Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 341–364 | Cite as

Understanding False Belief as Generalized Operant Behavior

  • Louise MchughEmail author
  • Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
  • Ian Stewart
Article

Abstract

The current work reports 2 experiments that investigate the development of false belief from the perspective of Relational Frame Theory. The true and false belief test protocol used across both experiments contained a range of tasks that involved responding in accordance with the 3 perspective-taking frames of I-YOU, HERE-THERE, NOW-THEN, and in accordance with logical NOT. Experiment 1 involved the presentation of a protocol containing 10 true/false tasks to participants of 5 age groups ranging from 3 to 30 years old. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1, except that the number of tasks presented in the protocol was increased to 60 and novel participants were employed. The results of both experiments indicated a developmental trend in which accuracy on the protocol appeared to increase as a function of age. Furthermore, the fact that neither study indicated a statistically significant effect for trial type suggested that responding to both true and false belief may involve overlapping behavioral processes. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for Relational Frame Theory, behavior analysis, and the mainstream developmental literature on understanding true and false belief.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BARON-COHEN, S., TAGER-FLUSBERG, H., & COHEN, D. (2000). Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. BARNES-HOLMES, Y., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & CULLINAN, V. (2001). Education. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  3. BENNET, J. (1978). Some remarks about concepts. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 1, 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DYMOND, S., & BARNES, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 46, 271–300.Google Scholar
  5. GOPNIK, A., & ASTINGTON, J. (1988). Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance reality distinction. Child Development, 59, 26–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. HAYES, S. C., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & ROCHE, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  7. HAYES, S. C., BLACKLEDGE, J. T., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (2001). Language and cognition: Constructing an alternative approach within the behavioral tradition. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 3–21). New York Plenum.Google Scholar
  8. HAYES, S. C., HAYES, L. J. (1992) Verbal relations and the evolution of behaviour. analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1383–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. HOWLLN, P., BARON-COHEN, S., & HADWIN, J. (1999). Teaching children with autism to mind-read: A practical guide. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. JOHNSON-LAIRD, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. LIPKENS, R., HAYES, S. C., & HAYES, L. J. (1993). Longitundinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 201–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MCHUGH, L., BARNES-HOLMES, Y., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (2004). Developmental trends in perspective-taking. The Psychological Record, 54, 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MOSSLER, D. (1976). Conceptual perspective-taking in 2- to 6-year old children. Developmental Psychology, 12, 85–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. PERNER, J., FRITH, U., LESLIE, A. M., & LEEKAM, S. (1989). Exploration of the autistic child’s theory of mind: knowledge, belief, and communication. Child Development, 60, 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. PERNER, J., LEEKAM, S., & WIMMER, H. (1987). Three year olds’ difficulty with false belief. The case for a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. SODIAN, B., & FRITH, U. (1992). Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 130–136.Google Scholar
  17. STEELE, D. L., & HAYES, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. STEWART, I., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (2001). Understanding metaphor: A relational frame perspective. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 191–199.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. TAYLOR, M. (1988). Conceptual perspective taking: Children’s ability to distinguish what they know from what they see. Child Development, 59, 703–718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. WIMMER, H., & PERNER, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. WOODRUFF, G., & PREMACK, D. (1979). Intentional communication in the chimpanzee: The development of deception. Cognition, 33, 333–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. WULFERT, E., & HAYES, S. C. (1988). Transfer of conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 50, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Mchugh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
    • 2
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
    • 2
  • Ian Stewart
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WalesSwanseaUK
  2. 2.National University of IrelandMaynoothIreland
  3. 3.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations