersubjectivityironydeceitfalse belief
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Gabriella eAirenti
spellingShingle Gabriella eAirenti
Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
Frontiers in Psychology
Theory of Mind
intersubjectivity
irony
deceit
false belief
author_facet Gabriella eAirenti
author_sort Gabriella eAirenti
title Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
title_short Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
title_full Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
title_fullStr Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
title_full_unstemmed Theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
title_sort theory of mind: a new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2015-08-01
description The concept of Theory of Mind (ToM) has considerably changed since its first proposal. The aim of first human studies was to understand how young children acquire the representation of others’ mental states, in particular beliefs, and how they distinguish them from their own and from reality. The False Belief Task was designed to prove the acquisition of this capacity. According to children’s performances in this test the acquisition of ToM has been attested at around four years of age. In last years it has been shown that using spontaneous response tasks also 15-month-old-children could attribute to an agent a false belief about the location of an object. These results have generated the puzzle of belief-ascription: Why do 3-year-old children fail the classical false belief tasks whereas much younger children show the correct expectation in the spontaneous response tasks? In this paper I shall argue that (i) infants and young children, when confronted with the two forms of false belief tasks do not face the same problem and (ii) behind the two testing situations there are different ways to understand theory of mind. I shall propose that what appears in infants is the natural human disposition to intersubjectivity.
topic Theory of Mind
intersubjectivity
irony
deceit
false belief
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01184/full
work_keys_str_mv AT gabriellaeairenti theoryofmindanewperspectiveonthepuzzleofbeliefascription
_version_ 1725553839637004288