The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From infants’ to children's appreciation of belief
Open accessAbstract
Evidence is accumulating that infants are sensitive to people's false beliefs, whereas children pass the standard false belief test at around 4 years of age. Debate currently centres on the nature of early and late understanding. We defend the view that early sensitivity to false beliefs shown in 'online tasks' (where engagement with ongoing events reflects an expectation of what will happen without a judgement that it will happen) reflects implicit/unconscious social knowledge of lawful regularities. The traditional false belief task requires explicit consideration of the agent's subjective perspective on his reasons for action. This requires an intentional switch of perspectives not possible before 4 years of age as evidenced by correlations between the false belief task and many different perspective-taking tasks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Action Anticipation Through Attribution of False Belief by 2-Year-Olds
Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01944.x · Cited by 1,066
False-belief understanding in infants
Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., & He, Z. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006 · Cited by 1,030
Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm
Buttelmann, D., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.006 · Cited by 701
Cited by
Fractionating theory of mind: a meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies
Schurz, M., Radua, J., Aichhorn, M., Richlan, F., & Perner, J. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009 · Cited by 1,656
Self-citationAutomaticity in social-cognitive processes
Bargh, J. A., Schwader, K. L., Hailey, S. E., Dyer, R. L., & Boothby, E. J. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.002 · Cited by 375
Towards a cognitive neuroscience of self-awareness
Lou, H. C., Changeux, J. P., & Rosenstand, A. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.004 · Cited by 131
Santiesteban, I., Banissy, M. J., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2015) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.13036 · Cited by 107
Dricu, M., & Frühholz, S. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.020 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Perner, J., & Roessler, J.
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 519-525
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150999739
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
