Theory of mind and its relationship with behavioural inhibition in Chilean preschools / Teoría de la mente y su relación con inhibición conductual en pre-escolares chilenos
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2019
Theory of mind and its relationship with behavioural inhibition in Chilean preschools / Teoría de la mente y su relación con inhibición conductual en pre-escolares chilenos
This study’s main objective was to determine whether the five-step theory of mind scale is associated with responses to behavioural inhibition tasks. The data collected for this were the responses to the scale given by 65 Chilean children aged three to five from medium-low socioeconomic levels, and were derived from the changing locations, happy-sad Stroop, day-night and Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) tasks they carried out. Results showed that there was a significant association between the five-step theory of mind scale and behavioural inhibition (r = .28) and behavioural inhibition with the false belief task (r = .31), controlling for age, sex and language. These data support the emergence model as the best model to describe the relationship between theory of mind and behavioural inhibition. Finally, the results are discussed and future lines of study in this subject are put forward.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApperlyI. A. (2010). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of “theory of mind.” Hove: Psychology Press/ Taylor & Francis Group.
2.
AvisJ.HarrisP. L. (1991). Belief-desire reasoning among Baka children: Evidence for a universal conception of mind. Child Development, 62, 460–467.
3.
BensonJ. E.SabbaghM. A. (2009). Theory of mind and executive functioning: A developmental neuropsychological approach. In ZalezoP. D.ChandlerM.CroneE. (Eds.), Developmental social cognitive neuroscience (pp. 63–80). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
4.
CallaghanT.RochatP.LillardA.ClauxM. L.OddenH.ItakuraS.. (2005). Synchrony in the onset of mental-state reasoning: Evidence from five cultures. Psychological Science, 16, 378–384.
5.
CarlsonS. M.MandellD. J.WilliamsL. (2004). Executive function and theory of mind: Stability and prediction from ages 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1105–1122.
6.
CarlsonS. M.MosesL. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032–1053.
7.
CarlsonS. M.MosesL. J.BretonC. (2002). How specific is the relation between executive function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory. Infant and Child Development, 11, 73–92.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 425–434.
9.
DevineR. T.HughesC. (2014). Relations between false belief understanding and executive function in early childhood: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 85, 1777–1794.
10.
DunnL.DunnM.LlM.ArribasD. (2006). PPVT-III peabody, test de vocabulario en imágenes. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
11.
FlynnE. (2007). The role of inhibitory control in false belief understanding. Infant and Child Development, 16, 53–59.
12.
FryeD.ZelazoP. D.PalfaiT. (1995). Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning. Cognitive Development, 10, 483–527.
13.
GerstadtC. L.HongY. J.DiamondA. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children 31⁄2–7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53, 129–153.
14.
HughesC. (1998). Finding your marbles: Does preschoolers´strategic behavior predict later understanding of mind?Developmental Psychology, 32, 1326–1339.
15.
HughesC.DevineR. T. (2015). A social perspective on theory of mind. In LambM. E. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science Socioemotional processes (Vol. 3, pp. 564–609). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
16.
LagatuttaK. H.SayfanL.MonsourM. (2011). A new measure for assessing executive function across a wide age range: Children and adults find happy-sad more difficult than day-night. Developmental Science, 14, 481–489.
17.
PernerJ.LangB.KlooD. (2002). Theory of mind and self control: More than a common problem of inhibition. Child Development, 73, 752–767.
18.
SamsonD.ApperlyI. A. (2010). There is more to mind reading than having theory of mind concepts: New directions in theory of mind research. Infant and Child Development, 19, 443–454.
19.
ShahaeianA.HenryJ.RazmjoeeM.TeymooriA.WangC. (2015). Towards a better understanding of the relationship between executive control and theory of mind: An intra-cultural comparison of three diverse samples. Developmental Science, 18, 671–685.
20.
SlaughterV.Pérez-ZapataD. (2014). Cultural variations in the development of mind reading. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 237–241.
21.
StrasserK.del RíoF. (2014). The role of comprehension monitoring, theory of mind, and vocabulary depth in predicting story comprehension and recall of kindergarten children. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 169–187.
22.
WangZ.DevineR. T.WongK. K.HughesC. (2016). Theory of mind and executive function during middle childhood across cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 149, 6–22.
23.
WellmanH. M. (2017). La construcción de la mente. Cómo se desarrolla la teoría de la mente. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones UC.
24.
WellmanH. M.CrossD.WatsonJ. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684.
WimmerH.PernerJ. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128.
