Display options
Cite
Falck A, Brinck I, Lindgren M. Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks. Front Psychol. 2014;5:23doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023.
Falck, A., Brinck, I., & Lindgren, M. (2014). Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks. Frontiers in psychology, 523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023
Falck, Andreas, et al. "Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks." Frontiers in psychology vol. 5 (2014): 23. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023
Falck A, Brinck I, Lindgren M. Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks. Front Psychol. 2014 Jan 30;5:23. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023. eCollection 2014. PMID: 24523706; PMCID: PMC3906666.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2014 Jan 30;5:23. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023. eCollection 2014.

Interest contagion in violation-of-expectation-based false-belief tasks.

Frontiers in psychology

Andreas Falck, Ingar Brinck, Magnus Lindgren

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Lund University Lund, Sweden.
  2. Department of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, Lund University Lund, Sweden.

PMID: 24523706 PMCID: PMC3906666 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00023

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 etal., 2010), and one which we argue cannot be readily explained by our model (Onishi and Baillargeon, 2005).

Keywords: attention; development; false belief; interest contagion; memory; theory of mind

References

  1. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000 Aug;53(3):825-45 - PubMed
  2. Science. 2005 Apr 8;308(5719):214-6 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Neurosci. 2005 Mar;21(6):1763-6 - PubMed
  4. Rev Philos Psychol. 2011 Sep;2(3):499-517 - PubMed
  5. Psychol Sci. 2011 Jul;22(7):878-80 - PubMed
  6. Science. 2010 Dec 24;330(6012):1830-4 - PubMed
  7. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Mar;14(3):110-8 - PubMed
  8. Soc Neurosci. 2012;7(5):458-72 - PubMed
  9. Cognition. 2008 Dec;109(3):295-315 - PubMed
  10. Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):587-92 - PubMed
  11. Neuroreport. 2004 Nov 15;15(16):2553-5 - PubMed
  12. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Mar;1156:118-40 - PubMed
  13. Science. 2005 Apr 8;308(5719):255-8 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Rev. 2009 Oct;116(4):953-70 - PubMed
  15. Dev Sci. 2011 Jul;14(4):660-72 - PubMed

Publication Types