Children’s ability to attribute different interpretations of ambiguous drawings to a naive vs. a biased observer

Abstract

In two experiments we investigated 5- to 7-year-olds’ ability to attribute to a naive or a biased observer an interpretation of ambiguous drawings (restricted views of a nondescript part of a depicted object) corresponding to that observer’s mental state: ignorance for the naive observer and expectation for the biased observer. In Experiment 1, in which the expectation was only based on the observer’s prior viewing experience, children mostly failed to infer a proper interpretation for both a biased and a naive observer; instead, they ascribed to this character an interpretation corresponding to the real identity of the target picture. In Experiment 2, in which the expectation was additionally based on a more stable characteristic of the observer, a high percentage of children succeeded in generating for the biased observer an interpretation according to that expectation. For the naive observer, children’s answers seemed to be at random. In addition, we used a replication of Gopnik and Astington’s “book” task (1988), obtaining different results. We conclude that children aged 5 to 7 years have a rudimentary understanding of the interpretive nature of external representations. Hence their varying performance on interpretive theory of mind tasks, depending on the details of the task or the context in which it is presented.