Early Work on TOM Lecture 1 (2)

Early Work on TOM Lecture 1 (2)

1. Simpler deception tasks? e.g. Jeremy trying to decieve his mother to get a cookie. 3year olds aren't very good at deception.

2. HOW IS THIS SHIFT EXPLAINED?

   • Robust pattern of findings. 3 year olds mismatch what is in people's heads & what's in reality.
     • Explanations? (1) Russell's Executive Function Account, (2) Mitchell's Reality Masking Theory, (3) Wellman's Theory of Mind Theory

3. RUSSELL 1992 EXECUTIVE FUNCTION ACCOUNT. False Belief Task - involves a high level of inhibitory skill. E.g. Smarties Task, involves inhibition of our own knowledge. Need to squash knowledge and reflect on other person's ignorance. Executive function must be part of it.

4. MITCHELL 1996 - REALITY MASKING THEORY. Children are drawn to reality - what is real and observable. They are not interested in the non-observable. Can't see people's mental states. Reality holds magnetism - attention grabbing. Kids are drawn to state of reality. Because of this children fail at FB tasks, they look at the state of reality to give answers rather than the mental states

5. 1990 WELLMAN'S THEORY, TOM THEORY. (COPY CONTAINTER TOM). 3yr olds have a different TOM to 4yr olds. Minds make copies of external world, the mind mirrors reality. The mind copies the state of reality and contains it. Wellman thought 3yr olds might have a simplified TOM. containing information - copy & contain. 4yr olds - TOM representational - forms representations that may or may not mirror reality - representations can be wrong.

6. These Theoretical ecplanations of children's failure at FB any good? Any testable implications?

   • Executive Function Account - Yes - we could minimise the inhibitory component, relieve children of own true knowledge to encourage better performance
   • Reality Masking Theory - Yes - boost salience of mental states, make them more physical, should help children to do better.
   • Wellman's TOM theory - No implications aren't testable. Only describing what children do in FB, they copy state of relaity.

7. THEORIES OF TOM. What is the nature of TOM? Is it really a theory? What are the different theories that have tried to say what TOM is ? (1) Theory Theory, (2) Simulation Theory, (3) Modular Theory.

   • THEORY THEORY. (MORTON 1980, WELLMAN, 1990, PERNER, 1995). TOM - conceptual framework - provides a way to predict & explain behaviour
   • SIMULATION THEORY (JOHNSON 1988, HARRIS 1992) Disagrees with Theory Theory. Says we don't have a theory and don't need one. We personally experience mental states - How do I feel? How would I feel?
     • HOWEVER...There are big problems - sometimes our understandng goes beyond personal experience. We can talk about things as if we had experienced them when we haven't and are only theoretically aware. We actually aren't that good at predicting our own behaviour e.g. Milgram Study.
   • MODULAR THEORY (FODOR 1983, LESLIE 1987). The human is made up of modules. We have specialised modules in the mind - some are innate, some are ones that deal with numbers, some deal with language, some deal wirh TOM.
     • Some people have good functioning modules, some have poor functioning modules.
       • Children with Autism have a poor functioning TOM.
         • This theory has a biological slant - acquired mental machinery - specialised - processing information about mental states