Skip to main content
Log in

True Belief Belies False Belief: Recent Findings of Competence in Infants and Limitations in 5-Year-Olds, and Implications for Theory of Mind Development

  • Published:
Review of Philosophy and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

False belief tasks have enjoyed a monopoly in the research on children’s development of a theory of mind. They have been granted this status because they promise to deliver an unambiguous assessment of children’s understanding of the representational nature of mental states. Their poor cousins, true belief tasks, have been relegated to occasional service as control tasks. That this is their only role has been due to the universal assumption that correct answers on true belief tasks are inherently ambiguous regarding the level of the child’s understanding of mental states. It has also been due to the universal assumption that nothing in the child’s developing theory of mind would lead to systematically incorrect answers on true belief tasks. We review new findings that 4- and 5-year-olds do err, systematically and profoundly, on the true belief versions of all the extant belief tasks. This reveals an intermediate level of understanding in the development of children’s theory of mind. Researchers have been unaware of this intermediate level because it produces correct answers in false belief tasks. A simple two-task battery—one true belief task and one false belief task—is sufficient to remove the ambiguity from each task. The new findings show that children do not acquire an understanding of beliefs, and hence a representational theory of mind, until after 6 years of age, or 2 years later than most developmental psychologists have concluded. This raises the question of how to interpret other new findings that infants are able to pass false belief tasks. We review these new infant studies, as well as recent studies on chimpanzees, in light of older children’s failure on true belief tasks, and end with some speculation about how all of these new findings might be reconciled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Gilbert Harman (1978) made a similar suggestion in regards to studying chimpanzee theory of mind, and other philosophers had previously stressed the importance of understanding false belief for having the concept BELIEF. Donald Davidson (1975), e.g. argues that “Someone cannot have a belief unless he understands the possibility of being mistaken, and this requires grasping the contrast between truth and error—true belief and false belief” (p. 170).

  2. Perner and Horn (2003) tested the PAR hypothesis using a variation of the three-alternative false belief procedure designed to be simpler than that used by Fabricius and Khalil, and they concluded that their findings refuted the hypothesis. Their study had several unexplained findings, however, which Fabricius and Khalil (2003) argue cast doubt on that conclusion. In addition, Fabricius and Frederick (under review) failed to replicate Perner and Horn’s findings against the hypothesis.

  3. There is independent evidence that the child’s understanding of ‘know’ undergoes much development during these years regarding its relation to both perceptual access and correct versus incorrect behavior (e.g., Perner 1991).

  4. Two previous studies reported children’s failure on true belief tasks (Friedman et al. 2003; Ruffman 1996), although both sets of researchers assumed that children’s difficulty with true belief was unique to the particular tasks used in their studies, and was not indicative of a general pattern of reasoning used across different tasks. See Fabricius et al. (2010) for further discussion.

  5. For chimpanzees, the input is perhaps further constrained to goals that are shared by the subject, as evidenced by indications that better understanding of others’ mental states is elicited in experimental tasks that involve competition with conspecifics (e.g., Kaminski et al. 2008). For human infants, the other’s goal does not have to be one that the infant also wants, as evidenced by their success in passive, looking time tasks. For instance, studies involving pointing by preverbal infants appears to demonstrate understanding of goals which they don’t share and cooperation with adults (Liszkowski et al. 2008).

  6. Southgate et al. (2007) pointed out that infants in those two studies could have used a specific rule applicable to transfer tasks that they presumably had learned from other experiences (i.e., that agents who do not witness an object being moved will look in the wrong place for it). As the authors tacitly acknowledge, the true belief tasks in those studies do not control for that possibility either.

  7. An interesting study by Song et al. (2008) indicates that Rule A can be re-triggered for 18-month-olds by witnessing an agent receive verbal communication about a situation. In their task, an agent hid a ball in a box and was absent when it was moved it to a cup. When she returned, if the experimenter told her “The ball is in the cup!” children expected her to get it right and search in the cup; otherwise, they expected her to get it wrong. The statement apparently signaled a new situation and elicited a re-application of Rule A, just as if the agent had gotten direct (visual, tactile) perceptual access to the situation.

  8. On modularity and psychology, see Fodor (1983) and Barrett and Kurzban (2006).

References

  • Apperly, I.A., K.J. Riggs, A. Simpson, C. Chiavarino, and D. Samson. 2006. Is belief reasoning automatic? Psychological Science 17: 841–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, H.C., and R. Kurzban. 2006. Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review 113: 628–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandone, A. C., and H.M. Wellman. 2009. Concepts of ignorance and false belief in 15-month-old infants. Poster presented at the 6th Biennial Meeting for the Cognitive Developmental Society, San Antonio, Texas.

  • Buttelmann, D., M. Carpenter, and M. Tomasello. 2009. Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm. Cognition 112: 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, W.A., and J. Perner. 1994. Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive Development 9: 377–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. 1975. Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dennett, D.C. 1978. Beliefs about beliefs. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 1: 568–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius, W.V., and A.L. Imbens-Bailey. 2000. False beliefs about false beliefs. In Children’s reasoning about the mind, ed. P. Mitchell and K. Riggs, 267–280. Hove: Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius, W.V., and S.L. Khalil. 2003. False beliefs or false positives? Limits on children’s understanding of mental representation. Journal of Cognition and Development 4: 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius, W.V., T. Boyer, A.A. Weimer, and K. Carroll. 2010. True or False: Do five-year-olds understand belief? Developmental Psychology 46: 1402–1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. 1992. A theory of the child’s theory of mind. Cognition 44: 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, O., and A.R. Petrashek. 2009. Children do not follow the rule “ignorance means getting it wrong”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102: 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, O., R. Griffen, H. Brownell, and E. Winner. 2003. Problems with the seeing = knowing rule. Developmental Science 6: 505–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnham, W.A., and J. Perner. 2001. Actions really do speak louder than words—but only implicitly: Young children’s understanding of false belief in action. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 19: 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnham, W.A., and T. Ruffman. 2001. Doesn’t see, doesn’t know: Is anticipatory looking really related to understanding of belief? Developmental Science 4: 94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A., and H. Wellman. 1992. Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language 7: 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, B., J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2001. Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behaviour 61: 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. 1978. Studying the chimpanzee’s theory of mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1: 576–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z., M. Bolz, and R. Baillargeon. 2011. False-belief understanding in 2.5-year-olds: Evidence from violation-of expectation change-of-location and unexpected-contents tasks. Developmental Science 14: 292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogrefe, G.J., H. Wimmer, and J. Perner. 1986. Ignorance versus false belief: A developmental lag in attributing epistemic states. Child Development 57: 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J., J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2008. Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what they believe. Cognition 109: 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B., S. Lin, and D.J. Barr. 2003. Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition 89: 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, M., and C.H. Echols. 2003. Infants’ understanding of false labeling events: The referential roles of words and the speakers who use them. Cognition 87: 179–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, A.M. 1987. Pretense and representation: The origins of ‘theory of mind’. Psychological Review 94: 412–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, A.M. 2005. Developmental parallels in understanding minds and bodies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 459–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, A.M., T.P. German, and P. Polizzi. 2005. Belief-desire reasoning as a process of selection. Cognitive Psychology 50: 45–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S., B. Keysar, and N. Epley. 2010. Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 551–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liszkowski, U., M. Carpenter, and M. Tomasello. 2008. Twelve-month olds communicate helpfully and appropriately for knowledgeable and ignorant partners. Cognition 108: 732–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onishi, K.H., and R. Baillargeon. 2005. Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308: 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perner, J. 1988. Developing semantics for theories of mind: From propositional attitudes to mental representation. In Developing theories of mind, ed. J.W. Astington, P.L. Harris, and D.R. Olson, 141–172. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perner, J. 1991. Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perner, J., and Horn, R. 2003. Knowledge or false negatives: Do children of 4 to 5 years simulate belief with “Not knowing = getting it wrong?” Journal of Cognition and Development 4: 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillow, B.H. 1989. Early understanding of perception as a source of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 47: 116–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin-Dubois, D., B. Sodian, U. Metz, J. Tilden, and B. Schoeppner. 2007. Out of sight is not out of mind: Developmental changes in infants’ understanding of visual perception during the second year. Journal of Cognition and Development 8: 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, C., and P. Bryant. 1990. Young children understand that looking leads to knowing (so long as they are looking into a single barrel). Child Development 61: 973–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premack, D., and G. Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1: 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, D., and Leslie, A.M. 1998. Solving belief problems: Toward a task analysis. Cognition 66: 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffman, T. 1996. Do children understand the mind by means of simulation or a theory? Evidence from their understanding of inference. Mind and Language 11: 388–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruffman, T., W. Garnham, A. Import, and D. Connelly. 2001. Does eye gaze indicate implicit knowledge of false belief? Charting transitions in knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 80: 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, R., S. Carey, and N. Kanwisher. 2004. Understanding other minds: Linking developmental psychology and functional neuroimaging. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 87–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R.M., and Baillargeon, R. 2009. Which penguin is this? Attributing false beliefs about object identity at 18 months. Child Development 80: 1172–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R.M., R. Baillargeon, H. Song, and A.M. Leslie. 2010. Attributing false beliefs about non-obvious properties at 18 months. Cognitive Psychology 61: 366–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senju, A., V. Southgate, S. White, and U. Frith. 2009. Mindblind eyes: An absence of spontaneous theory of mind in asperger syndrome. Science 325: 883–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., and R. Baillargeon. 2008. Infants’ reasoning about others’ false perceptions. Developmental Psychology 44: 1789–1795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., K. Onishi, R. Baillargeon, and C. Fisher. 2008. Can an agent’s false belief be corrected through an appropriate communication? Psychological reasoning in 18-month-old infants. Cognition 109: 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southgate, V., A. Senju, and G. Csibra. 2007. Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science 18: 587–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southgate, V., C. Chevallier, and G. Csibra. 2010. Seventeen-month-olds appeal to false beliefs to interpret others’ referential communication. Developmental Science 13: 907–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surian, L., S. Caldi, and D. Sperber. 2007. Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science 18: 580–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, H.M., D. Cross, and J. Watson. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child development 72: 655–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, H., and J. Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Fall 2009 seminar participants Caroline Appleton, Snjezana Huerta, Cecilea Mun, and Nick Smith for helpful and critical discussions of some of the topics presented in this paper. We would also like to thank Bernard Kobes, Eric Schwitzgebel, Victoria Southgate and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph A. Hedger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hedger, J.A., Fabricius, W.V. True Belief Belies False Belief: Recent Findings of Competence in Infants and Limitations in 5-Year-Olds, and Implications for Theory of Mind Development. Rev.Phil.Psych. 2, 429–447 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0069-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0069-9

Keywords

Navigation