Skip to main content
Log in

Belief Files in Theory of Mind Reasoning

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

Abstract

Humans seem to readily track their conspecifics’ mental states, such as their goals and beliefs from early infancy. However, the underlying cognitive architecture that enables such powerful abilities remains unclear. Here I will propose that a basic representational structure, the belief file, could provide the foundation for efficiently encoding, and updating information about, others’ beliefs in online social interactions. I will discuss the representational possibilities offered by the belief file and the ways in which the repertoire of mental state reasoning is shaped by the characteristics of its constituents. A series of questions will be outlined concerning the representational skeleton of the belief file, sketching a possible structure that supports the rapid encoding and re-identification of belief related information (e.g., variables for the agent, as the belief holder and for the belief-content). After analyzing the possible limitations of the belief attribution system, I will examine some of its characteristics that might enable a flexibility that is often neglected. I will suggest that operations involving belief files are not impeded by the absence of precise first-person information regarding their contents. In fact, the system permits manipulations with “empty” belief files, allowing humans to ascribe beliefs to conspecifics based on little or no direct information regarding the content of the mental state. Such an analysis aims to advance our understanding of how spontaneous belief attribution may be performed, and to provide an insight into the possible mechanisms that allow humans to successfully navigate the social world.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here I will use the term belief files exclusively to refer to belief representations attributed to other people. In parallel, I will use the notion ‘first-person (or regular) representations’ to refer to one’s own representations about the environment.

  2. This does not entail that we cannot entertain the proposition “No one believes there is a marble in the box”, however, such computations might be outside the scope of belief tracking.

  3. Recanati (2012) has argued that that there can be so-called ‘unloaded’ attributed files that are not linked to the subject’s first-person files, such as for example in the case of attributing a belief to someone about Santa Claus in the case that the attributer does not believe in Santa Claus. However, one could argue that the observer should still have some kind of first-person mental file of Santa, based on which one can for instance answer the question whether Santa has a red coat – even apart from belief attribution.

References

  • Apperly, I.A., and S. Butterfill. 2009. Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review 116: 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apperly, I.A., D. Samson, C. Chiavarino, and G.W. Humphreys. 2004. Frontal and temporo-parietal lobe contributions to theory of mind: Neuropsychological evidence from a false-belief task with reduced language and executive demands. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 1773–1784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, C., A.M. Leslie, and U. Frith. 1985. Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’? Cognition 21: 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, P., and T.P. German. 2000. Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind. Cognition 77: B25–B31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfill, S., and I.A. Apperly. 2013. How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language 28: 606–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttleman, 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 

  • Call, J., and M. Tomasello. 1999. A nonverbal false belief task: The performance of children and great apes. Child Development 70: 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., and F. Xu. 2001. Infants’ knowledge of objects: Beyond object files and object tracking. Cognition 80: 179–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, P. 2013. Mindreading in infancy. Mind & Language 28: 141–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, L.C., and A. Newen. 2012. An association account of false-belief understanding. Cognition 123: 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. 2008. LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z., M. Bolz, and R. Baillargeon. 2012. 2.5-year-olds succeed at a verbal anticipatory looking false-belief task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 30: 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helming, K.A., B. Strickland and P. Jacob. 2015. Making sense of early false-belief understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Treisman. 1984. Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Varieties of attention, ed. R. Parasuraman and D. Davies, 29–61. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampis, D., E.Parise, G. Csibra and A.M. Kovács (under review). EEG evidence for similar mechanisms to represent others’ and own object representations in 8-month-old infants.

  • Kaufman, J., G. Csibra, and M.H. Johnson. 2003. Representing occluded objects in the human infant brain. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 270(Suppl 2): S140–S143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J., G. Csibra, and M.H. Johnson. 2005. Oscillatory activity in the infant brain reflects object maintenance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(42): 15271–15274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, B., and U. Liszkowski. 2012. 18-Month-Olds predict specific action mistakes through attribution of false belief, not ignorance, and intervene accordingly. Infancy 17: 672–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovács, Á. M. (under review). Decomposing theory of mind: Belief files and further functional sub-components.

  • Kovács, Á.M., E. Téglás, and A.D. Endress. 2010. The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science 330: 1830–1834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovács, Á.M., S. Kuehn, G. Gergely, G. Csibra, and M. Brass. 2014. Are all beliefs equal? Implicit belief attributions recruiting core brain regions of theory of mind. PLoS ONE 9: e106558. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106558.

    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. 1988. Some implications of pretense for mechanisms underlying the child’s theory of mind. In Developing theories of mind, ed. J. Astington, P. Harris, and D. Olson, 19–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, A.M., F. Xu, P. Tremoulet, and B. Scholl. 1998. Indexing and the object concept: Developing ‘what’ and ‘where’ systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2: 10–18.

    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., and J. Roessler. 2012. From infants’ to children’s appreciation of belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16: 519–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perner, J., and T. Ruffman. 2005. Infant’s insight into the mind: How deep? Science 308: 214–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perner, J., B. Rendl, and A. Garnham. 2007. Objects of desire, thought, and reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind & Language 22: 475–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premack, D. G., & Woodruff, G. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral & Brain Sciences 1: 515–526. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00076512.

  • Pylyshyn, Z.W. 2001. Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision. Cognition 80: 127–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, H. 2012. Do infants have a theory of mind? British Journal of Developmental Psychology 30: 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. 2012. Mental files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio Fernandez, P. 2013. Perspective tracking in progress: Do not disturb. Cognition 129: 264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, R., and N. Kanwisher. 2003. People thinking about thinking people. The role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind”. NeuroImage 19: 1835–1842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D., A.P. Bayliss, S.I. Becker, and P.E. Dux. 2012. Eye movements reveal sustained implicit processing of others’ mental states. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141: 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, B.J., and A. Leslie. 1999. Explaining the infant’s object concept: Beyond the perception/cognition dichotomy. In What is cognitive science? ed. E. Lepore and Z. Pylyshyn, 26–73. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, B.J., and A.M. Leslie. 2001. Minds, modules, and metaanalysis. Child Development 72: 696–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, B.J., and Z.W. Pylyshyn. 1999. Tracking multiple objects through occlusion: Clues to visual objecthood. Cognitive Psychology 38: 259–280.

    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 

  • Southgate, V., A. Senju, and G. Csibra. 2007. Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science 18: 587–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surian, L., S. Caldi, and D. Sperber. 2007. Attribution of beliefs to 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 the containing function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC starting grant (284236-REPCOLLAB).We thank E. Téglás, O. Mascaro, J. Michael, A. Major, G. Bródy, D. Kampis, M. Freundlieb, R. Shamsudheen, the CDC members and an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ágnes Melinda Kovács.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kovács, Á.M. Belief Files in Theory of Mind Reasoning. Rev.Phil.Psych. 7, 509–527 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0236-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0236-5

Keywords

Navigation