Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations

Renee L Baillargeon, Renée Baillargeon, Victoria Southgate

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

There are now over 30 published reports, spanning 11 different methods, providing convergent evidence for false-belief understanding in children ages 6–36 months (for a review, see Scott & Baillargeon, 2017). The negative findings reported in this special issue of Cognitive Development are inconsistent with this body of data, and the aim of this commentary is to try to shed some light on the discrepancies between studies. We examine the negative findings reported with violation-of-expectation tasks (written by R. Baillargeon), interactive tasks (written by D. Buttelmann), and anticipatory-looking tasks (written by V. Southgate). In many cases, procedural differences between studies may explain failures to replicate. In other cases, apparent participant motivation and attention differences may be important in explaining failures, raising doubts about the utility of some paradigms to elicit the behaviors on which they rely. Our hope is that this commentary will provide a useful analysis that will inform the design of future studies in order that a higher level of replication can be achieved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCognitive Development
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Keywords

  • False-belief understanding
  • Implicit false-belief task
  • Replication
  • Theory of mind

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings : Methodological and theoretical considerations. / Baillargeon, Renee L; Baillargeon, Renée; Southgate, Victoria.

In: Cognitive Development, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cea2d211d64b4bc7a5c076b791ffd78a,
title = "Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations",
abstract = "There are now over 30 published reports, spanning 11 different methods, providing convergent evidence for false-belief understanding in children ages 6–36 months (for a review, see Scott & Baillargeon, 2017). The negative findings reported in this special issue of Cognitive Development are inconsistent with this body of data, and the aim of this commentary is to try to shed some light on the discrepancies between studies. We examine the negative findings reported with violation-of-expectation tasks (written by R. Baillargeon), interactive tasks (written by D. Buttelmann), and anticipatory-looking tasks (written by V. Southgate). In many cases, procedural differences between studies may explain failures to replicate. In other cases, apparent participant motivation and attention differences may be important in explaining failures, raising doubts about the utility of some paradigms to elicit the behaviors on which they rely. Our hope is that this commentary will provide a useful analysis that will inform the design of future studies in order that a higher level of replication can be achieved.",
keywords = "False-belief understanding, Implicit false-belief task, Replication, Theory of mind",
author = "Baillargeon, {Renee L} and Ren{\'e}e Baillargeon and Victoria Southgate",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Cognitive Development",
issn = "0885-2014",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings

T2 - Methodological and theoretical considerations

AU - Baillargeon, Renee L

AU - Baillargeon, Renée

AU - Southgate, Victoria

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - There are now over 30 published reports, spanning 11 different methods, providing convergent evidence for false-belief understanding in children ages 6–36 months (for a review, see Scott & Baillargeon, 2017). The negative findings reported in this special issue of Cognitive Development are inconsistent with this body of data, and the aim of this commentary is to try to shed some light on the discrepancies between studies. We examine the negative findings reported with violation-of-expectation tasks (written by R. Baillargeon), interactive tasks (written by D. Buttelmann), and anticipatory-looking tasks (written by V. Southgate). In many cases, procedural differences between studies may explain failures to replicate. In other cases, apparent participant motivation and attention differences may be important in explaining failures, raising doubts about the utility of some paradigms to elicit the behaviors on which they rely. Our hope is that this commentary will provide a useful analysis that will inform the design of future studies in order that a higher level of replication can be achieved.

AB - There are now over 30 published reports, spanning 11 different methods, providing convergent evidence for false-belief understanding in children ages 6–36 months (for a review, see Scott & Baillargeon, 2017). The negative findings reported in this special issue of Cognitive Development are inconsistent with this body of data, and the aim of this commentary is to try to shed some light on the discrepancies between studies. We examine the negative findings reported with violation-of-expectation tasks (written by R. Baillargeon), interactive tasks (written by D. Buttelmann), and anticipatory-looking tasks (written by V. Southgate). In many cases, procedural differences between studies may explain failures to replicate. In other cases, apparent participant motivation and attention differences may be important in explaining failures, raising doubts about the utility of some paradigms to elicit the behaviors on which they rely. Our hope is that this commentary will provide a useful analysis that will inform the design of future studies in order that a higher level of replication can be achieved.

KW - False-belief understanding

KW - Implicit false-belief task

KW - Replication

KW - Theory of mind

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049060628&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049060628&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001

DO - 10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85049060628

JO - Cognitive Development

JF - Cognitive Development

SN - 0885-2014

ER -