Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks
Falck, Andreas LU ; Brinck, Ingar LU
and Lindgren, Magnus
LU
(2014)
In Frontiers in Psychology
5(23).
- Abstract
- In the debate about how to interpret Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) based false-belief experiments, it has been suggested that infants are predicting the actions of the agent based on more or less sophisticated cognitive means. We present an alternative, more parsimonious interpretation, exploring the possibility that the infants’ reactions are not governed by rational expectation but rather of memory strength due to differences in the allocation of cognitive resources earlier in the experiment. Specifically, it is argued that 1) infants’ have a tendency to find more interest in events that observed agents are attending to as opposed to unattended events (‘interest contagion’), 2) the object-location configurations that result from such... (More)
- In the debate about how to interpret Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) based false-belief experiments, it has been suggested that infants are predicting the actions of the agent based on more or less sophisticated cognitive means. We present an alternative, more parsimonious interpretation, exploring the possibility that the infants’ reactions are not governed by rational expectation but rather of memory strength due to differences in the allocation of cognitive resources earlier in the experiment. Specifically, it is argued that 1) infants’ have a tendency to find more interest in events that observed agents are attending to as opposed to unattended events (‘interest contagion’), 2) the object-location configurations that result from such interesting events are remembered more strongly by the infants, and 3) the VoE contrast arises as a consequence of the difference in memory strength between more and less interesting object-location configurations. We discuss two published experiments, one which we argue that our model can explain (Kovács, Téglás & Endress 2010), and one which we argue cannot be readily explained by our model (Onishi & Baillargeon 2005). (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/4221758
- author
- Falck, Andreas
LU
; Brinck, Ingar
LU
and Lindgren, Magnus
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2014
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- interest contagion, false belief, theory of mind, memory, attention, development
- in
- Frontiers in Psychology
- volume
- 5
- issue
- 23
- publisher
- Frontiers Media S. A.
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:24523706
- wos:000331264900001
- scopus:84893630409
- pmid:24523706
- ISSN
- 1664-1078
- DOI
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023
- project
- From interest contagion to perspective sharing - How social attention affects children's performance in false-belief tasks
- Thinking in Time: Cognition, Communication and Learning
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 1faf4f73-7025-4569-9a00-05475ed31bee (old id 4221758)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 13:31:50
- date last changed
- 2022-05-15 05:46:04
@article{1faf4f73-7025-4569-9a00-05475ed31bee,
abstract = {{In the debate about how to interpret Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) based false-belief experiments, it has been suggested that infants are predicting the actions of the agent based on more or less sophisticated cognitive means. We present an alternative, more parsimonious interpretation, exploring the possibility that the infants’ reactions are not governed by rational expectation but rather of memory strength due to differences in the allocation of cognitive resources earlier in the experiment. Specifically, it is argued that 1) infants’ have a tendency to find more interest in events that observed agents are attending to as opposed to unattended events (‘interest contagion’), 2) the object-location configurations that result from such interesting events are remembered more strongly by the infants, and 3) the VoE contrast arises as a consequence of the difference in memory strength between more and less interesting object-location configurations. We discuss two published experiments, one which we argue that our model can explain (Kovács, Téglás & Endress 2010), and one which we argue cannot be readily explained by our model (Onishi & Baillargeon 2005).}},
author = {{Falck, Andreas and Brinck, Ingar and Lindgren, Magnus}},
issn = {{1664-1078}},
keywords = {{interest contagion; false belief; theory of mind; memory; attention; development}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{23}},
publisher = {{Frontiers Media S. A.}},
series = {{Frontiers in Psychology}},
title = {{Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/3432049/4361973.pdf}},
doi = {{10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023}},
volume = {{5}},
year = {{2014}},
}