Do infants bind mental states to agents?

被引:18
|
作者
Kampis, Dora [1 ,2 ]
Somogyi, Eszter [2 ]
Itakura, Shoji [3 ]
Kiraly, Ildiko [2 ]
机构
[1] Hungarian Acad Sci, Inst Cognit Neurosci & Psychol, Res Ctr Nat Sci, H-1394 Budapest, Hungary
[2] Eotvos Lorand Univ, Dept Cognit Psychol, H-1064 Budapest, Hungary
[3] Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Letters, Dept Psychol, Sakyo Ku, Kyoto 6068501, Japan
关键词
Action perception; Infants; Belief attribution; Preferential choice; FALSE BELIEFS; OTHERS; GOAL; ATTRIBUTION; OBJECT; SEE;
D O I
10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.004
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Recent findings suggest that infants understand others' preferential choice and can use the perspectives and beliefs of others to interpret their actions. The standard interpretation in the field is that infants understand preferential choice as a dispositional state of the agent. It is possible, however, that these social situations trigger the acquisition of more general, not person-specific knowledge. In a looking-time study we showed an Agent A demonstrating a choice, that only could have been interpreted as preferential based on the perspective (and thus the belief) of the agent, not the observer. Then we introduced a new agent (Agent B), who chose consistently or inconsistently with Agent A; also varying whether Agent B was an adult or a child. Results show that infants expected Agent B (both the adult and the child) to choose as Agent A, but only in the condition where according to Agent A's knowledge two objects were present in familiarization(confirming previous evidence on the importance of contrastive choice). We interpret these results in the following way: (1) infants do not encode the perspectives of other agents as person-specific sources of knowledge and (2) they learn about the object, rather than the agent's disposition towards that object. We propose that early theory of mind processes lack the binding of belief content to the belief holder. However, such limitation may in fact serve an important function, allowing infants to acquire information through the perspectives of others in the form of universal access to general information. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:232 / 240
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] ANECDOTES, TRAINING, TRAPPING AND TRIANGULATING - DO ANIMALS ATTRIBUTE MENTAL STATES
    HEYES, CM
    ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 1993, 46 (01) : 177 - 188
  • [22] Do mental states have their semantic properties? - Putnam's response
    Nosek, J
    FILOSOFICKY CASOPIS, 2001, 49 (03): : 395 - 402
  • [23] Do Infants Really Expect Agents to Act Efficiently? A Critical Test of the Rationality Principle
    Scott, Rose M.
    Baillargeon, Renee
    PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2013, 24 (04) : 466 - 474
  • [24] MENTAL STATES AS MENTAL
    JOHNSEN, BC
    PHILOSOPHIA, 1994, 23 (1-4) : 223 - 245
  • [25] Do similar ligands bind in a similar fashion?
    Bostrom, Jonas
    Hogner, Anders
    Schmitt, Stefan
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2005, 230 : U1357 - U1358
  • [26] AMANITINS DO NOT BIND TO SERUM-ALBUMIN
    FIUME, L
    SPERTI, S
    MONTANARO, L
    BUSI, C
    COSTANTINO, D
    LANCET, 1977, 1 (8021): : 1111 - 1111
  • [27] Weak Ties that Bind Do Commutes Bind Montreal's Central and Suburban Economies?
    Shearmur, Richard
    Motte, Benjamin
    URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW, 2009, 44 (04) : 490 - 524
  • [28] How do Co-agents Actively Regulate their Collective Behavior States?
    Bourbousson, Jerome
    Fortes-Bourbousson, Marina
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 7
  • [29] DO QUINOLONES BIND TO DNA - YES - REPLY
    SHEN, LL
    BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 1989, 38 (12) : 2042 - 2044
  • [30] Do the Law Lords bind lower courts?
    Jones, Oliver
    AUSTRALIAN LAW JOURNAL, 2013, 87 (06):