Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33319503›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science2021

Infants' performance in the indirect false belief tasks: A second-person interpretation.

Pamela Barone, Antoni Gomila

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Pamela BaroneDepartment of Psychology, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1273-199X
Antoni GomilaDepartment of Psychology, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7325-961X

Funding

Spanish Government (AEI, FEDER, EU) FFI2017-86351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research in the last 15 years has challenged the idea that false belief attribution develops at 4 years of age. Studies with indirect false belief tasks contend to provide evidence of false belief attribution in the second year of life. We review the literature on indirect false belief tasks carried out in infants using looking and active helping paradigms. Although the results are heterogeneous and not conclusive, such tasks appear to capture a real effect. However, it is misleading to call them "false belief" tasks, as it is possible to pass them without making any false belief attribution. Infants need to keep track of the object's and agent's positions, trajectories, and focus of attention, given an intentional understanding of the agent, to pass these new tasks. We, therefore, argue that the evidence can be better explained in terms of second-person attributions, which are transparent, extensional, nonpropositional, reciprocally contingent, and implicit. Second-person attributions can also account for primates' mentalizing abilities, as revealed by similar indirect tasks. This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Cognitive Development Philosophy > Foundations of Cognitive Science Cognitive Biology > Evolutionary Roots of Cognition.

Indexed as

AttentionComprehensionChild DevelopmentConcept FormationDeceptionHumansInfantSocial Perceptionfalse belieffalse belief attributionindirect false belief tasksintentional understandingmentalizingsecond-person attribution

Identifiers

PMID33319503
PMCPMC9285846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.