Lecture 3: Individual Differences in TOM (2)

Lecture 3: Individual Differences in TOM (2)

1. Security of attachment & TOM...in babies a year or so old - some securely attached, some insecurely and some avoidant.

   • Those children who were securely attached perfromed significantly better at FB tasks at age 4 than those who were insecurely attached.
     • If you look at mothers with securely attached children - they look differently than mums with insecurely attached children.
       • Securely attached children - mums treat them as human beings who are conscious and have feelings - look at them psychologically as well as practically. Interact with them etc. promotes TOM
       • Insecurely attached children - mums treat them practically - they have stuff needing done for them wash/feed etc but don't treat them as a conscious being
     • FINDING HAS BEEN REPLICATED - AGAIN IS THIS TO DO WITH LANGUAGE ABILITY/CAUSAL TALK??

2. PERNER 1994 IMPACT OF SIBLINGS. Measured the number of brothers/sisters. A child that has more brothers/sisters seems to do better on FB tasks than those who do not have any siblings. More social experience. Strong statistical finding.

3. CHARLIE LEWIS 1996 - TOM & SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS.

   • Sig relationship between FB performance & a child having older siblings .001 - seems to be very helpful to developing a TOM
     • The effect of siblings not as sig with younger siblings (limitation of mental states) .005
       • Having adult family living nearby - helps
       • Older child kin - e.g. cousins helps
   • Being with older children/siblings etc social experiences seem important in bringing kids on. Unsure what it is about these relationships that helps - could be competitive relationships that drives TOM?
   • Other people living in household e.g. lodgers - doesn't make a difference. Hours watching tv and hours engaged in play - doesn't make a difference

4. JENKINS & ASTINGTON - EXAMINE IN DETAIL RELATIONSHIP OF TOM & LANGUAGE ABILITY VERBAL & NON-VERBAL, ALSO LOOKED AT NO. OF SIBLINGS

   • KEY FINDING - found sig relationship between language ability & FB tasks
   • Verbal working memory task & FB - add one more word onto sentence each time. Non-verbal test & FB- put objects on table in their original positions - add object each time
     • FINDING - lang ability good - do well in FB, good verbal ability - do well in FB, non-verbal ability no effect. BUT even kids with poor language if they had a lot of siblings seem to do well in FB.
       • CONCLUSION - language ability helps - but it is not the only variable that helps in FB & TOM. Need more than just lang to get TOM

5. SUMMARY so far - lots of factors contribute to FB, they contribute in different ways to different kids. There isn't a simple story of TOM that applies to all kids - different routes to acquiring TOM.

6. Individual differences in TOM matter? competent v.s incompetent does it matter when children get TOM at 4yrs 2mths vs 5yrs. any consequences in real world??

   • Astington - competence in social action. Found TOM matters in social interaction - to asign roles in play - seems to be facilitated in TOM
   • Slaughter - Peer Acceptance & FB understanding are related. However couldn't distangle FB/language - both involved in acceptance of peers??
   • Cassidy et al 2003 - mental state understanding & emotion understanding - related to social skills like taking turns, also popularity, also highly correlated with language skills
   • Slaughter 2013 - investigate link - persuasive behaviour & TOM. Child has to convince puppet to brush teeth/eat brocoli. 68 kids 3yrs +
     • FINDINGS - more persuasive argumnents if child had better TOM (controlled for age & verbal ability) TOM skills predict persuasive ability. ST - TOM helps
   • TOM - seems to benefit kids in ST. No LT consequences have been defined as of yet.