Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Theory of mind
- Action
understanding
develops: 9 months
Anmerkungen:
- Believe action means an emotion - will understand if someone else is doing that action
- such representations of others' actions may constitute a rudimentary ToM (understanding of why others do certain things)
- Observe another's action
- Motor commands for
producing oneself
- Intentions that drie
that action in us
- Same intention drives
action in another
- Protodeclaritive pointing: 9-14m
Anmerkungen:
- Use point to explain and help others understand what they're talking or thinking about
(Bates et al, 1979)
- Shared gaze: 12m
Anmerkungen:
- Infants sensitive to where another person is looking and understand significance of the eyes (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2002)
- know that where people look is to do with the meaning of the conversation
- gaze --> see if they have ToM even when can't articulate
- Joint attention: 14m
Anmerkungen:
- Infants keen to establish joint attention
- Concern for others: 18m
Anmerkungen:
- Show concern at distress of others (see distress in selves when someone else is distressed)
- understanding mental
states
Anmerkungen:
- - what another may be thinking/feeling
- enables us to explain and predict the behaviours of others (how differs from own knowledge and may affect their behaviour)
- Empathising
Anmerkungen:
- ToM important component of empathising
- cannot empathise if don't understand that people have different beliefs to one's own
- appropriate
affective reaction
Anmerkungen:
- to others mental states - other main component)
- Unique to humans
Anmerkungen:
- Premack & Woodruff, 1978
- Seen in some primates
Anmerkungen:
- Call & Tomasello, 2008) - review
- Brain regions
- Medial PFC
Anmerkungen:
- Gallagher & Frith, 2003
- Posterior superior sulcus
Anmerkungen:
- Gallagher & Frith, 2003
- right temporal parietal junction
Anmerkungen:
- False belief
Anmerkungen:
- Understanding that others may have representations of the world that are false and/or different from one's own
- understanding that others act on basis of their beliefs rather than reality
- not expecting them to do what you would do
- False belief tasks
- First order ToM
- Maxi task
Anmerkungen:
- Wimmer & Perner (1983)
Maxi and the chocolate
- puts choc in box and goes out to play, mum moves choc
ToM Q's
Q: where will Maxi look for it?
Q: where does Maxi think it is?
Memory control Q's
Q: where is it now?
Q: where was it before?
- story comprehension a problem
- 4-6 y/o
Anmerkungen:
- 50% 4-5 y/o
92% 5-6 y/o
- all got memory Q correct - false belief representation may develop between 4-6
- Sally-Anne task
Anmerkungen:
- Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith (1985)
- Anne moves Sally's marble while she's out the room
Q: where will Sally look for her marble
- story comprehension a problem
- 4-5 y/o
Anmerkungen:
- typically developing passed this task
- Smarties task
Anmerkungen:
- Perner et al, 1987
- Smarties task solves problems of story comprehension
- ask child what's inside, show it's actually crayons (not smarties)
ToM Q: what would friend think is inside?
Memory Q: what did you think was inside before you knew?
- 4-5 y/o
- Criticisms
Anmerkungen:
- Bloom & German, 2000 - review of false belief tasks
- Too easy
Anmerkungen:
- May not require full theory of mind - participants with ASD can sometimes pass these tasks (Baron-Cohen, 1989)
- something else allowing them to perform otimally
- Second/higher-order ToM
- Ice cream story
Anmerkungen:
- Perner & Wimmer, 1985
Both John and Mary know ice cream truck has moved, but neither know the other knows. Where will John think Mary will go to buy ice cream?
- must understand John's ignorance of Mary's knowledge
- 6-7 y/o
Anmerkungen:
- Delay in development in first-order ToM understanding --> second-order ToM understanding
- Simplified
- 4-5 y/o
Anmerkungen:
- Sullivan et al (1994)
- over 90% of 4-5 y/o could succeed at second order ToM tasks if the stories were simplified
- Beliefs about beliefs
- language and
comprehension
Anmerkungen:
- Children's performance on second-order ToM tasks will still be inherently linked to their language and story comprehension abilities
- therefore tasks are not good for assessing ToM in young children - too difficult
- Early ToM development
Anmerkungen:
- Understanding of false belief develops earlier than 4, but traditional false belief tasks are too hard for younger children to pass and understand due to language, comprehension and memory abilities
- require complex responses
- requires child to remember details of the story- unable to pass
- Non-verbal measures
- Eye-tracking
Anmerkungen:
- Onishi & Baillargeon, 2005
- actor plays with toy and puts in yellow box,
- infant (but not actor) sees toy moved to different box
- actor reaches into a box
- 15 m/o
Anmerkungen:
- Looked longer at box that adult couldn't have known it was moved to
- shows they understood it wasn't normal and was surprising
- suggests they understand that to some extent, people should act in accordance with their beliefs
- Language learning
Anmerkungen:
- Early evidence of ToM in infants' word-learning abilities
- following gaze
- parent names things while looking at them - infant follows gaze to associate word with object
- Better glaze following
skills: 10 - 11m
Anmerkungen:
- Brooks & Meltzoff, 2005
- infants who had better gaze-following skills at 10-11 months had higher language scores at 18m
- Higher language scores: 18m
- Baldwin (1991, 1993)
Anmerkungen:
- Response to subsequent comprehension questions revealed infants:
- successfully learned the labels introduced during follow-in labelling
- displayed no tendency to make mapping errors after discrepant labelling
- LDG
Anmerkungen:
- Listeners direction of gaze strategy to learn words
- relies on some understanding of the intention of the speaker
- Follow in labelling
Anmerkungen:
- Experimenter looked at and labelled toy that infants were already looking at
- 16-17m
Anmerkungen:
- - successfully learned the labels introduced during follow-in labelling
- understand that a speaker's nonverbal cues are relevant to the reference of object labels
- they already can contribute to the social coordination involved in achieving joint reference
- SDG
Anmerkungen:
- Speaker's direction of gaze strategy to learn words
- relies on some understanding of the intention of the speaker
- Discrepant labelling
Anmerkungen:
- Experimenter looked at and labelled different toy that one child was looking at
- 18-19m
Anmerkungen:
- - displayed no tendency to make mapping errors after discrepant labelling
- Atypical ToM developement
- ASD
Anmerkungen:
- Impaired ToM = One of the hallmarks of ASD
- some theories propose ASD = ToM deficit
- Baron-Cohen
Anmerkungen:
- Two theories proposed
- but has since moved on from this theory too (these models do not account for all traits)
- Initial ToM model
- Empathising/systemising theory
- Often fail false-belief tasks
Anmerkungen:
- But not always - read B-C's papers on false belief tasks
- Language imapirments
Anmerkungen:
- Frequently have language impairments - thought to have links with ToM deficit (Baron-Cohen, Baldwin & Crowson, 1997)
- Individual differences
- Questionnaire measures
Anmerkungen:
- Variety of measures to assess ToM, mainly questionnaire based
- Interpersonal reactivity scale
Anmerkungen:
- Davis, 1980
- empathy: reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another (Davis, 1983
- 28-items, 5-point likert scale of how well it describes them
- 4 sub-scales (7 items each)
1) Perspective taking (ability to spontaneously adopt others' POV)
2) Fantasy (transpose selves imaginitvely into feels/actions of ficticious characters)
3) Empathic concern (Assesses 'other-orientated' feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others)
4) Personal distress ('self orientated' feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings)
- Empathy quotient
Anmerkungen:
- Good validity (Lawrence et al, 2004)
- 60 item questionnaire
- developed by B-C
4 point Likert - strongly agree --> strongly disagree
- 'Eyes' task
Anmerkungen:
- Baron-Cohen et al, 1997, 2001
- rate emotion from eye expressions
- Social attribution task
Anmerkungen:
- Heider & Simmel, 1944
- attribution of mental states to the interaction of inanimate objects/shapes - thought to reflect higher-order ToM abilities
- making sense if and explaining their behaviour
- social attribution tasks to examine ToM in individuals with Asperger's and HF autism
- physical elements
Anmerkungen:
- Abell, Happe & Frith (2000)
- HF ASD , 8 y/o - used terms that attributed animacy to the shapes less often than TD children and used incorrect terms/emotions more often
- less emotion/people based terms - describe physical elements
- Abell, F., Happe, F., & Frith, U. (2000). Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of
mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal
development.Cognitive Development, 15(1), 1-16
- Klin & Jones (2006)
- adults
- those with HF ASD - impaired on social attribution task, but not on very similar physical attribution task
- deficit is domain-specific (not simply general deficit in reasoning/attribution - specific to social stimuli)
- PET/neuroimaging studies
Anmerkungen:
- brain activation when watching shapes move in social way vs. randomly
- greater activation in superior temporal sulcus, TPJ and mPFC when watching social movements
- TD show more activation in these areas than ASD
- fMRI - FFA activation from social attribution