Edited by:
Reviewed by:
*Correspondence:
This article was submitted to Cognitive Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
During preschool years, major developments occur in both executive function and theory of mind (ToM), and several studies have demonstrated a correlation between these processes. Research on the development of inhibitory control (IC) has distinguished between more cognitive, “cool” aspects of self-control, measured by conflict tasks, that require inhibiting an habitual response to generate an arbitrary one, and “hot,” affective aspects, such as affective decision making, measured by delay tasks, that require inhibition of a prepotent response. The aim of this study was to investigate the relations between 3- and 4-year-olds’ performance on a task measuring false belief understanding, the most widely used index of ToM in preschoolers, and three tasks measuring cognitive versus affective aspects of IC. To this end, we tested 101 Italian preschool children in four tasks: (a) the Unexpected Content False Belief task, (b) the Conflict task (a simplified version of the Day–Night Stroop task), (c) the Delay task, and (d) the Delay Choice task. Children’s receptive vocabulary was assessed by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test. Children’s performance in the False Belief task was significantly related only to performance in the Conflict task, controlling for vocabulary and age. Importantly, children’s performance in the Conflict task did not significantly correlate with their performance in the Delay task or in the Delay Choice task, suggesting that these tasks measure different components of IC. The dissociation between the Conflict and the Delay tasks may indicate that monitoring and regulating a cool process (as flexible categorization) may involve different abilities than monitoring and regulating a hot process (not touching an available and highly attractive stimulus or choosing between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed one). Moreover, our findings support the view that “cool” aspects of IC and ToM are interrelated, extending to an Italian sample of children previous findings on an association between self-control and ToM.
Over the past 20 years there have been significant improvements in research on two milestones of cognitive development, theory of mind (ToM) and executive functioning (EF). In both these domains of cognition, major developments occur between the ages of 3 and 5 years.
Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states, such as emotions, beliefs, and intentions to oneself and to other people. Mental state understanding helps the child to make behavioral predictions about how people will act (
Prototypical tests for ToM, including the Deceptive Container task and the Appearance- Reality task, measure the representational nature of mental states, and are failed by most preschoolers at age 3 but are grasped by age 5. The most frequently used measure for assessing ToM at around 4 years of age is the ‘False-Belief task.’ The standard version requires the unexpected transfer of a wanted object, so that the protagonist has a false belief about the location of the object, and children are asked to predict where the protagonist will look for the object (
Some studies have suggested that having one or more siblings to interact with at home promotes ToM understanding (
Executive functioning (EF) refers to higher-order self-regulatory cognitive processes that enable a person to engage in flexible goal-directed behaviors, including the control of attention, and motor responses, resistance to interference and delay of gratification (
Although EF is considered a domain-general construct, a distinction has been made between the relatively hot affective aspects of EF and more purely cognitive, cool aspects (
Two different classes of tasks have been used to measure IC in the preschool period (
The link between ToM and EF was first noted in the context of research on individuals with autism.
A recent meta-analytic review of 102 studies reported a moderate to strong association between EF and false belief understanding in early childhood (
On the basis of the above findings, the main goal of the present study was to examine the relationships between explicit false belief understanding, a delay measure of IC and a conflict measure of IC in a group of typically developing Italian children, controlling for age and receptive vocabulary. To our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing the relation between false belief understanding and IC in preschoolers belonging to this population [although a study by
Given that previous studies have reported an association between ToM tasks and conflict tasks in children between 3 and 6 years of age (
Data were collected during a study on children’s self-control ability, focusing on how symbolic representations of the reward affected performance in a Delay Choice Task (
Participants were 101 Italian preschool children, 51 3-year-olds (mean age = 36.13, range = 35.07–37.0; 25 boys and 26 girls) and 50 4-year-olds (mean age = 48.11, range = 47.02–49.0; 27 boys and 23 girls). Children were sourced from kindergarten and were all healthy. They came from middle-class Italian families (as determined by parental educational level) living in Rome. The children’s parents signed an informed consent form outlining the aim of the study. The study complied with the ethical guidelines of the Italian Association of Psychology (AIP) and were approved by the Ethics Committee of ISTC-CNR.
Tasks were administered to the children in a quiet room by two qualified experimenters, who alternated their role as experimenter and assistant across sessions. The experimenter administered the tasks and the assistant quietly recorded children’s performance on the protocol sheet. The entire session was also video-recorded. Each child was given five tasks in one single session and in a fixed order: (a) the Delay choice task, (b) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT,
Children were presented with choices between a small option and a large option in three experimental conditions (Food Delay, Low-Symbolic Token Delay, and High-Symbolic Token Delay), in which the smaller option was immediately available, whereas the larger option was delayed by 80 s. Children were also tested in two control conditions (Food Control and High-Symbolic Token Control), in which both options were immediately available. We employed a between-subject design, counterbalancing gender and age. Each subject participated in a single session of six trials, including two familiarization trials (forced choices, with only one option available, presented at the beginning of the session), and four experimental trials (binary choices). In all conditions, the dependent variable was the proportion of choices of the larger delayed option.
In the Food conditions, children chose between visible food amounts, whereas in both Token conditions children were presented with two cards depicting, respectively, two dots and six dots (Low-Symbolic Token condition) or a mouse and an elephant (High-Symbolic Token condition). After choosing one of the two cards, the subject could exchange it with the experimenter for obtaining the corresponding food amount. The food type was previously agreed upon with the parents on the basis of children’s preferences and/or diet restrictions. For further details on the methodology, please see
We used the Italian version of the PPVT-R (
We used the Unexpected Content False Belief Task (
This task was a simplified version of the Day–Night Stroop Task developed by
This task was adapted from
Five different scores were derived from this task: (1)
Descriptive Statistics for All Tasks are Presented in
Mean scores, SD, and ranges for all tasks, divided by age.
Task | Measure | 3-years-old |
4-years-old |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SD | Range | SD | Range | ||||
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) | Score | 77.6 | 7.19 | 67–98 | 90.8 | 10.5 | 68–119 |
False Belief Test | Self-attribution (score) | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0–1 | 0.68 | 0.47 | 0–1 |
Other attribution (score) | 0.19 | 0.39 | 0–1 | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0–1 | |
Global score | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0–1 | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0–1 | |
Conflict task | Correct responses (proportions) | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0–1 | 0.78 | 0.31 | 0–1 |
Delay task | Latency to touch (s) | 100.0 | 58.51 | 1–180 | 113.7 | 69.7 | 2–180 |
Latency to open (s) | 139.8 | 54.7 | 3–180 | 153.8 | 46.9 | 31–180 | |
Frequency to touch (proportions) | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0–0.3 | 0.012 | 0.020 | 0–0.080 | |
Frequency to open (proportions) | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0–0.3 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0–0.010 | |
Time to interruption (seconds) | 158 | 39.06 | 49.21–180 | 159.5 | 41.19 | 47–180 | |
Delay Choice Task – Food Delay | Choice of the larger option (proportions) | 0.70 | 0.28 | 0.25–1 | 0.65 | 0.27 | 0.25–1 |
Delay Choice Task – Low-Symbolic Token Delay | Choice of the larger option (proportions) | 0.57 | 0.29 | 0.25–1 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0–1 |
Delay Choice Task High-Symbolic Token Delay | Choice of the larger option (proportions) | 0.50 | 0.24 | 0–0.75 | 0.48 | 0.07 | 0.25–0.50 |
All 101 children participated in this task (51 were 3-year-olds and 50 were 4-year-olds), 20 in each condition, with the exception of the High-Symbolic Token Delay condition in which there were 21 children. For analysis purposes, data were transformed by calculating the arcsin squareroot of proportions of choices of the larger option. As reported in
All the children participated in this task, but data for one 4-years-old are not available because of video camera failure. We performed a factorial ANOVA with the children’s standardized score on the PPVT as the dependent variable and with gender and age as independent variables. There was a main effect of age:
Ninety-eight children participated in this task (48 were 3-year-olds and 50 were 4-year-olds). Three children did not participate because they did not answer the experimenter’s questions (two 3-year-olds) or did not have any experience with the candies (Smarties) used in the task (one 3-years-old). All children passed the control question, 42% of the 3-year-olds and 68% of the 4-year-olds passed the first experimental question, 19% of the 3-year-olds and 38% of the 4-year-olds passed the second experimental question, 15% of the 3-year-olds and 30% of the 4-year-olds passed both first and second experimental questions.
For each measure (First experimental question Self-attribution, Second experimental question Other attribution, and Global score), we performed a logistic regression with the children’s score as dependent variable, and with gender and age as independent variables. For both experimental questions, age significantly predicted performance in the False Belief task (First experimental question Self-attribution:
Eighty-one children participated in this task (36 were 3-year-olds and 45 were 4-year-olds). Twenty children did not participate because they failed to recognize the colors (seven 3-year-olds and two 4-year-olds), did not answer the experimenter’s questions (six 3-year-olds) or were tested when this task had not yet been introduced in the present study. Since one child had some invalid trials, we converted the number of correct responses into proportions. For analysis purposes, data were transformed by calculating the arcsin squareroot of proportions. As reported in
Ninety-eight children participated in this task (48 were 3-year-olds and 50 were 4-year-olds). Three children did not participate because their caregiver was present during the task (two 3-year-olds) or because of video camera failure (one 3-years-old). Since the children could interrupt the trial at any time before the 3 min elapsed, we converted frequencies of touching and opening the box into proportions. Data were transformed by calculating the logarithm of latencies and the arcsin squareroot of proportions. We performed a MANOVA with, as dependent variable, the five measures scored during the Delay Task (
First of all, we examined whether there was a correlation between our IC measures and, if so, whether this relation would remain after we controlled for age and receptive vocabulary. As for the Delay Choice Task, we analyzed only data for the experimental conditions (Food Delay, Low-Symbolic Token Delay, and High-Symbolic Token Delay).
The next series of analyses was aimed at specifying the relative contribution of cool IC (as measured by the Conflict Task) and hot IC (as measured by the Delay Choice Task and by the Delay Task) to ToM. As shown in
Pearson correlations between behavioral measures.
(1) FB Self-attribution | _ | 0.298** | 0.486** | 0.213 | 0.083 | –0.072 | –0.035 | –0.072 | –0.061 | 0.124 | 0.351 | –0.208 | 0.275** | 0.259* |
(2) FB Other attribution | 0.274** | _ | 0.851** | 0.308** | 0.033 | 0.023 | 0.067 | –0.163 | –0.156 | –0.164 | –0.094 | –0.258 | 0.218* | –0.004 |
(3) FB Global score | 0.494** | 0.837** | _ | 0.303** | –0.051 | –0.007 | 0.070 | –0.150 | –0.137 | –0.146 | –0.149 | –0.258 | –0.190 | –0.050 |
(4) C Correct responses | 0.087 | 0.259* | 0.267* | _ | 0.126 | –0.030 | 0.079 | –0.014 | 0.009 | –0.023 | 0.193 | 0.095 | 0.406** | 0.307** |
(5) D Frequency to touch | 0.007 | 0.003 | –0.084 | 0.072 | _ | 0.195 | –0.622** | –0.231* | 0.083 | –0.321 | 0.281 | 0.059 | 0.177 | 0.216* |
(6) D Frequency to open | –0.009 | 0.065 | 0.042 | 0.048 | 0.264** | _ | –0.224* | –0.553** | 0.061 | 0.224 | –0.165 | 0.016 | –0.232* | –0.184 |
(7) D Latency to touch | –0.041 | 0.048 | 0.055 | 0.023 | –0.632** | –0.228* | _ | 0.470** | 0.406** | 0.035 | 0.066 | 0.211 | 0.085 | 0.059 |
(8) D Latency to open | –0.083 | –0.178 | –0.159 | –0.079 | –0.233* | –0.560** | 0.445** | _ | 0.718** | –0.251 | 0.199 | 0.069 | 0.131 | 0.053 |
(9) D Time to interruption | –0.035 | –0.151 | –0.125 | –0.036 | –0.029 | 0.059 | 0.370** | 0.709** | _ | –0.298 | 0.082 | 0.080 | 0.015 | –0.069 |
(10) DCT-FD | 0.156 | –0.146 | –0.155 | 0.053 | –0.299 | 0.187 | 0.013 | –0.237 | –0.311 | _ | § | § | –0.097 | –0.038 |
(11) DCT-LSTD | 0.340 | –0.150 | –0.244 | 0.234 | 0.270 | –0.095 | –0.009 | 0.136 | 0.080 | § | _ | § | 0.180 | –0.045 |
(12) DCT HSTD | –0.213 | –0.324 | –0.324 | 0.092 | 0.105 | 0.031 | 0.237 | 0.051 | 0.066 | § | § | _ | –0.089 | –0.302 |
(13) Age | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 0.597** |
(14) Receptive vocabulary | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ |
The present study investigated the relations between performances on a task measuring false belief understanding and three tasks measuring cognitive versus affective aspects of IC in a sample of Italian preschool children.
Considering the range of variations in responses within each task, and the correlation found between ToM and the conflict measure of IC, the performances of 3-and 4-years-old Italian children in the current study can be considered similar to those reported in previous studies conducted with children growing up in Western cultures. Similarly to what has been reported in previous studies, 4-years- old children performed better than 3-years-old children in both the False Belief and the Conflict task, and these measures were positively associated even after controlling for age and receptive vocabulary. A direct comparison with the study by
As in previous studies (
A different developmental pattern emerges from children from non-Western cultures, with studies reporting a lack of association between false belief understanding and composite scores of EF (
Research on the development of IC has differentiated between cognitive components of self-control, assessed by conflict tasks which demand inhibition and some additional cognitive load (e.g., activate a novel response), and affective components, such as affective decision-making that is measured by delay tasks, which require inhibition of an impulsive response (
On a theoretical level, alternative reasons have been proposed to explain the developmental link between self-control and ToM (see
Our study, even with its limitations (including not using a wide battery of EF and ToM tasks, and the concurrent measurements that precludes clear causal statements) supports the results of those studies that found a significant relation between the ability to understand false beliefs and the conflict (but not the delay) measures of IC. Moreover, in the present study, delay and conflict measures were not associated, suggesting that these tasks measure different components of IC. The dissociation between the Conflict and the Delay task may indicate that monitoring and regulating a hot process (not touching an available and highly attractive stimulus) may involve different abilities than monitoring and regulating a cool process (as flexible categorization), and that only the latter component of IC is developmentally linked to false belief understanding. Also performance in the Delay Choice task and in the Delay task did show a lack of correlation, probably because these two tasks tackle different aspects of delay of gratification ability. Whereas in the Delay Choice task the initial choice cannot be reconsidered during the delay, in the Delay task the subject can modify her choice at any time.
The lack of correlation between ToM and “hot” IC, observed in previous studies and replicated in the present study, has important implications on the alleged link between delay of gratification and so-called “mental time travel” (MTT). MTT is defined as the ability to mentally project oneself in some future situation (
The impact of our results on the MTT debate is moderated by the fact that we did not check for MTT abilities specifically, so we cannot be sure that the age-related improvement in ToM observed in our sample also resulted in a similar improvement in MTT skills (although this would be consistent with the relationship between ToM and MTT hypothesized by most MTT scholars). Nonetheless, in the present study ToM did not correlate with performance in either the Delay task or the Delay Choice task: the latter finding, in particular, suggests a lack of role for ToM in “hot” IC. However, as for the Delay Choice task, it cannot be excluded that the small sample size might have played a role, and future studies should evaluate whether performance in ToM tasks and in the Delay Choice task correlates in larger samples. More generally, this discussion shows that (i) the connection between ToM and delayed gratification hypothesized by proponents of MTT as a key aspect of future-oriented self-control (
Although we did not test children with a full battery of EF and ToM tasks, our results are stimulating and broadly in line with previous findings. Future research on the relationship between ToM and IC should include several conflict and delay measures and test children in different cultures in order to better understand the role of cognitive vs. affective components of self-control and their specific relation to ToM development. A better understanding of the interdependence between ToM and IC may also come from a thorough investigation of their neural basis and evolutionary precursors, via comparative studies.
Conceived and designed the experiments: FB, EA, FP. Performed the experiments: VF, GP, VM, BP. Analyzed the data: FB, EA, GP. Wrote the paper: FB, EA, GP, FP.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We thank the directors and the coordinators of the daycares where the children were recruited (Elisabetta Beolchini: Asilo Nido Montessori at Ministero degli Esteri; Carla Cevenini and Elena Dompè: Casa dei bambini Montessori at Banca d’Italia; Anna Maria Conti: Il Tenero Germoglio; Cristina Ferrera: L’Allegro Ranocchio, L’Aquilone, Il Faro Incantato, Il Girasole, Il Pagliaccetto, La Scatola Magica; Irene Latronico: L’Aurora, Il Casale dei Piccoli), the personnel of the daycares and the parents of the children who participated in the study: without their cooperation this study would not have been possible. We especially thank Gabriele Schino for statistical advice and the two reviewers for their detailed comments. This study was funded by a grant from Sapienza University (Progetto di Ateneo Federato 2009) to FB; FP received financial support from the MIUR-PON research project CLARA.