scholarly journals Visible Social Interactions Do Not Support the Development of False Belief Understanding in the Absence of Linguistic Input: Evidence from Deaf Adult Homesigners

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deanna L. Gagne ◽  
Marie Coppola
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
False Belief ◽  
False Belief Understanding ◽  
Linguistic Input

scholarly journals The Developmental Origins of False-Belief Understanding

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rose M. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
False Belief ◽  
Developmental Origins ◽  
False Beliefs ◽  
Older Children ◽  
False Belief Understanding ◽  
Human Ability ◽  
The World

Understanding that individuals can be mistaken, or hold false beliefs, about the world is an important human ability that plays a vital role in social interactions. When and how does this ability develop? Traditional investigations using elicited-response tasks suggested that false-belief understanding did not emerge until at least age 4. However, more recent studies have shown that children demonstrate false-belief understanding much earlier when tested via other means. In the present article, I summarize recent evidence that a robust, flexible understanding of false belief emerges in infancy and discuss why older children fail elicited-response tasks despite their ability to represent beliefs.

Pragmatic Language Performance of Children Adopted Internationally

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 501-514
Author(s):  
Deborah A. Hwa-Froelich ◽  
Hisako Matsuo
Keyword(s):  
Social Communication ◽  
False Belief ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Emotion Identification ◽  
False Belief Understanding ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Pragmatic Communication ◽  
Eastern European Countries

Purpose Pragmatic language is important for social communication across all settings. Children adopted internationally (CAI) may be at risk of poorer pragmatic language because of adverse early care, delayed adopted language development, and less ability to inhibit. The purpose of this study was to compare pragmatic language performance of CAI from Asian and Eastern European countries with a nonadopted group of children who were of the same age and from similar socioeconomic backgrounds as well as explore the relationship among emotion identification, false belief understanding, and inhibition variables with pragmatic language performance. Method Using a quasi-experimental design, 35 four-year-old CAI (20 Asian, 15 Eastern European) and 33 children who were not adopted were included in this study. The children's pragmatic language, general language, and social communication (emotion identification of facial expressions, false belief understanding, inhibition) were measured. Comparisons by region of origin and adoption experience were completed. We conducted split-half correlation analyses and entered significant correlation variables into simple and backward regression models. Results Pragmatic language performance differed by adoption experience. The adopted and nonadopted groups demonstrated different correlation patterns. Language performance explained most of the pragmatic language variance. Discussion Because CAI perform less well than their nonadopted peers on pragmatic communication measures and different variables are related to their pragmatic performance, speech-language pathologists may need to adapt assessment and intervention practices for this population.

The Role of Strategic Planning in Accessing False-Belief Understanding

1996 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 2948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Hala ◽  
Michael Chandler
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Planning ◽  
False Belief ◽  
False Belief Understanding

Do bilingual and monolingual preschoolers acquire false belief understanding similarly? The role of executive functioning and language

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Diaz ◽  
M. Jeffrey Farrar
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functioning ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Language Ability ◽  
False Belief ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Short Term ◽  
False Belief Understanding

Bilingual children often show advanced executive functioning (EF) and false belief (FB) understanding compared to monolinguals. The latter has been attributed to their enhanced inhibitory control EF, although this has only been examined in a single study which did not confirm this hypothesis. The current study examined the relation of EF and language proficiency on FB reasoning in bilingual and monolingual preschoolers to answer two questions: (1) Are there differences in bilinguals’ and monolinguals’ FB, language proficiency, and EF? If so, (2) is there a differential role for language proficiency and EF in predicting FB reasoning in these two groups? Thirty-two Spanish–English bilinguals and 33 English monolinguals (three to five years old) were compared. While monolinguals outperformed bilinguals on language proficiency, after controlling for this, bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on FB reasoning, and marginally on EF. General language ability was related to FB performance in both groups, while short-term memory and inhibitory control predicted FB only for monolinguals.

scholarly journals Labelling Improves False Belief Understanding. A Training Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabet Serrat Sellabona ◽  
Carles Rostan Sánchez ◽  
Eduard Vallès Majoral ◽  
Moisès Esteban Guitart ◽  
Francesc Sidera Caballero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Belief ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Training Study ◽  
Linguistic Experience ◽  
Training Conditions ◽  
Remarkable Improvement ◽  
False Belief Understanding ◽  
Post Test ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractA total of 104 children aged between 41 and 47 months were selected to study the relationship between language and false belief understanding. Participants were assigned to four different training conditions: discourse, labelling, control (all with deceptive objects), and sentential complements (involving non-deceptive objects). Post-test results showed an improvement in children’s false belief understanding in the discourse and the labelling conditions, but not in the sentential complements with non-deceptive objects or the control group. Furthermore, the most remarkable improvement in false belief understanding occurred in the labelling group. These results suggest that some types of linguistic experience promote the development of false belief understanding, provided that differing perspectives are confronted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document