Theory of Mind in Infants and Young Children - Research Paper Example

hеоry оf Мind in Infаnts аnd Yоung Сhildrеn Name: Course Name: Unit Name: Submission Deadline: 1.0 Abstract To a larger extent, infant and young children socialize through the acquisition of cognitive mechanism known as theory of mind (ToM). ToM is a term that is used to describe a set of intellectual abilities that enable individual to understand that other people have beliefs, desires, intentions, plans, information and hopes that may differ from their own. Theory of mind is a composite function which involves complex perceptual recognition, memory, language, executive functions, empathy, imitation and emotion processing recognition. Hence, Theory of mind development is dependent on maturation of brain systems in human being and is shaped by parenting, social relations, education, and training; thus, ToM is an interaction that occurs between environment/social and brain development. The aim of this research study is to establish if the age of an infant or young child or the number of their siblings will affect their performance in the False Belief task. It has been hypothesized that young children are more likely to fail the Fail Belief task that those children that are older. In the second research study is that those children with two or more older siblings have been found to be able to pass the False Belief task than those with either no older siblings or one older sibling. 2.0 Introduction Human beings are social creatures. In their encounter with other persons, simple observations can lead to a spontaneous prediction on how they feel and this might be based on how they are behaving (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin ,2006). It is everyday capacity to infer or conceptualize mental state to other human beings in order to explain much of their predict responses and behaviors which comprises the Theory of mind (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin ,2006). This ability enables an individual to choose responses that are likely to lead to successful interactions and at same time, achieve higher level of social attainment. The term Theory of mind (ToM) was developed by Woodruff and Premack (1978) in their classic paper that discussed whether Apes have theory of mind. Perner and Wimmer (1983) working in that direction, tested infants and young children on what has become classic false belief task: Maxi story. These papers as well as a number of research replications have confirmed that in infants and young children their ability to represent the relation between two or more individual’s mental states emerges and becomes firmly established around the ages 3 years to 6 years. Moore and Meltzoff (1999) in their research study have managed to show that infants as young as one day old may be able to mimic simple human being behaviors, which may be part of their development in theory of mind. In other research studies, it has been shown that 13 to 18 month old children are able to understand intentions and so have a basic comprehension of as mental agents and intentional (Maylor et el, 2005). In reference to other research studies, Rory and Claire (2016) have established the young children display of their behaviours is crucial beginnings for the ToM development. By the age of 2 years, children already show cognizant of variance between point of view in their minds and things in their surroundings (McAlister and Peterson, 2007). For example, young children are able to display their capability in their plays like when playing with their dolls; they have been found to distinguish between an object and thoughts about the doll. Heather, et al (2016), has also established that infants and toddlers can comprehend that persons are happy when their desires are met and unhappy when their desired are not met. Rory and Claire (2016) in their study have established that at 4 years young children are able to gather that their thought may be untrue. Other research studies that have been carried out in the past have also established that there are social or environmental factors that have been seen to influence the development of theory of mind in young children. Infants or young children whose mothers talks of feelings and ideas and provide enough reason while disciplining exhibit earlier mental state of awareness, and same was the case with infants or young children with siblings (Anna and Cadida 2013). In addition, Katie (2016) have also established that story book reading, pretend plays and talking of past experiences with others heighten rate of ToM development in young children. In addition, external factors or elements have been noted to influence ToM development in young children include a child’s language abilities as well as their executive functions (McAlister and Peterson, 2007). Past research studies have also established that theory of mind development affects children school success and social interaction (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin (2006). Those children with well-developed theory of mind become good communicators, involved in complex pretend games, relate well with friends, socially, competent, popular with friends (Katie, 2016). Majority of past research studies have however, only focused on middle class Western children. Diversity is needed in terms of culture and variant backgrounds to check for likenesses and variances. Participant Gaps It is important to know more about how and why different environment/social and young children cognitive elements or factors affect the ToM development in young children, In particular those interventions for young children who’s ToM have not developed. Up to date, numerous research studies have cooperated high class, European young children, but a lot of research study is required with infants and young children from different cultural background to investigate those similarities or/and differences in ToM development in young children. How persons act cannot be governed by their wants and thoughts, but also by social rules and morals. Research studies are needed into theory of mind and how rule based reasoning operate together in social/environment cognition. Lastly, a lot of research studies need to be conducted on the brain process that underlines the theory of mind. 3.0 Method 3.1 Participants This research study involved a total of 296 participants (young children): 74 3 years old, 107 4 years old and 115 5 years old. These young children were required to complete various tasks as part of ToM studies and so the sample that was used in this research study did not use equal number of children in each age group. The participants in the research study came from Australia and were from predominantly from high-class and middle class households. 3.2 Procedure Unexpected contents were administered to the participants (Gopnik and Astington, 1988), appearance reality tasks (Flavell, Flavell, & Green, 1983) and change in location (Wimmer and Perner, 1983). These tasks were selected because they are used to test the young children understanding that the children minds represent reality rather than being direct reflection of it. Participants in the research study were require to answer two questions, 1) about their own false representation or belief, and 2) about a dolly named Sally. A total of six tests were employed in this section. The young participants in different research study received the questions and tasks about other and self in either counterbalanced or fixed order (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin, 2006). There were no significant difference in task response or performance latencies as a function of order of questions or tasks study or administration; thus these data was collapsed into two factors. In the unexpected contents task, the participants were shown a box of crayon colors and where then asked to tell their teacher what was inside the box and then were shown that the crayon box contained candles. The participants were then needed to answer back (‘‘When you first saw this box, before we opened it,what did you think was inside?”), Other (‘‘What does Sally think is inside?”), In the change in Location task, the participants where shown a character that place a ball in the box and then left the room. Another character then moved the ball from the box to a cupboard. When the original character returned, children answered experimental (‘‘Now when Billy comes back inside to play, where will he look for the ball?”) and (‘‘Where is the ball really?”) In the Appearance-Reality task, the young participants were shown what look like a stone. After discovering that the object was really a sponge, the young participants answered self (‘‘When you look at this with your eyes right now, what does it look like?”), Other (”What does it look like to Sally?”), and (‘‘What is it really and truly?”). 4.0 Results The test questions have been found to cohered well (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78), thus a single score was created by summing participant scores across the all the six questions (Range=0-7). This score was then divided by the number of question for which participants have passed the required controls, resulting in a proportion score. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that correct responses on the test questions increased significantly with age, F(2, 237) = 83.31, p < 0.001, partial g2 = 0.41. Student–Newman–Keuls post hoc comparisons indicated that 5.5-year-olds (M= 0.78, SD = 0.22) outperformed 4.5-year-olds (M = 0.61, SD = 0.29), who outperformed 3.5-year-olds (M = 0.31, SD = 0.27). Graph for the results: 5.0 Discussion Our research study data have shown cross over effect: 3 years old participants were faster to respond in correctly than correctly; the opposite pattern was seen for 4 years olds and 5 years olds The response latencies was found to be shorter for in correct than correct responses in 3 years olds and was consistence with both processing account and conceptual change (McAlister and Peterson, 2007). This is because the cognitive processes that are engaged when 3 years olds passes a false belief tasks is different and is more time consuming from those tasks when the child is seen to fail (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin (2006). However, older participant’s correct latencies were found to be faster than their incorrect latencies and were inconsistent with the processing theories. It is important to understand that the pattern of correct or incorrect latencies separately across development. Correct latencies have been found to decreased between age 3 years and 4 years with no measurable difference between ages 4 (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin (2006). The findings of this research study is not inconsistent with the account that posit that young children processing capacity increase with age (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin (2006). Rather, the findings of this research study are consistent with change account that argues that at age 4, children are found to be adept at reasoning about their representational mind. 7.0 References Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. R., & Green, F. L. (1983). Development of the appearance–reality distinction. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 95–120 Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance–reality distinction. Child Development,59 , 26–37. Maylor E, Moulson J, Muncer A, Taylor L. (2005). Does performance in theory of mind task decline in age? B J Psychol; 93 : 465-485. McAlister A and Peterson C. (2007). A longitudinal study of child siblings and theory of mind development. Cognitive Development;22(2):258-270. Meltzoff AN, Moore MK.(1991). Persons and representation: Why infant imitation is important for theories of human development. In J. Nadel and G. Butterworth, Eds. Imitation in Infancy: Cambridge Studies in Cognitive Perceptual Development, 9-35. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ruffman T, Perner J, and Parkin L.(2006). How parenting style affects false belief understanding. Social Development. 8(3):395-411. Premack D, Woodruff G.. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci; 4 : 515-526. Wimmer H, Perner J. (1983). Belief about beliefs:Representation and the constraining function of wrong beliefs in young childrens’understanding of deception. Cognitive; 13: 103-128. Read More

Moore and Meltzoff (1999) in their research study have managed to show that infants as young as one day old may be able to mimic simple human being behaviors, which may be part of their development in the theory of mind. In other research studies, it has been shown that 13 to 18-month-old children can understand intentions and so have a basic comprehension of as mental agents and intentional (Maylor et al, 2005).

            About other research studies, Rory and Claire (2016) have established the young children display of their behaviors is crucial beginnings for the ToM development. By the age of 2 years, children already show a cognizance of variance between the point of view in their minds and things in their surroundings (McAlister and Peterson, 2007). For example, young children can display their capability in their plays like when playing with their dolls; they have been found to distinguish between an object and thoughts about the doll. Heather, et al (2016), has also established that infants and toddlers can comprehend that persons are happy when their desires are met and unhappy when their desires are not met. Rory and Claire (2016) in their study have established that at 4 years young children can gather that their thought may be untrue.

            Other research studies that have been carried out in the past have also established that there are social or environmental factors that have been seen to influence the development of the theory of mind in young children. Infants or young children whose mothers talk of feelings and ideas and provide enough reason while disciplining exhibit earlier mental state of awareness, and the same was the case with infants or young children with siblings (Anna and Cadida 2013). Also, Katie (2016) has also established that storybook reading, pretend plays, and talking of past experiences with others heighten the rate of ToM development in young children. Also, external factors or elements that have been noted to influence ToM development in young children include a child’s language abilities as well as their executive functions (McAlister and Peterson, 2007). Past research studies have also established that theory of mind development affects children's school success and social interaction (Ruffman, Perner, and Parkin (2006). Those children with the well-developed theory of mind become good communicators, involved in complex pretend games, relate well with friends, socially, competent, popular with friends (Katie, 2016). The majority of past research studies have, however, only focused on middle-class Western children. Diversity is needed in terms of culture and variant backgrounds to check for likenesses and variances.

 

It is important to know more about how and why different environment/social and young children cognitive elements or factors affect the ToM development in young children, In particular, those interventions for young children whose ToM have not developed.

            Up to date, numerous research studies have cooperated high class, European young children, but a lot of research study is required with infants and young children from different cultural backgrounds to investigate those similarities or/and differences in ToM development in young children.

            How a person acts cannot be governed by their wants and thoughts, but also by social rules and morals. Research studies are needed into the theory of mind and how rule-based reasoning operates together in social/environment cognition. Lastly, a lot of research studies need to be conducted on the brain process that underlines the theory of mind.  

This research study involved a total of 296 participants (young children): 74 3 years old, 107 4 years old, and 115 5 years old. These young children were required to complete various tasks as part of ToM studies and so the sample that was used in this research study did not use an equal number of children in each age group. The participants in the research study came from Australia and were predominantly from high-class and middle-class households.

Read More