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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Review › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Invited Commentary : Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations. / Baillargeon, Renée; Buttelmann, David; Southgate, Victoria.

I: Cognitive Development, Bind 46, 2018, s. 112-124.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Review › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Baillargeon, R, Buttelmann, D & Southgate, V 2018, 'Invited Commentary: Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations', Cognitive Development, bind 46, s. 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001

APA

Baillargeon, R., Buttelmann, D., & Southgate, V. (2018). Invited Commentary: Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations. Cognitive Development, 46, 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001

Vancouver

Baillargeon R, Buttelmann D, Southgate V. Invited Commentary: Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations. Cognitive Development. 2018;46:112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001

Author

Baillargeon, Renée ; Buttelmann, David ; Southgate, Victoria. / Invited Commentary : Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations. I: Cognitive Development. 2018 ; Bind 46. s. 112-124.

Bibtex

@article{b68d350dd67f4384b9b14ddb1fdb4ded,
title = "Invited Commentary: 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 = "Ren{\'e}e Baillargeon and David Buttelmann and Victoria Southgate",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "112--124",
journal = "Cognitive Development",
issn = "0885-2014",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Invited Commentary

T2 - Interpreting failed replications of early false-belief findings: Methodological and theoretical considerations

AU - Baillargeon, Renée

AU - Buttelmann, David

AU - Southgate, Victoria

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

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

U2 - 10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001

DO - 10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.001

M3 - Review

AN - SCOPUS:85049060628

VL - 46

SP - 112

EP - 124

JO - Cognitive Development

JF - Cognitive Development

SN - 0885-2014

ER -

ID: 220845033