Theory of Mind

Theory of Mind ( ToM ), and native theory referred to in psychology and other cognitive sciences the ability to make an assumption about conscious processes in other people and to recognize them in their own person, so feelings, needs, ideas, intentions, expectations and to suspect opinions.

AM Leslie sees the theory of mind as a mechanism of selective attention. Here, the presence of mental concepts is the foundation to put the attention on the relevant mental states of actors. Thus, these properties can be exploited.

The concept of mentalization by Peter Fonagy and Mary Target, two psychoanalytic researchers, among other things, was derived from the psychoanalytic concept of symbolization and the Theory -of -Mind. Fonagy defines the concept of mentalization as follows: mentalization is "the ability, one's own behavior or the behavior of other people to interpret through attribution of mental states". For the term, there has been no unified German equivalent.

Developmental Psychology of the Theory of Mind

In the first year of life the child is already responding to social cues, so for example on its mother's smile. This is also the "social referencing" connected, thus orienting from the affects of a caregiver. It also appears at this stage already an incipient capacity for empathy.

Three year olds can quite competently take on the subjective constitution ( "emotional state" ) of another reference. But you can not even recognize them as their own subjective thought content.

Only when someone else's opinion can be distinguished from one's own, and when opinions can be recognized as wrong, the ToM is developed. This is from the fourth to fifth year of the event. Children can now take the perspective of others and take on the state of knowledge of a listener consideration. With entry into the phase of social perspective acquisitions to distinguish between reality and illusion is possible.

A foundation for developing a theory of mind is the ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate, as only animate internal states are attributed. Add to that the ability to differentiate between mental and physical world. Even three year olds are able to distinguish between the two worlds. They understand, for example, but that you can not get a featured dog stroke, a real dog. Furthermore, understand children aged three years that action tendencies of wishes and intentions of the acting person depend and they can predict actions from information about the wishes and intentions of a person.

Another step for the development of ToM is the realization that actions of other people can be guided not only by their desires and intentions, but also on their beliefs. This distinction is relevant if another person has a false perception of a situation. As long as a person has a " true" belief, there is no problem, and can be predicted according to their desires, how they will act. Does it, however, from a not matching with the reality conviction, their misconception in the action prediction must be taken into account. Here is an example of Rolf Oerter and Leo Montada:

Children learn between three and five years to include a person's beliefs with. Prior to that they do not understand that subjective beliefs can differ from reality, and thus do not consider them in their action prediction. One study, published in 2010, much younger infants should already have a theory of mind. Studies in China, the U.S., Canada, Peru, India, Samoa, and Thailand suggest that the ability to pass the explicit version of the False Belief test out forms in all societies, although the age between four and nine years of varied ( and developed countries at the extreme lower end are ).

The Theory of Mind is also considered a crucial prerequisite to develop metacognition can, so the ability to make cognitive processes become the object of reflection.

Investigation

A common task in order to investigate the development of theory of mind, is developed in 1983 by Heinz Wimmer and Josef Perner " False Belief" task: This is based on that children are able only from a certain cognitive level of development can be seen that other people may have beliefs, of which the child knows that they are wrong.

Example of a False - Belief Task: Before the child is a cookie jar. The child is asked what is probably the fact is ( expected answer: " Cookies" ). The box is opened - but this are no biscuits, but something unexpected (eg, crayons ). Now the child is asked what will probably suggest a different person in this box. Children who have not yet developed a theory of mind are, reply " crayons " because they do not understand that other people may have a false belief about an issue. ToM -capable children, however, say " cookies ". Interestingly, the children have to be understood not only difficulties that other people can have a false belief, but also that they themselves had a false belief and previously thought that in the box are biscuits.

Research

The focus of ToM research to date has been on epistemological beliefs, and less on representations of motivational or emotional states. Lately, it is linked to the binding theory, and the representational aspect is included in the research.

ToM is explored particularly in the context of cognitive developmental psychology, with research on childhood autism represents an important specialty. In autistic children appear to certain deficiencies in the development of ToM. How could, for example, Baron- Cohen, Leslie & Frith (1985 ) show that autistic children compared to an average developing children with a false- belief test does not understand that a person may have a false belief. Such findings have led to the theory that the social deficits that are a fundamental part of the affliction, caused by the inability of autistic children to empathize with the thoughts and emotions of other people. However, it must be noted that in the research of association between autism and a ToM deficit is still controversial ( see, eg, Kißgen & Schleiffer, 2002).

Empirical studies also create a link between ToM and aggressive behavior, and ToM and social competence close. There are theories, according to which children respond therefore aggressive because they are not in a position to assess the intentions of another person properly. For example, an accidental bumping seen as provocation (see also: conduct disorder ). It could also be found a relationship between secure attachment and the ability to mentalization.

Legal meaning

Legal meaning unfolds the ToM for the question of the existence of incapacity or Testierunfähigkeit. Whoever is not able to represent foreign psychological states in their own cognitive system is blind to hidden motives of his fellow men. This can lead to abnormally elevated Fremdbeeinflussbarkeit with the consequence of business and Testierunfähigkeit.