CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 420Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

When representations conflict with reality: The preschooler's problem with false beliefs and “false” photographs

Zaitchik, D·1990·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90036-j
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It has been argued that young preschoolers cannot correctly attribute a false belief to a deceived actor (Wimmer & Perner, 1983). Some researchers claim that the problem lies in the child's inadequate epistemology (Chandler & Boyes, 1982; Wellman, 1988); as such, it is specific to the child's theory of mind and no such problem should appear in reasoning about nonmental representations. This prediction is tested below in the "false photograph" task: here an actor takes a photograph of an object in location X; the object is then moved to location Y. Preschool subjects are asked: "In the picture, where is the object?" Results indicate that photographs are no easier to reason about than are beliefs. Manipulations to boost performance on the photograph task proved ineffective. Further, an explanation of the failure as a processing limitation having nothing to do with the representational nature of beliefs or photographs was ruled out. It is argued that young children's failure on the false belief task is not due to an inadequate epistemology (though they may have one) and is symptomatic of a larger problem with representations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90036-j

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • False photographs and false maps provide a well-matched control for false beliefs in terms of logical and inhibitory demands, as well as reading times and syntactic complexity, but do not recruit the RTPJ.

    “False photographs and false maps provide a well-matched control for false beliefs in terms of logical and inhibitory demands, as well as reading times and syntactic complexity, but do not recruit the RTPJ [2], [3], [23].”

    From Distinct Regions of Right Temporo-Parietal Junction Are Selective for Theory of Mind and Exogenous Attention (2009) · cites this paper as [23]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zaitchik, D.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Zaitchik, D
ORCID
Zaitchik, D
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-04
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
41-68
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0010-0277(90)90036-j
OpenAlex
W2019464882
Cited by
420
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
62.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
false belief understanding, theory of mind, preschool children, epistemology, deception
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Concept Formation, Conflict, Psychological, Discrimination Learning, Ego, Female, Form Perception, Humans, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Reality Testing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review