心理发展与教育 ›› 2009, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (4): 15-20.

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

3~6岁儿童信念理解能力的发展研究

张婷1,2,3, 李红1,2,3, 曾维希1,2, 张莉1,4, 廖渝1,2,3   

  1. 1. 西南大学心理学院, 重庆 400715;
    2. 认知与人格教育部重点实验室, 重庆 400715;
    3. 中加联合儿童发展研究中心, 重庆 400715;
    4. 江苏科技大学学工办, 江苏张家港 615600
  • 出版日期:2009-10-15 发布日期:2009-10-15
  • 通讯作者: 李红,西南大学心理学院教授.E-mail:lihong1@swu.edu.cn E-mail:lihong1@swu.edu.cn

The Development of 3-to 6-year-old Children’s Belief Reasoning

ZHANG Ting1,2,3, LI Hong1,2,3, ZEN Wei-xi1,2, ZHANG Li1,4, LIAO Yu1,2,3   

  1. 1. School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715 China;
    2. Key Laboratory of Personality and Cognition, Ministry of Education 400715 China;
    3. Sino-Canadian Research Center for Child Development, Chongqing 400715 China;
    4. JiangSu Technology Universtiy, Zhang Jiagang, Jiangsu 615600
  • Online:2009-10-15 Published:2009-10-15

摘要: 研究设计了冲突真实信念任务,用于考察儿童对真实信念的理解;并利用区分信念、冲突真实信念和意外地点的错误信念任务,考察儿童理解信念推理基本规则、真实信念和错误信念的发展顺序。97名3~6岁儿童完成了测试。结果显示,3岁儿童能理解信念推理的基本规则,5岁儿童能理解真实信念,6岁儿童能理解错误信念。结果支持了儿童先理解真实信念,后理解错误信念的发展模式;也说明在理解信念以前儿童已能掌握信念推理的基本规则。

关键词: 心理理论, 信念推理, 真实信念, 错误信念, 幼儿

Abstract: To examine when children can understand true belief,and examine the developmental trajectory of understanding the rule of belief reasoning,true belief and false belief,diverse belief task,conflict true belief task and location false belief task were used.97 3-to 6-year-old children finished diverse belief task,conflict true belief task and location false belief task.3-year-old children passed the diverse belief task,5-year-old children passed the conflict true belief task,6-year-old children passed the location false belief task.Results support the developmental order that children understand true belief firstly,and then false belief.Moreover,the results declare that before children can understand belief,they have already known the rule of belief reasoning.

Key words: theory of mind, belief reasoning, true belief, false belief

中图分类号: 

  • B844.1
[1] Wellman H M.The child's theory of mind.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1990.
[2] Wellman H M,Bartsch K.Young children's reasoning about beliefs.Cognition,1988,30:39-277.
[3] Wellman H M,Bartsch K.3-year-olds understand belief. Cognition,1989,3:321-326.
[4] Leslie A M,Friedman O,German T P.Core mechanisms in ‘theory of mind'.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2004,8:528-533.
[5] Leslie A M,German T P,Pollizi P.Belief-desire reasoning as a process of selection.Cognitive Psychology,2005,50:45-85.
[6] Friedman O,Leslie A M.Processing demands in belief-desire reasoning:Inhibition or general difficulty?Developmental Science,2005,8: 218-225.
[7] Riggs K J,Simpson A.Young children have difficulty ascribing true beliefs.Developmental Science,2005,8:27-30.
[8] Russell J.Justifying all the fuss about false belief.Trends in cognitive science,2005,9:307-308.
[9] Wellman H M,Liu D.Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks.Child Development,2004,75:523-541.
[10] Zaitchik D.Is only seeing really believing?Sources of the true belief in the false belief task.Cognitive Development,1991,6:91-103.
[11] Flavel J H,Everett B A,Croft K,Flavell E.R.Young children's knowledge about visual perception:Further evidence for the Level 1-Level-distinction.Developmental Psychology,2001,17:99-103.
[12] Wellman H M,Fang F,Liu D,Zhu L,Liu G.Scaling of Theory-of-Mind Understandings in Chinese Children.Psychological Science,2006, 17(12):1075-1081.
[13] 袁方.社会学研究方法教程.北京大学出版社,2004.
[14] Carpendle J,Lewis C.How children develop social understanding.Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2006.
[15] Carlson S M,Moses L J.Individual differences in inhibitory control and children's theory of mind.Child Development,2001,72:1032-1053.
[16] Pellicano E.Links between theory of mind and executive function in young children with autism:clues to developmental primacy. Developmental Psychology,2007,43:974-990.
[17] Wang Y,Liu Y,Gao Y,et al.False belief reasoning in the brain:An ERP study.Science in China Series C:Life Sciences,2008,51 (1):72-79.
[18] Sommer M,D hnel K,Sodian B,et al.Neural correlates of true and false belief reasoning.NeuroImage,2007,35:1378-1384.
[19] Saxe R,Schulz L,Jiang Y.Reading Minds versus Following Rules:Dissociating Theory of Mind and Executive Control in the Brain. (submitted).
[20] 徐芬,王卫星,高山等.幼儿心理理论水平及其与抑制控制发展的关系.心理发展与教育,2003,19(4):7-11.
[21] 邓赐平,桑标,缪小春.程式知识与幼儿心理理论发展关系.心理学报.2002,34(6):596-603.
[22] Liu D,Wellman H M,Tardif T,et al.Theory of mind development in Chinese children:A meta 2analysis of false2belief understanding across languages and cultures.Developmental Psychology, 2008,44:523-531.
[23] 隋晓爽,苏彦捷.对心理理论两成分认知模型的验证.心理学报,2003,35:56-62.
[24] 金宇,靳才,静进等.广州市幼儿心理推测能力发展水平的研究.中国行为医学科学.2004,13(4):433-434.
[25] 张婷,吴睿明,李红等.不同维度的执行功能与早期心理理论的关系.心理学报,2006,38(1):56-62.
[26] 廖渝,吴睿明,Zelazo P D等.意外地点任务中不同测试问题及意图理解与执行功能的关系,心理学报,2006,38(2):207-215.
[27] 王益文,张文新.3-6岁儿童“心理理论”的发展.心理发展与教育,2002,17(1):11-15.
[1] 刘艳春, 邓玉婷, 张曦. 智力障碍儿童对不同对象的分享行为:心理理论的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 160-168.
[2] 高子惠, 焦雨, 王曦, 刘肖岑. 电子绘本文字的动静态呈现方式对幼儿阅读体验和学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 817-824.
[3] 王英杰, 栾金鑫, 李燕. 母亲养育压力与幼儿焦虑的关系:亲子冲突的中介作用和母亲正念的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(5): 702-709.
[4] 张文洁, 范增, 黎蕾, 刘毅, 钟毅平. 接受对象的常规行为与资源需求对5~6岁幼儿分享行为的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 465-472.
[5] 牛湘, 冉光明. 同伴关系与幼儿问题行为关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 473-487.
[6] 刘双, 李梅, 冯晓杭, 张向葵. 幼儿掌控动机与能力关系的纵向研究:任务类型与气质的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 161-172.
[7] 王英杰, 张刈, 张美霞, 李燕. 母亲正念与幼儿问题行为的关系:正念养育和亲子关系的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 184-191.
[8] 陈传锋, 葛国宏, 卢丹凤, 岳慧兰. 祖辈协同教养与幼儿错误信念理解能力的关系:亲子依恋与祖辈同住的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 21-30.
[9] 刘晓洁, 李燕. 母亲感知的共同教养对幼儿行为问题的影响:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 626-634.
[10] 严益霞, 刘颜蓥, 丁芳. 心理理论与社会互动方式对初中生社会善念发展的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 485-494.
[11] 张和颐, 洪秀敏. 家庭认知环境与0~3岁婴幼儿发展的关系:有调节的中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 178-185.
[12] 葛国宏. 成人依恋与心理理论的关系:认知融合与经验性回避的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 223-235.
[13] 王薇, 贡德英, 程春, 陈科, 李永鑫, 闫晶晶. 5~7岁自闭症谱系障碍幼儿数感的特点[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 818-825.
[14] 刘田田, 李燕, 李有嘉, 姜新苗. 父母协同教养与学前儿童社会行为的关系:亲子关系和同胞关系的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 638-647.
[15] 周思妤, 王艺卓, 李晓巍. 幼儿园新教师学历与离职意向的关系:入职适应、工作满意度的多重中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 675-682.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!