Do infants understand false beliefs? We don't know yet - A commentary on Baillargeon, Buttelmann and Southgate's commentary

被引：77

作者：

Poulin-Dubois, Diane ^{[1
]}

Rakoczy, Hannes ^{[2
]}

Burnside, Kimberly ^{[1
]}

Crivello, Cristina ^{[1
]}

Doerenberg, Sebastian ^{[3
]}

Edwards, Katheryn ^{[4
]}

Krist, Horst ^{[5
]}

Kulke, Louisa ^{[2
]}

Liszkowski, Ulf ^{[3
]}

Low, Jason ^{[4
]}

Perner, Josef ^{[6
]}

Powell, Lindsey ^{[7
]}

Priewasser, Beate ^{[6
]}

Rafetseder, Eva ^{[8
]}

Ruffman, Ted ^{[9
]}

机构：

[1] Concordia Univ, Montreal, PQ, Canada

[2] Univ Gottingen, Gottingen, Germany

[3] Univ Hamburg, Montreal, PQ, Canada

[4] Victoria Univ Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

[5] Univ Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

[6] Univ Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

[7] MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA

[8] Univ Stirling, Stirling, Scotland

[9] Univ Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

来源：

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT | 2018年 / 48卷

关键词：

IMPLICIT THEORY; OBJECT IDENTITY; MIND; REPLICATIONS; ATTRIBUTION;

D O I：

10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.09.005

中图分类号：

B844 [发展心理学（人类心理学）];

学科分类号：

040202 ;

摘要：

The commentary by Baillargeon, Buttelmann and Southgate raises a number of crucial issues concerning the replicability and validity of measures of false belief in infancy. Although we agree with some of their arguments, we believe that they underestimate the replication crisis in this area. In our response to their commentary, we first analyze the current empirical situation. The upshot is that, given the available evidence, it remains very much an open question whether infants possess a rich theory of mind. We then draw out more general conclusions for future collaborative studies that have the potential to address this open question.

引用

页码：302 / 315

页数：14

共 55 条

[1] How to help: Can more active behavioral measures help transcend the infant false-belief debate? [J].