Are Infants’ Theory-of-Mind Abilities Well Integrated? Implicit Understanding of Intentions, Desires, and Beliefs

AbstractThe development of theory of mind (ToM) in infancy has been mainly documented through studies conducted on a single age group with a single task. Very few studies have examined ToM abilities other than false belief, and very few studies have used a within-subjects design. During 2 testing sessions, infants aged 14 and 18 months old were administered ToM tasks based on the violation-of-expectation paradigm which measured intention, true belief, desire, and false-belief understanding. Infants’ looking times at the congruent and incongruent test trials of each task were compared, and results revealed that both groups of infants looked significantly longer at the incongruent trial on the intention and true-belief tasks. In contrast, only 18-month-olds looked significantly longer at the incongruent trial of the desire task and neither age group looked significantly longer at the incongruent trial on the false-belief task. Additionally, intertask comparisons revealed only a significant relation between performance on the false-belief and intention task. These findings suggest that implicit intention and true-belief understanding emerge earlier than desire and false-belief understanding and that ToM constructs do not appear to be integrated, as is the case for explicit ToM. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Josée-Anne Bécotte, Cristina Crivello, Janice La Giorgia, Katherine Gittins, Sara Phillips, Monyka Rodrigues, and Ioanna Solomatina in data collection and coding. Finally, the authors would like to express their gratitude to the research participants whose contribution made this project possible.FUNDINGThis research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. In addition, this research was indirectly supported by the Centre for Research in Human Development.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. In addition, this research was indirectly supported by the Centre for Research in Human Development.