Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 3, pp 355–370

Children’s strategy use when playing strategic games

  • Maartje E. J. Raijmakers
  • Dorothy J. Mandell
  • Sara E. van Es
  • Marian Counihan
Article
  • 378 Downloads

Abstract

Strategic games require reasoning about other people’s and one’s own beliefs or intentions. Although they have clear commonalities with psychological tests of theory of mind, they are not clearly related to theory of mind tests for children between 9 and 10 years of age “Flobbe et al. J Logic Language Inform 17(4):417–442 (2008)”. We studied children’s (5–12 years of age) individual differences in how they played a strategic game by analyzing the strategies that they applied in a zero, first, and second-order reasoning task. For the zero-order task, we found two subgroups with different accuracy levels. For the first-order task, subgroups of children applied different suboptimal strategies or an optimal strategy. For the second-order task only suboptimal strategies were present. Strategy use for all tasks was related to age. The 5- and 6-year old children were additionally tested on theory of mind understanding and executive functioning. Strategy-use in these children was related to working memory, but not to theory of mind after correction for age, verbal ability and general IQ.

Keywords

Strategic games Child development Reasoning Theory of mind Strategy analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carlson S. M., Moses L. J., Breton C. (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: 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson S. M., Moses L. J., Claxton L. J. (2004) Individual differences in executive functioning and theory of mind: An investigation of inhibitory control and planning ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 87(4): 299–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duijvenvoorde A. C. K., van Zanolie K., Rombouts S. A. R. B., Raijmakers M. E. J., Crone E. A. (2008) Evaluating the negative or valuing the positive? Neural mechanisms supporting feedback-based learning across development. The Journal of Neuroscience 28(38): 9495–9503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Flavell J. H., Green F. L., Flavell E. R. (1986) Development of knowledge about the appearance– reality distinction. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 51(1): 242–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flobbe L., Verbrugge R., Hendriks P., Krämer I. (2008) Children’s application of theory of mind in reasoning and language. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(4): 417–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gierasimczuk, N., van der Maas, H. L. J. & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2012). Logical and psychological analysis of deductive mastermind. In Proceedings of the 24th European summer school in logic, language and information, ESSLLI 2012 (pp. 1–13). Opole: ESSLLI.Google Scholar
  8. 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: 26–37CrossRefGoogle 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. Hogrefe G., Wimmer H. (1986) Ignorance versus false belief: A developmental lag in attribution of epistemic states. Child Development 57: 567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jansen B. R. J., van der Maas H. L. J. (1997) Statistical test of the rule assessment methodology by latent class analysis. Developmental Review 17: 321–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klinkenberg S., Straatemeier M., van der Maas H. L. J. (2011) Computer adaptive practice of Maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Computers & Education 57(1–12): 1813–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCutcheon A.L. (1987) Latent class analysis. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  14. Meijering, B., van Rijn, H., Taatgen, N. & Verbrugge, R. (2011). Second-order theory of mind in strategic games is not that difficult. In Proceedings of the cognitive science society (pp. 2486–2491). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  15. Miller S. A. (2009) Children’s understanding of second-order mental states. Psychological Bulletin 135: 749–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miyake A., Friedman N. P., Emerson M. J., Witzki A. H., Howerter A., Wager T. D. (2000) The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology 41: 49–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muris P., Steerneman P., Meesters C., Merckelbach H., Horselenberg R., van den Hogen T., van Dongen L. (1999) The TOM test: A new instrument for assessing theory of mind in normal children and children with pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 29: 67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perner J., Leekam S. R., Wimmer H. (1987) Three-year-olds’ difficulty understanding false belief: Representational limitation, lack of knowledge, or pragmatic misunderstanding?. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 5: 125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodgers E. M (2004) Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research 36(4): 501–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schwarz G. (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 6(2): 461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siegler R. S. (1995) How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology 28: 225–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Straatemeier M., van der Maas H. L. J., Jansen B. R. J. (2008) Children’s knowledge of the earth: A new methodological and statistical approach. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 100: 276–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2006). Verantwoording Taaltoets Alle Kinderen (TAK). Arnhem: Centraal Instituut voor Toetsontwikkeling.Google Scholar
  25. Visser I., Speekenbrink M. (2010) DepmixS4?: An R package for hidden Markov models. Journal of Statistical Software 36(7): 1–21Google Scholar
  26. Wellman H. M., Cross D., Watson J. (2001) Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development 72: 655–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maartje E. J. Raijmakers
    • 1
  • Dorothy J. Mandell
    • 1
  • Sara E. van Es
    • 1
  • Marian Counihan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations