Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAllen, J. W. P.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-05T05:56:24Z
dc.date.available2019-02-05T05:56:24Z
dc.date.issued2015en_US
dc.identifier.issn0732-118X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/48834
dc.description.abstractThe use of looking time procedures for the claim that infants understand other's false-beliefs has drawn criticism. In response, Buttelmann, Carpenter, and Tomasello (2009) have argued for the use of a more active behavioral measure involving children's willingness to help others. However, the current study challenges Buttelmann et al.’s response on both theoretical and methodological grounds. Theoretically, Buttelmann et al. take a mindreading framework for granted and are thus committed to the same type of “rich” interpretations that have accompanied infant looking procedures more broadly. Methodologically, the current study challenges Buttelmann et al.’s interpretation that children were using the adult's false-belief to determine how to help in this paradigm. To test our alternative perspective, mentalistic and non-mentalistic interpretations of preschooler's helping behavior were compared. In the original study, the adult's false-belief was conflated with the playing of a trick. When these two factors were separated, children's helping behavior was not consistent with the adult's false-belief. Second, when the situation was characterized in terms of a hiding scenario (instead of playing a trick), older children altered their helping behavior accordingly. Together, these results provided evidence that children in the active-helping paradigm did not use the adult's false-belief to determine how to help and that the broader social situation is an important variable for understanding other's actions. In conclusion, the use of more active behavioral measures alone does not resolve the controversy that has played out with respect to infant looking procedures. Instead, any adequate methodological modifications must be accompanied by theoretical considerations as well.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleNew Ideas in Psychologyen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.07.008en_US
dc.subjectAction-based frameworken_US
dc.subjectFalse-beliefen_US
dc.subjectMindreading frameworken_US
dc.subjectPreschoolersen_US
dc.subjectSocial situationsen_US
dc.titleHow to help: can more active behavioral measures help transcend the infant false-belief debate?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Psychologyen_US
dc.citation.spage63en_US
dc.citation.epage72en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber39en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.07.008en_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ltden_US
dc.identifier.eissn1873-3522


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record