Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct 20;10(10):e0140658.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140658. eCollection 2015.

Epistemology for Beginners: Two- to Five-Year-Old Children's Representation of Falsity

Affiliations

Epistemology for Beginners: Two- to Five-Year-Old Children's Representation of Falsity

Olivier Mascaro et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

This paper investigates the ontogeny of human's naive concept of truth. Surprisingly, children find it hard to treat assertions as false before their fifth birthday. Yet, we show in six studies (N = 140) that human's concept of falsity develops early. Two-year-olds use truth-functional negation to exclude one term in an alternative (Study 1). Three-year-olds can evaluate discrepancies between the content of a representation and what it aims at representing (Study 2). They use this knowledge to treat beliefs and assertions as false (Study 3). Four-year-olds recognise the involutive nature of falsity ascriptions: they properly infer 'p' from 'It is not true that "It is not true that "p""' (Study 4), an inference that rests on second-order representations of representations. Controls confirm that children do not merely equate being mistaken with failing to achieve one's goal (Studies 5 and 6). These results demonstrate remarkable capacities to evaluate representations, and indicate that in the absence of formal training, young children develop the building blocks of a theory of truth and falsity-a naive epistemology. We suggest that children's difficulties in discarding false assertions need not reflect any conceptual lacuna, and may originate from their being trustful.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Baillargeon RM, Scott R, He Z. False belief understanding in infants. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14: 110–118. 10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Butterfill SA, Apperly IA. How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind Lang. 2013;28:606–637.
    1. Carruthers P. Mindreading in infancy. Mind Lang. 2013;28:141–172.
    1. Csibra G, Southgate V. Evidence for infants' understanding of false beliefs should not be dismissed. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10:4–5. - PubMed
    1. Helming KA, Strickland B, Jacob P. Making sense of early false-belief understanding. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18:167–170. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.005 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types