The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Theory of Mind and Self-Control: More than a Common Problem of Inhibition
Abstract
This study tested the theory that advances on theory-of-mind tasks and on executive function tasks show a strong correlation because the typically used theory-of-mind tasks pose the same executive demands. In Experiment 1 with fifty-six 3- to 6-year-old children, performance on the dimensional change card-sorting task as an executive function task was correlated with performance on the usual false-belief prediction task, r= .65, and the false-belief explanation task, r= .65, as measures of theory-of-mind development. Because the explanation version of the false-belief test is supposed to be free of the alleged executive demands inherent in the prediction version, the equally strong correlation with the executive function task suggests that this correlation cannot be due to common executive demands. In Experiment 2, the basic finding of Experiment 1 was replicated on another sample of 73 children, ages 3 to 5.5 years. The need for new theories to explain the developmental link between theory of mind and executive function development is discussed, and some existing candidates are evaluated.
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
Wimmer, H. (1983) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 · Cited by 6,305
Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control and Children's Theory of Mind
Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00333 · Cited by 2,072
The cognitive neuropsychology of schizophrenia
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-0601 · Cited by 1,901
Executive function deficits in high-functioning autistic individuals: Relationship to theory of mind
Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. F., & Rogers, S. J. (1991) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1991.tb00351.x · Cited by 1,766
Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D., & Palfai, T. (1995) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/0885-2014(95)90024-1 · Cited by 923
Cited by
Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework.
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31 · Cited by 2,695
Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x · Cited by 1,388
Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x · Cited by 1,248
Executive function and theory of mind: Stability and prediction from ages 2 to 3.
Carlson, S. M., Mandell, D. J., & Williams, L. (2004) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1105 · Cited by 684
How to Construct a Minimal Theory of Mind
BUTTERFILL, S. A., & APPERLY, I. A. (2013) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/mila.12036 · Cited by 623
Metadata
- Authors
- Perner, J., Lang, B., & Kloo, D.
- Venue
- Child Development
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-05-01
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 752-767
- ISSN
- 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8624
- OpenAlex
- W2160194861
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 28.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Theory of Mind and Self-Control: More than a Common Problem of Inhibition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-8624.00436
- The paper
- Perner, J., Lang, B., & Kloo, D. (2002). Theory of Mind and Self-Control: More than a Common Problem of Inhibition. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00436
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.