Individual differences in theory of mind in middle childhood and adolescence
Abstract
For more than two decades, researchers have documented striking individual differences in children’s understanding of others’ minds. The extension of research on theory of mind into middle childhood and adolescence provides a new opportunity to consider the nature, measurement, and consequences of individual differences in theory of mind. This chapter evaluates the claim that there are genuine (i.e., stable differences between children) and meaningful (i.e., with consequences for children’s social lives) individual differences in theory of mind in early and middle childhood. The chapter draws on three sources of evidence: (1) studies adopting theory of mind task batteries to investigate individual differences in children’s mindreading; (2) a new meta-analysis of 76 longitudinal studies of the rank-order stability of individual differences in theory of mind in early and middle childhood; and (3) longitudinal data examining the association between individual differences in theory of mind and social competence in middle childhood. The chapter builds on contemporary measurement theory to identify promising avenues for future research on the nature of individual differences in theory of mind.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The findings extend the existing literature by showing further evidence for rank-order stability in individual differences in ToM, suggesting that variation in theory-of-mind performance is genuine.
“The fi ndings also extend the existing literature by showing further evidence for rank-order stability in individual differences in ToM (e.g., Devine, 2021), suggesting that variation in theory-of-mind performance is genuine.”
From Longitudinal development of theory of mind in adolescence and its associations with fiction reading experience. (2025) · cites this paper as Devine, 2021
Theory of mind ability continues to improve during adolescence.
“a time in children ' s lives where ToM ability continues to improve (e.g., Devine, 2021)”
From Longitudinal development of theory of mind in adolescence and its associations with fiction reading experience. (2025) · cites this paper as Devine, 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
van der Kleij, S. W., Devine, R. T., Shapiro, L. R., Ricketts, J., & Apperly, I. (2025) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0001965 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Devine, R. T.
- Corresponding author
- Devine, Rory T.
- ORCID
- Devine, Rory T.
- Venue
- Theory of Mind in Middle Childhood and Adolescence
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2021-04-27
- Pages
- 55-76
- OpenAlex
- W4246769077
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 36.56
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Keywords
- theory of mind, individual differences, middle childhood, adolescence, rank-order stability, social competence, measurement theory, children's social cognition
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
