Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1682–1691 | Cite as

Relations between Temperament and False Belief Understanding in the Preschool Age

  • Giulia Pecora
  • Elsa Addessi
  • Melania Paoletti
  • Francesca Bellagamba
Original Paper
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that Theory of Mind (ToM) is related to some aspects of children's temperament. Specifically, recent studies have shown that false belief understanding is positively related to shyness and withdrawn behavior and negatively associated with aggressive conduct. However, still little is known about which other aspects of temperament are related to children's ability to understand others' mental states. In the present study, we aimed to investigate relations between false belief understanding and temperament in preschool children. In the first phase of our research (T1), we administered a false belief task to 101 3- and 4- year-old Italian children. In the second phase (T2), 69 children belonging to the original sample were assessed again at 5 and 6 years of age, and their temperament was evaluated through parental ratings. Correlational analyses and independent-samples t-tests revealed significant positive relations of false belief understanding to inhibitory control and negative relations to motor activity/hyperactivity and anger/frustration (even though the latter was only marginal), whereas no relation was found to attention control. These results confirm and extend findings from previous studies. Unexpectedly, we did not find any significant association with shyness, despite evidence to the contrary from recent research. Overall, our findings show that false belief understanding relates differently to various dimensions of temperament in the preschool period and highlight the importance of conducting further investigation on the relation between ToM and temperament.

Keywords

Theory of mind False belief understanding Temperament Children Preschool age 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the coordinators and the teachers of the daycare centres where children were recruited and the parents of children who participated in the study. We thank Dr. Fabio Presaghi and Dr. Stefania Sette for their statistical advice, Dr. Lucy Roncato for the proofreading of the manuscript, and the reviewer for the insightful suggestions.

Author Contributions

G.P.: collaborated with the design of the study, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. E.A.: designed the study, assisted with the data analyses, and collaborated with the writing of the study. F.B.: designed the study, assisted with the data analyses, and collaborated with the writing of the study. M.P.: performed the experiments and collaborated with the writing of the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

We disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and declare that our work has not been published previously, that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and that all procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Italian Ethics Committee of the Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology of Sapienza, University of Rome. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. Addessi, E., Bellagamba, F., Delfino, A., De Petrillo, F., Focaroli, V., Macchitella, L., & Paglieri, F. (2014). Waiting by mistake: Symbolic representation of rewards modulates intertemporal choice in capuchin monkeys, preschool children and adult humans. Cognition, 130, 428–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Astington, J. W., & Gopnik, A. (1991). Theoretical explanations of children’s understanding of the mind. Developmental Psychology, 9, 7–31.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1991.tb00859.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21, 37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellagamba, F., Addessi, E., Focaroli, V., Pecora, G., Maggiorelli, V., Pace, B., & Paglieri, F. (2015). False belief understanding and “cool” inhibitory control in 3-and 4-year-old Italian children. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 872  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00872.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brink, K. A., Lane, J. D., & Wellman, H. M. (2015). Developmental pathways for social understanding: Linking social cognition to social contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 719  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00719.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Capage, L., & Watson, A. C. (2001). Individual differences in theory of mind, aggressive behavior, and social skills in young children. Early Education and Development, 12, 613–628.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1204_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson, S. M., Claxton, L. J., & Moses, L. J. (2015). The relation between executive function and theory of mind is more than skin deep. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 186–197.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2013.824883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson, S. M., Mandell, D. J., & Williams, L. (2004). Executive function and theory of mind: Stability and prediction from ages 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1105–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032–1053.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.0 0333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavalli, G. (2007). Emozioni e cognizioni nei rapporti interpersonali: Sviluppo e valutazione della comprensione sociale. In: O. Liverta Sempio, G. Cavalli, A. Valle (Eds.), Comprensione sociale ed emozioni nel ciclo di vita. Aspetti tipici e a rischio. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
  12. Chasiotis, A., Kiessling, F., Hofer, J., & Campos, D. (2006). Theory of mind and inhibitory control in three cultures: Conflict inhibition predicts false belief understanding in Germany, Costa Rica and Cameroon. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 249–260.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406066759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591–616.Google Scholar
  14. Chen, X., Huang, X., Chang, L., Wang, L., & Li, D. (2010). Aggression, social competence, and academic achievement in Chinese children: A 5-year longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 583–592.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornoldi, C., Gardinale, M., Masi, A., & Pettenò, L. (1996). “Impulsività e autocontrollo”: Interventi e tecniche metacognitive. Trento: Erickson.Google Scholar
  16. Crozier, W. R. (2000). Shyness and social relationships: Continuity and change. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development, consolidation, and change (pp. 1–21). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Development, 59, 26–37.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1130386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Henning, A., Spinath, F. M., & Aschersleben, G. (2011). The link between preschoolers’ executive function and theory of mind and the role of epistemic states. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 513–531.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes, C., Devine, R. T., Ensor, R., Koyasu, M., Mizokawa, A., & Lecce, S. (2014). Lost in translation? Comparing British, Japanese, and Italian Children’s Theory-of-Mind Performance. Child Development Research, 2014, 10.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/893492. Article ID 8934922014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2005). Executive function and theory of mind in 2 year olds: A family affair? Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 645–668.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942 dn2802_5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein, R. A Ratliff, K. A Vianello, M Adams, R. B., Jr Bahník, Š Bernstein, M. J. et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. LaBounty, J., Bosse, L., Savicki, S., King, J., & Eisenstat, S. (2016). Relationship between social cognition and temperament in preschool-aged children. Infant and Child Development.  https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1981.
  24. Ladd, G. W. (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior, and psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: An examination of four predictive models. Child Development, 77, 822–846.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00905.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lane, J. D., Wellman, H. M., Olson, S. L., Miller, A. L., Wang, L., & Tardif, T. (2013). Relations between temperament and theory of mind development in the United States and China: Biological and behavioral correlates of preschoolers’ false-belief understanding. Developmental Psychology, 49, 823–836.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lecce, S., & Hughes, C. (2010). ‘The Italian job?’: Comparing theory of mind performance in British and Italian children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 747–766.  https://doi.org/10.1348/026151009X479006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Leek, J. T., & Peng, R. D. (2014). Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1645–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2290157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lohmann, H., & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of language in the development of false belief understanding: A training study. Child Development, 74, 1130–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Longobardi, E., Spataro, P., D’Alessandro, M., & Cerutti, R. (2016). Temperament dimensions in preschool children: Links with cognitive and affective theory of mind, early education and development, Early Education and Development, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1238673.
  31. Marcovitch, S., O’Briena, M., Calkinsa, S. D., Leerkesa, E. M., Weaverb, J. M., & Levinea, D. W. (2015). A longitudinal assessment of the relation between executive function and theory of mind at 3, 4, and 5 years. Cognitive Development, 33, 40–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. McAlister, A. R., & Peterson, C. C. (2013). Siblings, theory of mind, and executive functioning in children aged 3–6 years: New longitudinal evidence. Child Development, 84, 1442–1458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838–850.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child Development, 78, 622–646.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mink, D., Henning, A., & Aschersleben, G. (2014). Infant shy temperament predicts preschoolers theory of mind. Infant Behavior and Development, 37, 66–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.12.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore, C., Bosacki, S. L., & Macgillivray, S. (2011). Theory of mind and social interest in zero-acquaintance play situations. Child Development, 82, 1163–1172.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01602.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Muller, U., Liebermann-Finestone, D. P., Carpendale, J. I. M., Hammondc, S. I., & Bibok, M. B. (2012). Knowing minds, controlling actions: The developmental relations between theory of mind and executive function from 2 to 4 years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 331–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
  39. Palmer, R. A. (2000). Quasireplication and the contract of error: Lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 31, 441–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker, T. H., & Nakagawa, S. (2014). Mitigating the epidemic of type I error: Ecology and evolution can learn from other disciplines. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2, 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pecora, G., Bellagamba, F., Paoletti, M., Castano, M. L., & Addessi, E. (submitted). The development of delay tolerance and the effect of symbolic representation in the preschool period.Google Scholar
  42. Perner, J., Leekam, S. R., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. Developmental Psychology, 5, 125–137.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1987.tb01048.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Putnam, S. P., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the children’s behavior questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 103–113.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Razza, R. P., & Blair, C. (2009). Associations among false-belief understanding, executive function, and social competence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 332–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.020.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 207–212.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00505.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21–39.Google Scholar
  48. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed. pp. 105–176). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Sodian, B. (2005). Theory of mind. The case for conceptual development. In W. Schneider, R. Schumann-Hengsteler & B. Sodian (Eds.), Young children’s cognitive development. Interrelationships among working memory, theory of mind, and executive functions (pp. 95–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Song, J., Volling, B. L., Lane, J. D., & Wellman, H. M. (2016). Aggression, sibling antagonism, and theory-of-mind during the first year of siblinghood: A developmental cascade model. Child Development, 87, 1250–1263.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Thoermer, C., Sodian, B., Vuori, M., Perst, H., & Kristen, S. (2012). Continuity from implicit to an explicit understanding of false belief from infancy to preschool age. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 172–187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02067.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker, S. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between young children’s peer-related social competence and individual differences in theory of mind. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 297–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.3.297-312.Google Scholar
  54. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false-belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wellman, H. M., Lane, J. D., LaBounty, J., & Olson, S. L. (2011). Observant, nonaggressive temperament predicts theory of mind development. Developmental Science, 14, 319–326.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00977.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione“Sapienza” Università di RomaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della CognizioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Psicologia“Sapienza” Università di RomaRomeItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Psicologia Dinamica e Clinica“Sapienza” Università di RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations