Graphic Symbols as “The Mind on Paper”: Links Between Children’s Interpretive Theory of Mind and Symbol Understanding

Abstract

Children gradually develop interpretive theory of mind (iToM)-the understanding that different people may interpret identical events or stimuli differently. The present study tested whether more advanced iToM underlies children's recognition that map symbols' meanings must be communicated to others when symbols are iconic (resemble their referents). Children (6-9 years; N = 80) made maps using either iconic or abstract symbols. After accounting for age, intelligence, vocabulary, and memory, iToM predicted children's success in communicating symbols' meaning to a naïve map-user when mapping tasks involved iconic (but not abstract) symbols. Findings suggest children's growing appreciation of alternative representations and of the intentional assignment of meaning, and support the contention that ToM progresses beyond mastery of false belief.

Changing minds: Children's inferences about third party belief revision

“…This knowledge, together with the ability to make predictions about rational action, opens up the possibility that in simpler contexts, even younger children might be able to draw inferences about how third parties might update their beliefs from data. It is also possible that children's representations of the processes that underlie belief revision may support the emergence of broader abilities in interpretive theory of mind (Astington et al., ; Carey & Smith, , Chandler & Carpendale, ; LaLonde & Chandler, ; Myers & Liben, ; Pillow & Mash, ; Ross et al., ; Ruffman et al., ); future research might investigate the relationship between understanding that evidence conflicts with prior knowledge and understanding that evidence can be ambiguous depending on prior knowledge.…”

“…Both the ability to reason about others’ false beliefs (see Baillargeon, Scott, & He, ) and the ability to recognize when data are sampled randomly or selectively (e.g., Xu & Denison, ) emerge relatively early in development. However, children do not reliably provide accurate responses in explicit false belief tasks until later childhood (see Wellman, Cross, & Watson, , for review) and as noted, the ability to understand that identical evidence can be open to different interpretations emerges even later (e.g., Astington et al., ; Carey & Smith, , Chandler & Carpendale, ; LaLonde & Chandler, ; Myers & Liben, ; Pillow & Mash, ; Ross et al, ; Ruffman et al., ). Because we are interested not in children's own inferences from the data, but in their inferences on behalf of a third party whose beliefs may differ both from the child's own and those supported by the observed data, here we focus on 4.5‐ to 6‐year‐olds.…”

Navigating Maps to Support Comprehension: When Textbooks Don't Have GPS

“…For example, in one experiment conducted with children between the ages of six and nine, many of the participants were found to be capable of creating functional maps, using iconic symbols to mark the location of hidden objects, when they were told that someone else would need to use the map to find the objects later (Myers and Liben 2012). Thus, comprehension of the symbolic information contained in maps, while difficult for many children in the absence of instruction or prompting, does not appear to be unattainable.…”

Conveying Symbolic Relations: Children's Ability to Evaluate and Create Informative Legends

“…

Symbols are used regularly in our daily lives, but in order for a symbol to serve its intended purpose, its meaning must be conveyed in some way (Myers & Liben, 2012).Across two studies, this research examined 4-to 6-year-olds' understanding of how the relations between symbols and their referents are effectively conveyed using legends. To investigate this issue, a novel task was developed in which it was necessary to convey the arbitrary correspondence between symbols (the shapes on top of a set of boxes) and a set of referents (cards with shapes on them), so that an unknowing other would know which card went inside each box.

…”

“…Symbols are used regularly in our daily lives, but in order for a symbol to serve its intended purpose, its meaning must be conveyed in some way (Myers & Liben, 2012).…”