Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 417–442 | Cite as

Children’s Application of Theory of Mind in Reasoning and Language

  • Liesbeth Flobbe
  • Rineke Verbrugge
  • Petra Hendriks
  • Irene Krämer
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Many social situations require a mental model of the knowledge, beliefs, goals, and intentions of others: a Theory of Mind (ToM). If a person can reason about other people’s beliefs about his own beliefs or intentions, he is demonstrating second-order ToM reasoning. A standard task to test second-order ToM reasoning is the second-order false belief task. A different approach to investigating ToM reasoning is through its application in a strategic game. Another task that is believed to involve the application of second-order ToM is the comprehension of sentences that the hearer can only understand by considering the speaker’s alternatives. In this study we tested 40 children between 8 and 10 years old and 27 adult controls on (adaptations of) the three tasks mentioned above: the false belief task, a strategic game, and a sentence comprehension task. The results show interesting differences between adults and children, between the three tasks, and between this study and previous research.

Keywords

False belief Second-order reasoning Sentence comprehension Strategic game Theory of Mind 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the children and staff of the St. Jorisschool in Heumen and the Christelijke Basisschool De Bron in Marum for their cooperation. Pauline Vrieling and Daniëlle Koks were so kind as to allow us to use their materials for our language experiment. We also thank the participants of the workshop “Formal models for real people” and two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their valuable suggestions and comments. Rineke Verbrugge gratefully acknowledges the NIAS (Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences) for awarding her a fellowship in the framework of the project ‘Games, Action, and Social Software’. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, NWO (Grants No. 051-04-120 and 400-05-710 for Verbrugge, Grant No. 051-02-070 for Krämer and Hendriks, and Grants no. 277-70-005 and 015-001-103 for Hendriks).

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Binmore K. (1992) Fun and games: A text on game theory. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Blutner R. (2000) Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colman A.M. (2003) Depth of strategic reasoning in games. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 2–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Hoop H., Krämer I. (2005) Children’s optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects. Language Acquisition 13: 103–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekker P., Van Rooij R. (2000) Bi-directional optimality theory: An application of game theory. Journal of Semantics 17: 217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeVilliers J. (2007) The interface of language and Theory of Mind. Lingua 117: 1858–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flobbe, L. (2006). Children’s development of reasoning about other people’s minds. M.Sc. Thesis Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  8. Grice H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., Morgan J.L.(eds) Syntax and semantics, vol. III, speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  9. Hedden T., Zhang J. (2002) What do you think I think you think? Strategic reasoning in matrix games. Cognition 85: 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hendriks P., Spenader J. (2005/2006) When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition 13(4): 319–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogrefe G., Wimmer H. (1986) Ignorance versus false belief: A developmental lag in attribution of epistemic states. Child Development 57: 567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karmiloff-Smith A. (1992) Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Keysar B., Lin S., Barr D. (2003) Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition 89: 25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKelvey R.D., Palfrey T.R. (1992) An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica 60: 803–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mol, L., Verbrugge, R., & Hendriks, P. (2005). Learning to reason about other people’s minds. In L. Hall, D. Heylen, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Symposium on Virtual Social Agents (pp. 191–198). The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), Hatfield.Google Scholar
  16. Nash J. (1951) Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics 54: 286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Onishi K., Baillargeon R. (2005) Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?. Science 308: 255–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Osborne M. (2003) An introduction to game theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Papafragou A., Tantalou N. (2004) Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition 12: 71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perner J. (1979) Young children’s preoccupation with their own payoffs in strategic analysis of 2x2 games. Developmental Psychology 15: 204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perner J., Ruffman T. (2005) Infants insight into the mind: How deep?. Science 308: 214–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perner J., Wimmer H. (1985) “John thinks that Mary thinks that. ”: Attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 39: 437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Premack D., woodruff G. (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 515–526Google Scholar
  24. Steerneman, P., Meesters, C., & Muris, P. (2003). TOM-test (derde druk). Antwerpen: Garant.Google Scholar
  25. Tager-Flusberg H., Sullivan K. (1994) A second look at second-order belief attribution in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 24: 577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Termeer, M. (2002). “Een meisje ging twee keer van de glijbaan.” A study of indefinite subject NPs in child language. MA Thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  27. Vrieling, P. (2006). Een ezel stoot zich geen twee keer aan dezelfde steen: Dutch children’s interpretation of indefinite subject NPs. MA Thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  28. Verbrugge, R., & Mol, L. (2008). Learning to apply theory of mind? Journal of Logic, Language and Information (this issue). doi:10.1007/s10849-008-9067-4.
  29. Wimmer H., Perner J. (1983) Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liesbeth Flobbe
    • 1
  • Rineke Verbrugge
    • 2
  • Petra Hendriks
    • 3
  • Irene Krämer
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG)University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Centre for Language Studies (CLS)Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations