Does Culture Determine Your Theory of Mind Essay

What has distinguished Homo sapiens from non- humane universes race organisms is their top executive to develop a surmisal of school principal (Scholl & Leslie, 2001). Premack & Woodruff (1978) originally defined scheme of bear in attend as being the de endpointination to make attri besidesions about behaviour establish on acquired knowledge of rational states, much(prenominal) as touch sensation, desire and intention.An equally meaning(a) aspect of supposition of head teacher concern the individuals ability to ensure the subjectivity of mental states, comprehending that other individuals down desires and beliefs that protest epoch-makingly from virtuosos own, an agnizeing that is highly definitive to human functioning (Baren-Cohen, 1995). This seek enquirys the stoop that stopping headland has on the ontogeny of a opening of estimation.What was of primary interest in this essay was to investigate the accomplishment to which guess of promontory was characterized by popular processes of discipline and whether key cultural factors were responsible for the timing and teaching of possibility of judicial decision. Certain marked cultural take issueences were suggested as influential variables which could find oneself the using of a conjecture of mind, these being parenting styles, estimate of siblings and executive function which were thought to mulct a diametrical role in the ripening of a cultural individuality (Lillard, 1998).In the context of baffle-cultural proportion, a decisive treasurement of the false-belief assess was conducted. The inclemency and reliability of the false-belief problem was analyzed in sexual intercourse to the development of guess of mind, and substitute explanations and meter tools were admitd which would drop out for a much sensitive and reliable cross-cultural par to be made. Described as onto-genetically universal, scheme of mind is a construct of human psychology and b iology that is universally applicable to every culture (Liu, Wellman, Tardif & Sabbagh, 2008) .A unscathed result from twenty phoebe bird historic occlusive of query has inform that a surmisal of mind is developed in earliest tykehood and exhibited from the age of five or six geezerhood old as result of progressive stages of development (Lillard, 1998). some(prenominal) researchers (e. g Liu et al. , 2008 Wellman, Cross & Watson, 2001) tolerate sight parallel developmental trajectories between westbound sandwich and non-western cultures in relation to the age at which a infant acquires a surmise of mind.Callghan, Rochat, Lillard, Claux, Odden & Itakura (2005) observed the cross-cultural development of surmise of mind in consumes of 12-31 tiddlerren and declared thither to be a critical period of development between the ages of three and five divisions old when fryren begun to conceptualize and understand the difference between belief and reality. From a remote bush community in western Africa, to a mountain small town in Peru, researchers (e. g. Avis & Harris, 1991) generate observed the universal development of a theory of mind.The communicatory purposes of theory of mind are valuable to the survival and higher functioning of human kind. Cross-culturally, theory of mind is relevant in format to teach, deceive, inform and share think actions (Baren-Cohen,1999). However, although this cognitive development is primitive and pivotal to human functioning, research in this issue of investigation has challenged the universality and applicability of theory of mind postulating that cross-cultural variablenesss were responsible for determine and influencing the timing and stages at which theory of mind developed.many prominent research studies find been published in the publications, arguing for the sour of culture on the development of a theory of mind (Wellman et al. , 2001). Astington (2001) has argued that although cross-cultural v ariation does not reflect a childs ability to acquire a theory of mind, there whitethorn maybe be sociocultural variances in ahead of time childhood experience that could potentially influence how and when a child achieves theory of mind.Similarly, studies have observed a discrepancy in the timing of development crossways original industrialized cultures, an example being Canada and the get together Kingdom (Wellman et al. 2001), and Japan and northern Korea (Oh & Lewis, 2008). A meta-analysis of cross-cultural surgical process on false-belief tasks was conducted by Liu et al. , (2008) which investigated whether culture move overd to the development of theory of mind. A meta-analysis was conducted on 200 conditions (16-24 children per condition) of children from mainland china and Hong-Kong in order to assess whether the difference in cultural beliefs and pass judgments between these twain culturally divers(prenominal) samples had a signifi sewert impact on the timing o f development. more and more more westernized and individualistic, Hong-Kong was predicted to mirror the North American trajectory of development in that children would be more likely to perform to a higher place incur on the false-belief task. Liu et al. , (2008) observed that Chinese children were more likely to under-perform on false-belief tasks in relation to their Japanese counterparts and that this resulted in a difference of up to 2 old age in timing of false-belief acquisition. However, like more parity studies, the results of this development were potentially fox cod to relatively small sample size.A condition of 16-24 participants did not allow for methodological error or research bias. Contradictory evidence and potential methodological errors in relation to cross-cultural similitudes has resulted in a thorough examination of the measuring stick tools used to study theory of mind. A seemingly reliable and valid measurement tool, the false-belief task has to so me extent dominate the theory of mind model everywhere the course of twenty five grades (Dennet, 1978 as cited by Wellman et al. 2001). Astington (2001) account that there exists a danger in allow a single task befit a marker for complex development, as reliance on a single measurement construct can record potentially confounding results, confidential information to improbable and invalid conclusions. The chocolate and water closet false-belief task was developed by Wimmer & Perner, (1983) in order to assess whether a child had the ability to understand that their mental representations of the macrocosm differed from reality. umteen researchers have found methodological flaws in the false-belief task claiming that it is unnecessarily punishing (Sullivan & Winner, 1993). A cross-cultural study conducted by Wellman et al. , (2001) confirmed that many a(prenominal) children failed the false-belief task imputable to confusion and lack of intellect. A standby criticism of the false-belief task has been made in relation to the limitations it places on cognitive operation in that it does not take into account fundamental components of theory of mind (De Rosnay, Pons, Harris & Morrell, 2004).Therefore, in order for a valid cross-cultural comparison to be made it was necessary to try on other important mental states much(prenominal) as emotion, desire and intention (De Rosnay et al. , 2004). A five step Theory of listen scale was developed by Wellman & Liu (2004) in order to conduct a cross-cultural comparison of theory of mind. Preschoolers in North America (Wellman & Liu, 2004) , Australia (Peterson & Wellman, 2009) and Germany (Kristen, Thoermar et al. 2006) were found to follow the corresponding ordered sequencing of conceptual developments, these being assorted desires, diverse beliefs, knowledge rise to power, false beliefs, mystical emotions (Shahaeian, Peterson, Slaughter & Wellman, 2011). Although an identical trajectory of development was reported in many western cultures, a study conducted by Wellman et al. , (2004) find an interesting cross-cultural difference in relation to Chinese preschoolers who, although following the uniform steps of development, completed them in a different order with knowledge access being learned before diverse beliefs.Although there does not appear to be a cross-cultural difference in the mastery of theory of mind, the emphasis put on knowledge access in Chinese preschoolers everyplace diverse beliefs in western preschoolers is consistent with the importance that collectivist societies associate with social harmony over self-expression and individual beliefs. Reliance on one particular measurement tool has resulted in many extravagant and unreasonable claims being made, one such example being that researchers have associated a below chance performance on a false-belief task with an underdeveloped theory of mind (Astington, 2001).However, many researchers have argued that a three ye ar olds failure on the false-belief task could be indicative of linguistic underdevelopment or confusion rather than an absence of theory of mind. Leslie (2000) conducted qualitative reviews of cross-cultural performance on false-belief tasks in order to assess whether certain aspects of the methodology were inconsistent across cross-cultural testing. Methodology was found to differ in relation to the type of question asked, nature of the protagonist and type of task.Similarly, there was an inconsistency in the phrasing of the questions across many of the studies, with certain children being asked a question in terms of belief (Where does rump think his chocolate is? ) or in terms of speech (where does John say his chocolate is? ). Efforts to reduce methodological error and improve performance have been made by many researchers (e. g. Chandler, Fritz & Hala (1989) in order to demonstrate the plasticity and flexibleness of theory of mind. Chandler et al. (1989) found that if the experimental mark of the false-belief task was manipulated by implying deception and trickery, performance was more likely to increase. A cross cultural comparison reported equivalent results when young children actively participated in deception. However, although these results may have provisionally provided an explanation for alter performance, it must be noted that above chance performance on this task did not confirm a childs ability to conceptualize but merely emphasized their ability to hunt along .Due to flaws in methodology and reliance on the false-belief task, researchers have failed to provide consistent and valid results in relation to a cross-cultural comparison of theory of mind. In light of these contradictory results and inconclusive explanations, alternative variables have been analyzed in order to expand on the literature pertaining to cross-cultural differences in theory of mind. Vinden (2001) was of the whimsy that the development of a theory of mind aptly reflected parental influence in relation to cultural and moral expectations.Children emulated and modified their behaviour according to their parents example, therefore for a child to be capable of predicting and understanding another individuals mental state positively reflected parent-child intervention in the early years of their childhood. A cross-cultural comparison of theory of mind assessed whether parental attitudes of Korean-American and Anglo-American mothers influenced how their children developed mental states such as desires, beliefs and intentions (Vinden, 2001).Two old studies conducted by Kim, Kim & Rue (1997) and Farver, Kim & Lee (1995) reported certain cultural differences between Korean-American and Anglo-American individuals. Korean-Americans were reported as valuing interdependency, social harmony and self-abnegation in favour of individual orientation, symbolical feed and independence, traits which were synonymous with the individualistic Anglo-american s ociety. significantly Korean-American parents were seen as obeying an authoritarian structure of parenting in contrast with Anglo-American parents who favoured an positive model .In light of the results obtained by the Kim et al. , (1997) study, it was hypothesized by Vinden (2001) that children of authoritative mothers would be more likely to outperform children of authoritarian mothers on the theory of mind tasks. The results reported were surprising, in that five year old children of authoritarian Korean-American mothers outperformed their Anglo-American age mates on theory of mind tasks, thus far children of authoritarian Anglo-American mothers were found to under-perform on theory of mind tasks.What could be concluded from this study was that performance on theory of mind tasks could in fact be influenced by parenting styles, but what constituted acceptable parenting was unobjective to cultural introspection. In other words, a similar endpoint of development was reached ac ross cultures, payable to parenting styles that obeyed a cultural value system (Vinden, 2001). Similarly, a cross-cultural comparison of theory of mind has been made in relation to the number of siblings a child may have.A study conducted by Ruffman, Perner, Naito, Parkin & Clements, (1998) reported a remarkable decision that suggested how a childs theory of mind could be predicted establish on the number of sometime(a) siblings they possessed. According to Brown, Donelan-McCall & Dunn (1996), children with older siblings developed mental representations about the terra firma around them through symbolic play.Many researchers have argued for the importance of symbolic play in establishing a theory of mind (Leslie, 1987) due to the fact that through raillery and pretend play younger children were undetermined to false-belief situations enabling them to emulate the behaviour exhibited by older siblings. However, it is important to remain critical when discussing the importance of symbolic play due to the fact that although above-chance performance on theory of mind tasks may be recorded, the extent to which conceptualization and false-belief is properly understood demands get along explanation.Reiterating what has been previously stated by Vinden (2001), it was important to acknowledge that, although the same end point of development was reached across cultures, the stages of development differed based on cultural intervention. In young years, the skills associated with executive function have been proposed to contribute to the development of theory of mind (Moses, 2001). Many researchers interested in cross-cultural comparison have conducted studies in order to look on whether the development of executive skills is directly influenced by cultural beliefs and values.Interest in this field of research has come about due to the importance of understanding theory of mind in conjunction with the development of cognitive processes (Moses, 2001). executive fu nction is an umbrella term used to describe a superfluity of cognitive processes such as inhibition, verbal reasoning, problem solving and working store which contribute to the development of theory of mind. Executive function has been assessed across a diverse range of cultures in order to determine whether development of executive function skills differ across cultures, and whether this difference in development affects the acquisition of a theory of mind.