Can 3-year-olds act on false beliefs before they can talk about them?
Three-year-olds opened the door an adult would expect to use based on her false belief, yet in the same trial they failed to say where she thought the toy was.
Source
Three-year-olds' theories of mind in actions and words
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Between-subjects experiment randomly assigning children to a false-belief or true-belief change-of-location scenario, with action (door opening) and verbal responses measured within the same trial.
- N
- N=47 · 47 three-year-olds: 21 in the true-belief condition and 26 in the false-belief condition; ten further children were excluded.
- Population
- Three-year-old children from a New York University research-volunteer database.
- Outcome
- Whether children opened the door matching the adult's belief and whether they answered an explicit belief question in line with that belief.
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
What they did
An adult left a toy in a coloured box and went behind a curtain, saying she would return through the door matching that box. The child helped move the toy to the other box either while she was watching (true belief) or while she was away (false belief). The child was asked where the adult thought the toy was, and when the doorbell rang the child chose which door to open for her.
What they found
Children chose the belief-consistent door above chance in both conditions (a proportion of 0.70 overall), so they used false beliefs to guide action. But on the verbal question they answered correctly far more often after a true belief (proportion 0.71) than a false belief (proportion 0.30). In the false-belief condition more children passed the door test but failed the question (27%) than the reverse (8%), and asking the question first did not change which door they opened.
The limits
What it doesn't show
The sample was small and drawn from one university's volunteer families, and only 3-year-olds were tested, so the study cannot show how implicit and explicit understanding develop or relate over time. The door task was still prompted, so it is unclear whether success depends on response modality (action versus words) or on whether children are directly asked about thoughts. The results support a distinction between two kinds of knowledge but do not reveal their mechanisms.
Key terms
- Theory of mind
- The ability to explain and predict behaviour by attributing mental states such as beliefs and desires to others.
- False belief task
- A test of whether someone expects a person to act on a belief that no longer matches reality, as in the Sally-Anne task.
- Implicit theory of mind
- Belief understanding shown in looking or acting that the child cannot yet put into words or deliberate judgments.
- Explicit theory of mind
- Belief understanding that a child can consciously report, typically passed by about age 5.
- True belief control
- A matched condition where the person saw the change, used to rule out simple rules and general answer-switching.
Flashcards
0 of 10 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
In the false-belief condition, how did children perform?
Common questions
Why does it matter that action and speech were measured in the same trial?
It equalises memory and inhibition demands, so a difference between the responses points to different knowledge systems rather than different task difficulty.
Could children just have followed a rule like 'go to the door she left by'?
No. The adult always exited next to the original box, so that rule would have failed in the true-belief condition, where children still chose correctly.
Does this mean 3-year-olds fully understand false beliefs?
It suggests they have some implicit understanding that can guide action, but their explicit, verbal understanding is still developing.
More on Social cognition