How well does Social Interaction account for a Theory of Mind

Discuss the role of theory of mind in accounting for the social development of children…

Investigators have sought to explain the causes of a Theory of Mind (TOM) for at least thirty years, since the publication of Woodruff and Premack (1976) paper, in which it was argued that chimpanzees exhibit the ability to identify what other members of their group might be thinking. If a correct account of TOM could be found then it would be possible to treat children with developmental difficulties in this area (such as austics) more successfully than is currently possible. Debate has focussed on whether a social or a biological account is more convincing in explaining the acquisition of TOM. Developmental Psychologists, such as Perner and Wimmer (1983) have tended to emphasise social development, whereas neuroscientists have tended to emphasis the biological route.
Researchers have investigated the extent to which humans and higher primates can be considered to have a similar social capacity. Woodruff and Premack (1976) argued that it was possible to teach chimpanzees certain linguistic and social skills that had previously only been thought to be possible in humans. She cited several examples of chimps developing lexicons and attributing motives to other animals. Over thirty years on, other researchers have produced similar findings, but certain difficulties remain. Since it appears that language and Theory of Mind may be linked, the ability to measure Theory of Mind when there is only a limited range of expression available makes experimental investigation difficult (Butterworth and Harris, 2004). Nevertheless, it can be said with some confidence that chimpanzees and bonobos posses capacities to attribute motivation to other members of their group. Humans are therefore not unique in possessing this ability (Martin, 2000). These findings are equivocal, however, since both biology and special training could be the route cause of the development (Robinson, 1998).
Various experiments have been used to assess whether children can separate their knowledge from the knowledge that others would have. Perner and Wimmer (1983) designed the famous Sally Ann doll task which has been used with several variations. The basic format, however, follows this format: two dolls are seen playing. One enters a house and is observed by both the child and the second doll. The second doll then leaves the situation. The first doll then leaves the house, and the second doll reappears shortly afterwards, having not had the opportunity to see the first doll. The researcher then asks the child whether the second doll will think the first doll is in the house. Children from about the age of 4 answer this question correctly. In a related vein, Gopick and Astington (1988) used a packet of smarties with pens inside instead of sweets, to test whether children would know that most people when presented with the same tube of smarties would guess that sweets were inside. Again, children from around 4-5 answer this question correctly. However, this mean age, hides a considerable variation among groups whereby some groups gain this ability as young as 3 whereas others take up to the age of 7. These experiments leave open the question whether it is repeated social interactions which allowed the children to acquire this ability, or whether a biological change had taken place.
Most researchers would agree that the quality of social interactions plays an important part in theory of mind. Lewis et al (1998) for example, found that children in Crete and Cyprus who live close to their extended family members developed theory of mind skills earlier than did children in which there were few opportunities for social interaction. This group also found that older children as well as adults could play an important role in developing TOM skills. Charman (2000) found that gaze attention played an important part in developing social skills in children. It appears that children benefit most from a primary care giver attends to the direction of their gaze and provides appropriate responses to where the child is looking – rather than there the adult is looking. The model of apprenticeship is broadly supported by this and other evidence (Butterworth & Harris, 2004). Children learn from an ‘expert’ and also benefit from care givers who attend to the child’s gaze. Based on the evidence high quality social interaction seems able to account for the earlier or later development of TOM in children.
However, some researchers have argued that a TOM is better modelled on a neuronal level. Baron-Cohen (1995, 1996, 1997, 2000), has argued with an increasing weight of evidence, that TOM is best explained by a module in the brain, which is close the limbic system. Baron-Cohen has contrasted the FMRI scans from children with normal development compared to those with autism and deafness. He observed that the module was less active in the autistic and deaf children compared to the normally developing children and concluded that a module was the basis of TOM. However, it may be criticised that his model does not explain the other cognitive difficulties that autistic children typically display for example in language (Butterworth & Haris, 2004). Although the module appears to be implicated in some way with TOM, it does not appear to be the whole answer. Social interaction is a natural candidate to explain that gap.
Social interaction is therefore an important ingredient in the development of a Theory of Mind. Good quality social interactions are able to explain a quicker development in TOM (Slaughter and Peterson, 2003; Charman, 2000) and provide the most convincing account for its appearance in children. Though there is evidence to suggest that the part of the limbic system is involved in TOM (Baron-Cohen, 2000) it is probable that alternative routes exist by which TOM can be obtained. An account of TOM development that places social interaction at its forefront is not bound by such a problem.

Sara Barreilles: a little review

Though this blog contains discussion of many ideas and interpretations, I believe there is room for a little lightness from time to time.

Consequently I wish to sing the praises of Sara Bareilles and her new album (in the UK) Little Voice. In particular its tunefulness.

Born in California a clear jazz and live performance aspect pervades her music with heavy emphasis on the piano and tuneful vocals. Her music is also self composed which by itself commands the attention.

I am most struck by the ‘catchiness’ of about five tracks in particular: Love Song, Vegas, between the lines, morning side (no connection to Scotland) and love on the rocks. This is someone who generally has a good feeling for what will resonate with an audience.

There is a good balance between excellent melodies, some meaning from lyrics and god instrumentation. Though not the deepest lyrics I have ever heard, they are hold their own.

I also like the fact that the UK edition of the CD shows Sara wearing trainers without laces and as someone who has found shoe laces a real struggle, this is a plus!

There are one or two tracks which fall short of the otherwise high standard, one sweet love and Gravity would be improved with fewer strings.

Nevertheless, an extremely enjoyable album and highly worth the £7.20 I paid for it.

I give the album 8/10

Rumour also has it that she will be performing with Maroon 5 in the Autumn - an excellent prospect!