Improving low-income preschoolers’ theory of mind: A training study

Abstract

This study examined the efficacy of training theory of mind via storybook interactions focused on characters' mental states (i.e., beliefs and emotions) in a sample of 73 low-income preschoolers, and determined if training transferred to social competence. Children in the experimental group participated in experimenter-led book interactions in which characters' false beliefs and emotions were discussed. Children in the first control group were read the same stories, but without the embedded discussions; children in the second control group were not read books. Children's false belief understanding, emotion understanding, and social competence were assessed at pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest two months later. Children in the experimental group outperformed both controls on false belief understanding, but not emotion understanding or social competence, at both posttests.

Child language and parent discipline mediate the relation between family income and false belief understanding

“…Researchers argue that poverty exerts the largest effect on child outcomes during the preschool years (Dearing et al, 2001); thus, the preschool years or even earlier may be the best time to mitigate the effects of poverty on child outcomes. Results of the training study in which the HS sample participated was the first to show that false belief understanding could be improved in low-income children (Tompkins, 2015). However, this was a small-scale, short-duration training study implemented by researchers.…”

“…In total, 86 participants were recruited from Head Start (HS) centers as part of a false belief training study (Tompkins, 2015) and 88 participants were recruited at a science center (SC), for a total of 174 participants (91 female). The SC sample represents 88% of those originally recruited ( n = 101), and the HS sample represents 74% of those originally recruited ( n = 116).…”

“…Parents also completed the parent survey, which included questions about family composition and family income as well as questions about disciplinary practices. The HS data used for the current study were from pretest measures prior to implementing false belief training (Tompkins, 2015). All assessments for HS and SC samples were identical and given in the same order; thus, HS participants’ performance on the assessments included in the current study was not influenced by any assessments presented later in the training study.…”

“…The last task, which was relevant for the training study (Tompkins, 2015), was not included in current analyses because other studies examining parent discipline and false belief understanding have not used such assessments and because the results of the mediation analyses were the same whether this task was included or not. Because the HS sample later participated in a training study, we assessed false belief understanding using the tasks that have been used in other similar training studies (Guajardo & Watson, 2002; Peskin & Astington, 2004), although we acknowledge that there are other variations of the standard false belief tasks (e.g., Wellman & Liu, 2004).…”

“…Because the HS sample later participated in a training study, we assessed false belief understanding using the tasks that have been used in other similar training studies (Guajardo & Watson, 2002; Peskin & Astington, 2004), although we acknowledge that there are other variations of the standard false belief tasks (e.g., Wellman & Liu, 2004). These tasks are described in detail in Tompkins (2015); thus, we describe the tasks more briefly here. False belief tasks were administered in the order in which they are described.…”