Mistaken max befriends Duplo girl: No difference between a standard and an acted-out false belief task.

Beate Priewasser, Franziska Fowles, Katharina Schweller, Josef Perner

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental child psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Pragmatics in the False-Belief Task: Let the Robot Ask the Question!Frontiers in psychology · 2020
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Beate PriewasserCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria. Electronic address: beate.priewasser@sbg.ac.at.

Franziska FowlesCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.

Katharina SchwellerCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.

Josef PernerCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF I 3518

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With their Duplo task, Rubio-Fernández and Geurts (2013) challenged the assumption that children under 4 years of age cannot pass the standard false belief test. In an attempt to replicate this task on a sample of 73 children aged 32-51 months, we added a standard change of location false belief task as well as a Duplo true belief task. Performance on the latter is crucial for interpreting answers in the Duplo false belief task as to whether they reflect evidence for understanding or merely exhibit a difference in guessing rate. We found (a) a greater variability of response types in both Duplo tasks, (b) no evidence that responses in the Duplo tasks reveal earlier competence than those in the standard false belief test, and (c) a reassuring correlation between false belief tasks, suggesting that the Duplo task does pick up understanding of belief in light of the standard test.

Indexed as

ChildChild DevelopmentChild, PreschoolComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleTheory of MindActed-out false belief tasksCognitive developmentFalse belief understandingImplicit false beliefSocial cognitionTheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID31865246

DOI10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104756

PMCPMC7104353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.