This study looked at Mofu children’s ability to give evidence for a belief and their understanding of minds. The study participants were 154 schooled and nonschooled children who were given a novel evidence task and a series of theory-of-mind tasks. They ranged in age from 4 to 11 years of age and were tested by two native Mofu speakers.
In the standard understanding of minds scenario, a series of three tasks were conducted. In the change of location task, a false belief was created by the child for another person. The child transferred objects from one location to another without the other person’s knowledge. Then the interviewer questioned the child about false belief. They were asked questions such as where would the other look for the object and where he would think it was? These questions are designed to test a child’s ability to apply their knowledge about a situation in the area of emotion.
The next scenario testing the understanding of minds was the change in contents tasks. The child removed matches from a matchbox and replaced them with small stones. Then the child was questioned about what he thought was in the box and what another person would think was in the box before it was opened. Also the child was given a piece of wrapped candy that was actually piece of millet stalk when the child opened it. He was asks the same questions about what he thought was in the wrapper and what another person would think was in the wrapper.
The final scenario was the surprising objects tasks. During this task a sponge rock and a rubber snake were placed in a box of leaves. The child was asked what the items looked like, what they were, and what another person would think the items were before they touched them.
To examine a child’s understanding of evidence a scenario was conducted in which one experimenter asks the other to take a close cardboard outside. The experimenter tries to lift the box but can’t. He then says he is going to go find someone to help him because the box is too heavy. After the man leaves the other experimenter shows the child what is inside the box, bags of sand. Then the child is asked, “Whys is this box so heavy?” After this question is asked the experimenter suggest that they hide the bags of sand from the man as a trick. The bags are then hidden and the following questions are asked of the child, “When he comes back, but before he lifts it with his friend, will he think the box is heavy or light? How will he know it is heavy or light? When they come back, when they lift it, will they think the box is heavy or light? How will they know the box is heavy or light?”(p.175)
The results show that at age 5, 75% of schooled and 45% of nonschooled children have an understanding of theory of mind. Nonschooled children have the opportunity to improve with age, but will never catch up to their schooled peers. The study also suggests that theory of mind may develop before children go to school, but a school setting helps to enhance their understanding of mind. For the evidence task, almost all the children answered the simple questions about evidence correctly (Why was the box heavy and would the man think the box is heavy or light when he returns?). There seemed to be an improvement with age but not with schooling for the children’s ability to give evidence for a false belief. The study also suggest that relying on real world experiences instead of schooling may give children a better understanding of evidence for beliefs. Overall the study concluded that understanding of minds may be universally developed, and understanding of evidence is acquired more gradual than understanding of minds.
I found it interesting that the study suggested that school only promoted an understanding of minds but was not necessary. School may enhance the development of this type of understanding, but it is not completely responsible for the acquistion of this skill. Children who were nonschooled learned the idea of theory of mind from their parents and their surroundings. To me, this suggests a strong parental involvement and a nurturing environment can help a child to understand their world and schooling can promote the further understanding of the world. Parents can help to guide children when they make an illogical explanation for something just as school can guide them through logical reasoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment