• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

为什么4岁儿童在真实信念任务中失败?一项测试能力与表现限制解释的决策实验。

Why Do Children From Age 4 Fail True Belief Tasks? A Decision Experiment Testing Competence Versus Performance Limitation Accounts.

作者信息

Schidelko Lydia Paulin, Rakoczy Hannes

机构信息

Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Göttingen.

出版信息

Cogn Sci. 2025 Jun;49(6):e70069. doi: 10.1111/cogs.70069.

DOI:10.1111/cogs.70069
PMID:40478609
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12143423/
Abstract

The standard view on Theory of Mind (ToM) is that the mastery of the false belief (FB) task around age 4 marks the ontogenetic emergence of full-fledged meta-representational ToM. Recently, a puzzling finding has emerged: Once children master the FB task, they begin to fail true belief (TB) control tasks. This finding threatens the validity of FB tasks and the standard view.  Here, we test two prominent attempts to explain the puzzling findings against each other. The perceptual access reasoning account (a competence limitation account) assumes that children at age 4 do not yet engage in meta-representation, but use simpler heuristics ("if an agent has perceptual access, she knows and then acts successfully; otherwise, she acts unsuccessfully"). In contrast, the pragmatics approach (a performance limitation account) suggests that children at age 4 do have meta-representational ToM but are confused by pragmatic task factors of the TB task. The current study tested competing predictions of both accounts in a decision experiment. Results from 165 4- to 7-year-olds reveal that failure in the TB task disappeared once the tasks were modified: children mastered both FB and TB tasks when the latter were adapted in terms of heuristic and pragmatic factors. Importantly, this pattern held in conditions in which the pragmatics account predicts success, but the perceptual access account predicts failure. Overall, the present findings thus corroborate the standard view (children use meta-representational ToM from age 4, at the latest) and suggest that difficulties with TB tasks merely reflect pragmatic performance factors.

摘要

关于心理理论(ToM)的标准观点是,大约在4岁时掌握错误信念(FB)任务标志着成熟的元表征心理理论在个体发生过程中的出现。最近,出现了一个令人困惑的发现:一旦儿童掌握了FB任务,他们就开始在真实信念(TB)控制任务中失败。这一发现威胁到FB任务的有效性和标准观点。在这里,我们对两种旨在解释这一令人困惑的发现的突出尝试进行了相互检验。知觉通达推理解释(一种能力限制解释)假设4岁的儿童尚未进行元表征,而是使用更简单的启发式方法(“如果一个主体有知觉通达,她就知道并能成功行动;否则,她就行动失败”)。相比之下,语用学方法(一种表现限制解释)表明,4岁的儿童确实具有元表征心理理论,但被TB任务的语用任务因素所迷惑。当前的研究在一个决策实验中检验了这两种解释的相互竞争的预测。165名4至7岁儿童的结果表明,一旦任务得到修改,TB任务中的失败就消失了:当TB任务在启发式和语用因素方面进行调整后,儿童同时掌握了FB和TB任务。重要的是,这种模式在语用学解释预测成功而知觉通达解释预测失败的条件下也成立。总体而言,本研究结果因此证实了标准观点(儿童最迟从4岁起就使用元表征心理理论),并表明TB任务中的困难仅仅反映了语用表现因素。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fec5/12143423/30438fe9b857/COGS-49-e70069-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fec5/12143423/46d2b497a7a6/COGS-49-e70069-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fec5/12143423/1e3032a07190/COGS-49-e70069-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fec5/12143423/30438fe9b857/COGS-49-e70069-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fec5/12143423/46d2b497a7a6/COGS-49-e70069-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fec5/12143423/1e3032a07190/COGS-49-e70069-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fec5/12143423/30438fe9b857/COGS-49-e70069-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Why Do Children From Age 4 Fail True Belief Tasks? A Decision Experiment Testing Competence Versus Performance Limitation Accounts.为什么4岁儿童在真实信念任务中失败?一项测试能力与表现限制解释的决策实验。
Cogn Sci. 2025 Jun;49(6):e70069. doi: 10.1111/cogs.70069.
2
Children's difficulty with true belief tasks: Competence deficit or performance problem?儿童在真实信念任务中的困难:能力缺陷还是表现问题?
Cognition. 2017 Sep;166:28-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.002. Epub 2017 May 26.
3
Why Do Children Who Solve False Belief Tasks Begin to Find True Belief Control Tasks Difficult? A Test of Pragmatic Performance Factors in Theory of Mind Tasks.为什么能够解决错误信念任务的儿童开始觉得真实信念控制任务困难?一项对心理理论任务中语用表现因素的测试。
Front Psychol. 2022 Jan 14;12:797246. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797246. eCollection 2021.
4
Perceptual Access Reasoning (PAR) in Developing a Representational Theory of Mind.发展心理表象理论的知觉访问推理 (PAR)。
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2021 Sep;86(3):7-154. doi: 10.1111/mono.12432.
5
How do children overcome their pragmatic performance problems in the true belief task? The role of advanced pragmatics and higher-order theory of mind.儿童如何克服真信念任务中的语用表现问题?高级语用和高阶心理理论的作用。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 27;17(4):e0266959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266959. eCollection 2022.
6
The Path to Fully Representational Theory of Mind: Conceptual, Executive, and Pragmatic Challenges.通往完全具身心理理论之路:概念、执行与实用挑战
Front Psychol. 2020 Nov 4;11:581117. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581117. eCollection 2020.
7
Actions do not speak louder than words in an interactive false belief task.在交互式错误信念任务中,行动并不比言语更有说服力。
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):191998. doi: 10.1098/rsos.191998. eCollection 2020 Oct.
8
Neural correlates of preschoolers' passive-viewing false belief: Insights into continuity and change and the function of right temporoparietal activity in theory of mind development.幼儿被动观看错误信念的神经关联:洞察连续性和变化以及右颞顶叶活动在心理理论发展中的作用。
Dev Sci. 2024 Nov;27(6):e13530. doi: 10.1111/desc.13530. Epub 2024 Jun 21.
9
Exploring links between language and cognition in autism spectrum disorders: Complement sentences, false belief, and executive functioning.探索自闭症谱系障碍中语言与认知之间的联系:补语句、错误信念与执行功能。
J Commun Disord. 2015 Mar-Apr;54:15-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.12.001. Epub 2015 Jan 6.
10
The knowledge ("true belief") error in 4- to 6-year-old children: When are agents aware of what they have in view?4 至 6 岁儿童的“知识(“真信念”)错误”:什么时候主体能意识到他们所看到的东西?
Cognition. 2023 Jan;230:105255. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105255. Epub 2022 Sep 8.

本文引用的文献

1
Do you feel me? Autism, empathic accuracy and the double empathy problem.你能理解我吗?自闭症、共情准确性与双重共情问题。
Autism. 2024 May 17:13623613241252320. doi: 10.1177/13623613241252320.
2
Is recursive "mindreading" really an exception to limitations on recursive thinking?递归“心理解读”真的是对递归思维限制的例外吗?
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2023 May;152(5):1454-1468. doi: 10.1037/xge0001322. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
3
The knowledge ("true belief") error in 4- to 6-year-old children: When are agents aware of what they have in view?
4 至 6 岁儿童的“知识(“真信念”)错误”:什么时候主体能意识到他们所看到的东西?
Cognition. 2023 Jan;230:105255. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105255. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
4
How do children overcome their pragmatic performance problems in the true belief task? The role of advanced pragmatics and higher-order theory of mind.儿童如何克服真信念任务中的语用表现问题?高级语用和高阶心理理论的作用。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 27;17(4):e0266959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266959. eCollection 2022.
5
Why Do Children Who Solve False Belief Tasks Begin to Find True Belief Control Tasks Difficult? A Test of Pragmatic Performance Factors in Theory of Mind Tasks.为什么能够解决错误信念任务的儿童开始觉得真实信念控制任务困难?一项对心理理论任务中语用表现因素的测试。
Front Psychol. 2022 Jan 14;12:797246. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797246. eCollection 2021.
6
Online Testing Yields the Same Results as Lab Testing: A Validation Study With the False Belief Task.在线测试与实验室测试结果相同:一项关于错误信念任务的验证研究
Front Psychol. 2021 Oct 13;12:703238. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703238. eCollection 2021.
7
Perceptual Access Reasoning (PAR) in Developing a Representational Theory of Mind.发展心理表象理论的知觉访问推理 (PAR)。
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2021 Sep;86(3):7-154. doi: 10.1111/mono.12432.
8
Knowledge before belief.先有知识,后有信念。
Behav Brain Sci. 2020 Sep 8;44:e140. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X20000618.
9
Children's difficulty with true belief tasks: Competence deficit or performance problem?儿童在真实信念任务中的困难:能力缺陷还是表现问题?
Cognition. 2017 Sep;166:28-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.002. Epub 2017 May 26.
10
Theory of mind and wisdom: The development of different forms of perspective-taking in late adulthood.心理理论与智慧:成年晚期不同形式观点采择的发展。
Br J Psychol. 2018 Feb;109(1):6-24. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12246. Epub 2017 Mar 7.