Theory of Mind in Psychology

Theory of mind is our ability to recognize that other people have thoughts, feelings, and perspectives that may be different from our own. It’s a key social skill that usually develops in early childhood, helping us predict behavior, show empathy, and navigate relationships.

Theory of Mind Definition

What Theory of Mind Means

Theory of mind (ToM) is the ability to recognize that people, including ourselves, have mental states. These include beliefs, desires, intentions, knowledge and emotions.

Those states can differ from our own, and from reality.

Mental states are invisible, so ToM is inferential. We read them from what people say, do and leave unsaid. This lets a listener make sense of others’ intentions and grasp what is really being communicated (Baron-Cohen, 1995).

ToM is not all-or-nothing. It is a graded, multi-component skill that develops over years and keeps being refined into adolescence and old age.

It underpins communication, empathy, teaching, cooperation, deception and conflict resolution. At its best, it works as an invisible layer under almost every social exchange.

Everyday life constantly calls on it. We predict behavior from imputed beliefs, tailor explanations to what a listener does not yet know, and read moods from body language and tone.

Differences in mentalizing are most studied in autism. They also appear in schizophrenia, ADHD, depression and dementia, covered below.

False Belief and Perspective-Taking

The milestone most often used to measure ToM is attributing a false belief. This means understanding that another person can hold a belief about the world that the child knows to be untrue.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett (1978) argued that false belief is the decisive test. Why? Only attributing a representation, rather than simply reporting reality, can explain why someone acts on a belief that is wrong.

Doing this takes a metarepresentation: a belief about a belief (Leslie, 1987). The same machinery lets us read sarcasm and feel empathy for a state we do not share.

It also lets us teach and deceive. A teacher models what a learner already knows. A deceiver plants a false belief.

ToM is one kind of perspective-taking. Conceptual perspective-taking means attributing beliefs, including false beliefs, to others. Perceptual perspective-taking means working out what someone can see from where they stand, as in the three-mountains task devised by Piaget and Inhelder.

The two come apart. In the original Sally-Anne study, autistic children who succeeded on perceptual tasks nonetheless failed false-belief tasks. This suggests the two tap different abilities (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985).

Examples of Theory of Mind

Theory of mind (ToM) was first introduced by psychologists David Premack and Guy Woodruff in 1978.

They suggested that humans don’t just see what others do. We imagine what they might be thinking, wanting, or believing, even though these states are invisible.

We then use those guesses to explain and predict behavior.

In this sense, each of us carries an everyday “theory” about how minds work, and we put it into action whenever we interact with other people.

As humans we assume that others want, think, believe and the like, and thereby infer states that are not directly observable, using these states anticipatorily, to predict the behavior of others as well as our own. These inferences, which amount to a theory of mind, are to our knowledge, universal in human adults (Premack & Woodruff, 1978).

Premack and Woodruff tested their question on a chimpanzee, not a person.

The interpretation was contested immediately. The philosopher Daniel Dennett (1978) noted that success could reflect learned associations, or reading the actor’s goal without representing any belief.

Dennett argued that only attributing a false belief would settle the question. That critique is the direct ancestor of the false-belief tasks described below. Later comparative work agrees. Chimpanzees grasp others’ goals, perception and knowledge, but show no reliable understanding of false beliefs (Call & Tomasello, 2008).

Having a theory of mind means recognizing that other people have their own beliefs and desires. This helps us navigate daily social life by interpreting their thoughts and predicting their behavior.

Here are some examples:

1. Predicting behavior: We often anticipate what someone will do based on what we think they know or believe. For instance, imagine your roommate loses their keys. You expect them to search where they last remember leaving them, even if you already know the keys have been moved.

2. Showing empathy: Theory of mind allows us to recognize and respond to feelings that differ from our own. You might feel excited about going out, but still understand your friend is anxious about the crowded venue and offer reassurance or a quieter plan.

3. Understanding someone’s mood: Subtle cues like body language and tone of voice often reveal how someone is feeling. If a coworker gives short answers and avoids eye contact, you might infer they’re stressed or upset, even without them saying it directly.

4. Perspective-taking: Theory of mind helps us recognize that others don’t share all of our knowledge or experiences. For example, when telling a story about a party, you pause to explain who “Sam” is because your new friend wasn’t there and wouldn’t know him.

5. False beliefs: We understand that people can hold beliefs that aren’t true, based on the information they have. For instance, your classmate saw you put your water bottle on the desk. You later moved it to your bag, so you know they’ll mistakenly believe it’s still on the desk.

6. Understanding sarcasm and irony: ToM lets us detect when someone’s words mean the opposite of what they say. If a friend walks into the rain and says, “What a perfect day for a picnic,” you recognize they’re being sarcastic, not serious.

7. Inferring intentions: We constantly interpret the motives behind people’s actions. If a friend texts “Good luck!” before your exam, you take it as genuine support. If a rival says the same with a smirk, you might suspect sarcasm.

8. Teaching: Good teachers model what a learner already knows and where their understanding goes wrong. Teaching is applied theory of mind.

9. Technology: Robots and virtual assistants must model what a user knows, and wrongly believes, to help appropriately. “Machine theory of mind” is now an active research goal.

---

How Does ToM Develop?

Core Stages of Theory of Mind (Preschool Years)

The preschool years mark a critical turning point in the development of theory of mind.

According to Piaget, children in the preoperational stage (ages 2–7) are often egocentric: they struggle to see the world from another person’s point of view.

Hide-and-seek shows this well. A classic example is a 3-year-old who plays by simply covering their eyes, assuming that if they cannot see others, then others cannot see them.

At the same time, preschoolers show growing use of symbolic thought, such as language and pretend play, which provides the foundation for perspective-taking.

The Great Shift in Preschool Years

Between ages 3 and 5, children undergo what many researchers call the “great shift” in theory of mind.

During this period, they begin to recognize that people have thoughts, beliefs, and feelings that may differ from their own.

This ability is often tested using false-belief tasks.

In a typical version, a child knows that an object has been moved from one location to another while a character is out of the room.

When asked where the character will look, a child with ToM will say the original location, showing they understand that the character holds a mistaken belief.

Younger, more egocentric children tend to answer with the actual location, revealing difficulty separating their own knowledge from another’s perspective.

A large meta-analysis is the strongest support for the “great shift.”

Making the deception salient or simplifying the language shifted the timing somewhat, but never removed the developmental pattern.

Wellman and Liu (2004) used a ToM scale of graded tasks to map the preschool years. In Western samples, the steps typically run in this order:

Tasks Listed From Easiest to Most Difficult

• Understanding wanting: Realizing that people can have different desires and act in different ways to get what they want.

• Understanding thinking: Recognizing that people can hold different beliefs about the same situation and act based on those beliefs.

• Seeing leads to knowing: Understanding that knowledge depends on perceptual access: if someone hasn’t seen something, they don’t know it.

• Understanding false beliefs: Recognizing that someone can hold a belief that doesn’t match reality (a milestone usually reached around age 4).

• Understanding hidden feelings: Realizing that people can mask or conceal their emotions, showing one feeling while experiencing another inside.

This order is not fixed across cultures. Shahaeian et al. (2011) found that Iranian and Chinese preschoolers grasp that seeing leads to knowing before they grasp that people hold different beliefs. That is the reverse of the Australian and US order.

The likely reason is socialization: collectivist, consensus-oriented cultures seem to emphasize different steps. The set of insights appears universal, but their sequence is shaped by cultural input. Western norms are not universal timetables.

Together, Piaget’s insights and modern ToM research show that the preschool years are a time of rapid cognitive and social growth.

Children shift from an egocentric worldview toward a richer appreciation of other people’s inner lives, laying the groundwork for empathy, communication, and more complex social understanding.

Middle Childhood & Adolescence (6–18 years)

Middle childhood and adolescence mark a shift from basic recognition of others’ beliefs and feelings toward sophisticated social reasoning.

By the end of adolescence, most individuals can manage multiple, conflicting perspectives and appreciate irony and social nuance. They can also engage in the complex interactions that prepare them for adult work, relationships, and community life.

Ages 6–12:

Children’s thinking becomes less egocentric and more logical, helping them coordinate multiple perspectives at once (Piaget, 1977).

By this stage, they often master second-order false beliefs. This means understanding not just what someone thinks, but what one person thinks about another person’s belief (e.g., “She thinks that he thinks the toy is under the bed”).

The leap is significant. It lets children follow more complex stories, understand motives in literature, and engage in cooperative play and problem-solving with peers (Perner & Wimmer, 1985).

Humor, teasing, and sarcasm also become easier to understand and produce, reflecting a growing grasp of layered perspectives.

Adolescence (12–18)

Teenagers refine higher-order ToM and cognitive empathy (the ability to adopt someone else’s perspective while also connecting it to emotions) (Vetter et al., 2013).

This supports deeper friendships and romantic relationships. It also sharpens the sensitivity to social belonging typical of adolescence.

Teens also become better at evaluating ambiguous intentions, detecting hypocrisy, and reasoning about complex moral and social issues (Dumontheil, Apperly, & Blakemore, 2010).

Neuroimaging studies show that these advances coincide with continued maturation of the prefrontal cortex and temporo-parietal junction, brain regions linked to perspective-taking and social reasoning (Blakemore, 2008).

Adulthood and Later Life

Theory of mind abilities remain strong throughout most of adulthood, supporting the management of work, relationships, and complex social interactions.

Adults draw on ToM to navigate subtle forms of communication. Reading between the lines in workplace conversations, understanding irony in friendships, and anticipating reactions in negotiations all depend on it.

However, research shows that ToM skills can shift with age. Older adults often perform well on basic perspective-taking tasks. A meta-analysis found declines on demanding measures, such as tracking multiple perspectives, detecting sarcasm or reading subtle nonverbal cues (Henry et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2011).

These changes are linked to natural aging in brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex, which supports executive functions crucial for ToM (Moran, 2013).

At the same time, life experience tends to strengthen emotional understanding and compassion. Older adults may process complex social information more slowly. Yet they often excel at the affective side of empathy and emotional perspective-taking (Richter & Kunzmann, 2011).

In short, ToM’s speed may decrease in later life. Its depth often remains, shaped by decades of social experience.

---

Cultural Differences

---

False-Belief Tasks

One of the most widely used ways to study Theory of Mind (ToM) is the false-belief task.

These tasks test whether a child can recognize that another person may hold a belief that is different from reality and from the child’s own knowledge.

Passing a false-belief task is considered a major milestone in ToM development, typically reached between ages 3 and 5 (Wellman & Liu, 2004; Gopnik & Astington, 1988).

Why False-Belief Tasks Matter

Understanding false belief shows that a child can:

• Overcome egocentrism (realizing not everyone knows what they know).

• Use inhibitory control (suppressing their own knowledge of reality to answer from another’s perspective).

• Hold two perspectives in mind at once (their own and another person’s), which relies on working memory.

This ability reflects a broader shift away from Piaget’s description of young children as egocentric thinkers who assume everyone sees and knows what they do.

Aspect	First-Order False Belief	Second-Order False Belief
What it tests	Understanding that another person’s belief can differ from reality.	Understanding what one person thinks about another person’s belief.
Key Question	“Where will Sally look for her marble?”	“Where does Anne think Sally will look for her marble?”
Age Typically Passed	Around 4 years old	Around 6–7 years old
Cognitive Demand	Distinguish own knowledge from another’s perspective.	Hold multiple perspectives in mind (beliefs about beliefs).
Example Task	Smarties/Crayon Box task; Sally–Anne (basic version).	Advanced Sally–Anne or similar scenarios involving nested beliefs.

The Maxi Task: Wimmer and Perner (1983)

Wimmer and Perner (1983) introduced the false-belief paradigm and framed it as testing “beliefs about beliefs.” Baron-Cohen and colleagues later adapted their story into the Sally-Anne task described below.

The task is elegant because success cannot be faked by reporting reality. Its limits matter too. It is verbally and cognitively demanding, so it may underestimate young children’s competence.

It also treats a single pass or fail as though theory of mind were one thing. In fact, it is a multi-component skill.

The Deceptive Container Task (Smarties/Crayon Box)

First-order false-belief tasks test whether children understand that another person can hold a belief that differs from reality and from the child’s own knowledge.

Passing this kind of task shows that a child can separate their own knowledge from someone else’s perspective, a key step in developing Theory of Mind.

A classic example is the Deceptive Container Task, sometimes called the “Smarties Task” or “Crayon Box Task” (Gopnik & Astington, 1988).

Here’s how it works:

1. Presentation: A child is shown a familiar container, such as a candy box labeled “Smarties” or a crayon box.

2. Expectation: The researcher asks the child what they think is inside. Naturally, the child will say “Smarties” or “crayons.”

3. The Reveal: The container is opened to show something unexpected, such as pencils or candles. Now the child knows the true contents.

4. The Critical Question: The container is closed again. The child is asked what another person, who has not looked inside, will think is in the box.

Interpreting the Results:

A child who has developed Theory of Mind will correctly answer “Smarties” or “crayons.”

This shows that they can step into another person’s perspective and recognize that the person will form a false belief based on the box’s appearance.

In doing so, the child is able to set aside what they themselves know about the true contents and accurately predict what someone else would think.

A younger child, who has not yet developed ToM, will usually answer “pencils” or “candles.”

This response is considered egocentric. The child assumes everyone shares their knowledge and cannot yet take another person’s perspective.

The same task can also probe false belief about one’s own past mind. After the reveal, researchers ask: “When you first saw the closed tube, what did you think was inside?”

Three-year-olds often deny ever having thought it held sweets. That is striking. It shows how hard it is to treat a belief as a state that can be updated and can be wrong.

The task is closely related to the appearance–reality distinction.

Flavell (1986) showed children a sponge painted to look like a rock. Only around ages 4 to 5 could they hold in mind that it looked like a rock but was really a sponge.

This task does not depend on tracking a moving object. It exposes the same limit from a different angle. That convergence is one reason the age-four shift is seen as robust.

Second-order false-belief tasks

Second-order false-belief tasks test whether a child can understand what one person thinks about another person’s belief (Perner & Wimmer, 1985).

In these tasks, children must recognize that beliefs can differ not only from reality but also from each other’s perspectives.

For example, a character hides an object in one place. While they are away, another character moves it.

To pass the task, the child must infer not just where the first character will look, but also what the second character thinks the first character believes.

Perner and Wimmer developed the classic “John thinks that Mary thinks…” stories to test this. The Sally-Anne task itself is the classic first-order instrument, described below; researchers later adapted similar nested scenarios to reach genuinely second-order questions.

Findings

In the original Sally–Anne study, Baron-Cohen and colleagues (1985) found that:

• 85% of typically developing children and 86% of children with Down syndrome answered the false-belief question correctly.

• By contrast, 80% of autistic children failed, showing difficulty in understanding that Sally would hold a belief different from reality.

Follow-up studies confirmed that most children begin to pass false-belief tasks around ages 4–5 (Gopnik & Astington, 1988; Nelson et al., 2008; Sung & Hsu, 2014).

This is widely seen as the age when a mature Theory of Mind first emerges.

But there’s a twist.

Newer research suggests that signs of Theory of Mind appear even earlier. Researchers tested this with nonverbal versions of the task, using toddlers as young as 15 months.

In these experiments, children watched as Sally returned and looked either in the basket (her false belief) or in the box (the true location).

They weren’t asked questions. Instead, experimenters simply measured how long the toddlers looked at each action.

The results were striking. Toddlers looked longer when Sally searched the box, as if surprised by her choice. Why? The likely explanation is that they expected her to act on her false belief and look in the basket.

Studies by Onishi & Baillargeon (2005), later replicated by Träuble et al. (2010), indicate that very young children have some implicit grasp of other people’s mental states. However, large replication attempts have since questioned how reliably this early sensitivity holds up (see Critical Evaluation below).

---

Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Although most people develop the ability to understand others’ thoughts and feelings, this skill is not equally strong in everyone.

In fact, difficulties with Theory of Mind (ToM) are a common feature of several psychological and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

• Core difficulty: Trouble recognising that other people can have thoughts, feelings, and beliefs different from their own.

• What this looks like: People with autism may find it harder to read facial expressions, understand sarcasm, or predict how someone else will react. Even if they pass structured “false-belief” tests in the lab, they may still struggle to apply these skills in everyday conversations.

• Why it happens: Brain studies show differences in areas linked to social understanding, such as the superior temporal sulcus and fusiform gyrus. These differences affect how social cues like eye gaze and facial expressions are processed.

Baron-Cohen (1990, 1995) proposed that autistic people do not spontaneously develop the capacity to attribute beliefs and intentions. He called this “mind-blindness” and used it to explain many social-communication differences across the spectrum.

The account remains contested. Critics point out that some autistic children do pass false-belief tasks. They add that mind-blindness is not unique to autism, cannot explain its non-social features, and is not the same as empathy.

Schizophrenia

• Core difficulty: Problems inferring other people’s intentions or emotions. A meta-analysis confirmed a substantial mentalizing deficit (Sprong et al., 2007).

• What this looks like: Individuals may misinterpret social cues, withdraw from relationships, or struggle with disorganized communication. ToM problems are closely tied to real-life challenges like unemployment and social isolation.

• Why it happens: Brain regions that normally support perspective-taking, such as the medial prefrontal cortex and temporoparietal junction, function less efficiently. In some cases, difficulty separating one’s own thoughts from others’ can even contribute to symptoms like auditory hallucinations.

ADHD

• Core difficulty: Not a direct ToM problem, but challenges with attention and impulse control can make social thinking harder.

• What this looks like: Children with ADHD may interrupt, miss social cues, or misjudge situations. This is not necessarily because they don’t understand others’ minds. Executive functions, like working memory and self-control, can make it harder to put that understanding into action.

• Why it happens: ToM relies on executive skills like holding two perspectives in mind and inhibiting your own viewpoint. Since these skills are weaker in ADHD, social difficulties can look similar to ToM problems, even if the root cause is different.

Depression

• Core difficulty: Trouble integrating social and emotional information to understand others’ perspectives.
• What this looks like: People with depression may misread others’ emotions, assume the worst in social situations, or struggle to connect with how someone else is feeling. This can contribute to withdrawal and reinforce feelings of isolation.
• Why it happens: Studies show that depression is linked to difficulties in both social-perceptual skills (like reading facial expressions) and social-cognitive skills (like reasoning about beliefs and intentions). Changes in brain function related to emotion regulation and attention may make it harder to process social cues accurately.

Social Anxiety Disorder

• Core difficulty: Less accurate at decoding mental states and heightened fear of negative evaluation.
• What this looks like: People with social anxiety may overthink how they’re being perceived, misinterpret neutral cues as criticism, or avoid interactions altogether. This makes everyday situations like group conversations or public speaking feel overwhelming.
• Why it happens: Social anxiety involves both heightened emotional reactivity and reduced accuracy in reading others’ thoughts and feelings. Brain regions involved in threat detection and emotion (like the amygdala) can become overactive, while systems that support accurate perspective-taking may be underused.

Dementia

• Core difficulty: ToM abilities can decline as dementia progresses, especially in conditions like Alzheimer’s or frontotemporal dementia.

• What this looks like: People may find it harder to follow conversations, recognise when someone is joking, or respond to the emotions of family and friends.

• Why it happens: Brain regions that support memory, self-awareness, and perspective-taking (like the prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes) are affected by the disease process.

---

Theory of Mind in the Brain

Understanding other people’s thoughts and feelings may feel effortless, but it depends on a special network of brain regions working together.

Neuroimaging studies, where people complete Theory of Mind tasks inside an MRI scanner, have shown that no single “mind-reading” area exists.

Instead, a set of regions (sometimes called the mentalizing network or social brain) light up when we think about what others believe, want, or feel.

Key Brain Areas

• Medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC): Located in the front of the brain, the mPFC helps us think about ourselves and others. It plays a role in distinguishing our own perspective from someone else’s and predicting the emotional or behavioral consequences of another person’s mental state. It is also active when people understand irony or subtle social cues.

• Temporoparietal Junction (TPJ): Found where the temporal and parietal lobes meet, the TPJ is a key hub for perspective-taking. It activates strongly when we reason about other people’s beliefs, especially false beliefs, and when we interpret jokes, sarcasm, or irony.

• Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS): This region helps us interpret social signals such as eye gaze, body movements, and tone of voice. These cues are often the first step in figuring out someone’s intentions.

• Precuneus and Posterior Cingulate Cortex (PCC): These midline regions support self-reflection and retrieving personal memories, which can be used to simulate another person’s experience.

• Amygdala: Best known for its role in emotion, the amygdala helps us recognize feelings from facial expressions and attach emotional meaning to social interactions. Damage to the amygdala can impair empathy and the ability to read emotions in others.

How Scientists Study This

A common experiment compares false-belief stories with false-photograph stories.

In a false-belief version, a participant reads a story like the Sally–Anne task and answers where Sally will look for her marble.

In the false-photograph version, they might read:

“A photo is taken of an apple hanging from a tree. While the film develops, the apple falls to the ground. When the photo is developed, where is the apple?”

This requires reasoning about a physical change, not a mental state.

Saxe and Kanwisher (2003) compared the two kinds of story directly.

The matched false-photograph control is what makes the result persuasive, because it rules out a generic “outdated representation” account. How sharply the TPJ’s mentalizing role separates from nearby attention and reorienting functions is still debated.

Mirror Neurons and Theory of Mind

When we watch someone else act, our brain doesn’t just stay passive. It often mirrors what we see.

This is thanks to mirror neurons, special brain cells that fire both when we perform an action ourselves and when we watch another person do it.

This mirroring ability may support Theory of Mind (ToM). ToM is the capacity to understand that other people have their own thoughts, feelings, and intentions.

How Mirror Neurons Help Us Understand Others

• Imitation and Intentions: From infancy, humans are natural imitators. Mirror neurons allow us to copy what others do, but more importantly, they help us guess why someone is doing it. By simulating another’s actions in our own brain, we can start to infer their goals and intentions.

• Empathy: Mirror neurons are also linked to empathy (the ability to share and understand someone else’s emotions). Watching another person smile, cry, or wince can trigger similar brain activity in us, giving us a direct sense of what they might be feeling.

• Social Understanding: This mirroring process supports broader social skills. It’s easier to predict, cooperate with, or comfort others when our brain can “resonate” with their experiences. Some researchers even argue that this system provided an evolutionary stepping stone toward language, which began with shared gestures and later developed into speech.

Where Mirror Neurons Are Found

In humans, the mirror neuron system is thought to be located near Broca’s area, a brain region involved in speech and language.

This overlap hints at a close link between understanding actions and communicating. Our ability to connect with others through words may have grown out of our ability to mirror their movements.

The Bigger Picture

Theory of Mind is more than one brain region. It relies on:

• Executive functions like working memory and inhibition, which allow us to juggle conflicting perspectives.

• Language, which gives us the tools to talk and think about thoughts, beliefs, and desires.

• Self-awareness, since understanding others’ minds builds on the ability to reflect on our own.

Together, these brain systems allow us to predict behavior, interpret communication, and navigate the complexities of social life.

---

Critical Evaluation

Theory of mind is one of psychology’s most productive constructs, but its central measure and interpretation remain contested.

The False-Belief Task Is a Narrow Proxy

Passing a single false-belief task is often treated as proof a child “has” theory of mind. That shortcut is misleading. False-belief tasks are verbally and cognitively demanding: a child must hold a story in mind, inhibit what they themselves know, and answer a tricky question.

A child who fails may simply lack the language or working memory the task requires, not the underlying concept. The reverse is true too. A child who passes may be using a task-specific strategy rather than a general understanding of minds.

Theory of mind is really an umbrella term.

It covers many separate skills: reading desires, intentions, knowledge, and first- and second-order beliefs. These develop on different timetables, so a single pass-or-fail test flattens a much richer picture. Treating one task as the whole story oversimplifies a genuinely layered ability.

Infant Looking-Time Evidence

The most serious challenge to the age-four account is that much younger infants seem to anticipate others’ belief-based actions in non-verbal tasks.

Looking time is an indirect measure, so interpretations divide. “Rich” readings credit infants with genuine belief representation. “Lean” readings explain the same data through novelty, attention to the agent, or simple rules such as “agents search where they last saw an object.”

Large replication attempts have since questioned how robust these effects are. They are covered next. They reframe the age of theory of mind, but do not settle it.

Contemporary Research

The clearest advance since 2015 concerns the infant findings described above. Confidence has shifted. When researchers looked closely at the toddler looking-time studies, using large samples and pre-registered methods, the original results held up far less well than first reported.

Because it pools 56 conditions, this meta-analysis outweighs any single positive study as a guide to reliability. It tempers the infant claim rather than erasing it: a modest effect survives, but the strong headline does not.

One paradigm dominates the debate: anticipatory looking. Southgate, Senju, and Csibra (2007) first demonstrated it with an eye-tracker. Before an actor reached for a hidden object, 25-month-olds looked toward where she would reach given her false belief, not where the object really was.

Other work agrees. Dörrenberg, Rakoczy, and Liszkowski (2018) tested the replicability and validity of four non-verbal measures, including anticipatory looking. Replication was weak. The tasks barely correlated.

Fizke et al. (2017) tested a predicted “signature limit” of any early system. Toddlers’ belief-based helping broke down when a task required aspectuality: understanding that a person can represent one object under one description but not another.

The consensus is cautious. Most researchers now favour a two-systems view (Apperly & Butterfill, 2009): an early, fragile capacity and a later, more powerful explicit understanding that emerges around age four.

Do Adults Always Use Their Theory of Mind?

Having theory of mind is not the same as using it in the moment. Even competent adults sometimes fail to apply what they know.

A second experiment strengthened the test: participants had reason to believe the director held a false belief about the hidden object. The interference persisted.

This does not mean adults lack theory of mind. It means using it takes effort, and that effort sometimes loses out to our own point of view.

Rival Theories of Mind

Theory-Theory vs Simulation Theory

Researchers disagree about how we mentalize. Theory-theory holds that children build an intuitive, theory-like body of knowledge about minds. They revise it as evidence accumulates, much as scientists do (Gopnik & Wellman, 1994).

Simulation theory takes a different route. We understand others by running our own mental machinery “offline,” imagining ourselves in their situation and reading off what we would think or feel (Gordon, 1986; Goldman, 2006).

Each account fits different evidence. Simulation sits naturally with mirror-neuron and self-projection findings. Theory-theory better fits distinct developmental stages and our ability to mentalize about minds unlike our own.

A third, modular view treats metarepresentation as an innate mechanism that matures on a fixed timetable (Leslie, 1987; Baron-Cohen, 1995). Most contemporary accounts are hybrids. Low-level, automatic mentalizing may be simulation-like, while explicit belief reasoning is more theory-like.

Theory of Mind vs Executive Function

A second rival stresses executive function: inhibition, working memory and planning. Passing a false-belief task means inhibiting the salient true state of the world while holding a conflicting belief in mind. Some therefore argue that ToM development is partly executive-function development.

The design was correlational, so it cannot show which way the link runs. Executive function may let children express a belief concept, or the two may develop together.

Brain evidence suggests they are separable. Saxe, Schulz, and Jiang (2006) found that the TPJ responds to mental-state content but not to demanding non-social executive tasks. Executive function is best seen as a necessary support for expressing theory of mind, not a replacement for it.

---

Learning Check

1. Clarifying Concepts

• What do we mean when we say someone has a “theory of mind”?

• How is understanding another person’s belief different from just observing their behavior?

• Can you give an everyday example where you use ToM without even thinking about it?

2. Probing Assumptions

• Do you think babies are completely unaware of other people’s thoughts? Why or why not?

• Is ToM something we’re born with, or something we have to learn as we grow?

• Do you assume other people think about the world in the same way you do?

3. Examining Evidence

• What evidence do psychologists use to figure out whether children understand false beliefs?

• How does the Sally-Anne task actually test perspective-taking?

• Why might children younger than 4 usually fail that task?

4. Considering Alternative Perspectives

• Could animals, like dogs or chimpanzees, have some form of ToM? How would we know?

• If someone has autism and struggles with ToM in everyday life, does that mean they can’t ever understand others’ thoughts? Or might they use different strategies?

• Do adults always use ToM correctly, or can we misjudge what others believe?

5. Exploring Implications

• What happens to friendships or relationships if someone struggles with ToM?

• How might a lack of ToM skills affect someone in a workplace setting?

• Why do you think ToM is considered such a critical milestone in child development?

6. Meta-Cognition (Thinking About Thinking)

• When was the last time you misinterpreted someone’s thoughts or intentions? What does that say about the limits of ToM?

• Do you think ToM always leads to empathy? Or could it also be used in negative ways (e.g., manipulation)?

• How does reflecting on your own thoughts help you understand the minds of others?

---

References

Adrián, J. E., Clemente, R. A., & Villanueva, L. (2007). Mothers’ use of cognitive state verbs in picture-book reading and the development of children’s understanding of mind: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 78(4), 1052–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01052.x

Aichhorn, M., Perner, J., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2006). Do visual perspective tasks need theory of mind? NeuroImage, 30(3), 1059–1068.

Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116(4), 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016923

Baron-Cohen, S. (1990). Autism: A specific cognitive disorder of “mind-blindness.” International Review of Psychiatry, 2(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540269009028274

Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading, 1, 233–251.

Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press.

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46.

Barone, P., Corradi, G., & Gomila, A. (2019). Infants’ performance in spontaneous-response false belief tasks: A review and meta-analysis. Infant Behavior and Development, 57, 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2019.101350

Bernstein, D. M., Thornton, W. L., & Sommerville, J. A. (2011). Theory of mind through the ages: Older and middle-aged adults exhibit more errors than do younger adults on a continuous false belief task . Experimental Aging Research, 37 (5), 481-502.

Blakemore, S. J. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4), 267–277.

Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Distinguishing intentional from accidental actions in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112 (2), 192.

Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(5), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.010

Callaghan, T., Rochat, P., Lillard, A., Claux, M. L., Odden, H., Itakura, S., … & Singh, S. (2005). Synchrony in the onset of mental-state reasoning: Evidence from five cultures. Psychological Science, 16(5), 378–384.

Callejas, A., Shulman, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2011). False belief vs. false photographs: a test of theory of mind or working memory?. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 316.

Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C. (2002). How specific is the relation between executive function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory. Infant and Child Development, 11(2), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.298

Castelli, F., Frith, C., Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2002). Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes. Brain, 125 (8), 1839-1849.

Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Swettenham, J., Baird, G., Cox, A., & Drew, A. (2000). Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 15(4), 481–498.

Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Bradford Books.

Dennett, D. C. (1983). Intentional systems in cognitive ethology: The “Panglossian paradigm” defended. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(3), 343–390.

Dodell-Feder, D., Tully, L. M., Lincoln, S. H., & Hooker, C. I. (2014). The neural basis of theory of mind and its relationship to social functioning and social anhedonia in individuals with schizophrenia . NeuroImage: Clinical, 4, 154-163.

Dörrenberg, S., Rakoczy, H., & Liszkowski, U. (2018). How (not) to measure infant theory of mind: Testing the replicability and validity of four non-verbal measures. Cognitive Development, 46, 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.01.001

Dumontheil, I., Apperly, I. A., & Blakemore, S. J. (2010). Online usage of theory of mind continues to develop in late adolescence. Developmental Science, 13(2), 331–338.

Fine, C., Lumsden, J., & Blair, R. J. R. (2001). Dissociation between theory of mind and executive functions in a patient with early left amygdala damage . Brain, 124 (2), 287-298.

Fizke, E., Butterfill, S., van de Loo, L., Reindl, E., & Rakoczy, H. (2017). Are there signature limits in early theory of mind? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.05.005

Flavell, J. H. (1986). The development of children’s knowledge about the appearance–reality distinction. American Psychologist, 41(4), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.4.418

Flombaum, J. I., & Santos, L. R. (2005). Rhesus monkeys attribute perceptions to others. Current Biology, 15 (5), 447-452.

Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7 (2), 77-83.

Gallup, G. G. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self-recognition. Science, 167(3914), 86–87.

Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford University Press.

Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance–reality distinction. Child Development, 59(1), 26–37.

Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). Cambridge University Press.

Gordon, R. M. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind & Language, 1(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1986.tb00324.x

Hare, B., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behavior, 59 (4), 771-785.

Happe, F., Ehlers, S., Fletcher, P., Frith, U., Johansson, M., Gillberg, C., … & Frith, C. (1996). ‘ Theory of mind’ in the brain. Evidence from a PET scan study of Asperger syndrome. Neuroreport, 8 (1), 197-201.

Henry, J. D., Phillips, L. H., Ruffman, T., & Bailey, P. E. (2013). A meta-analytic review of age differences in theory of mind. Psychology and Aging, 28(3), 826–839.

Hynes, C. A., Baird, A. A., & Grafton, S. T. (2006). Differential role of the orbital frontal lobe in emotional versus cognitive perspective-taking. Neuropsychologia, 44(3), 374-383.

Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1), 25–41.

Krachun, C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2010). A new change-of-contents false belief test: Children and chimpanzees compared. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 23 (2).

Kulke, L., von Duhn, B., Schneider, D., & Rakoczy, H. (2018). Is implicit theory of mind a real and robust phenomenon? Results from a systematic replication study. Psychological Science, 29(6), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617747090

Lee, L., Harkness, K. L., Sabbagh, M. A., & Jacobson, J. A. (2005). Mental state decoding abilities in clinical depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 86(2–3), 247–258.

Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind.” Psychological Review, 94(4), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.4.412

Lillard, A. S. (1993). Pretend play skills and the child’s theory of mind. Child Development, 64(2), 348–371.

Luchkina, E., Sommerville, J. A., & Sobel, D. M. (2018). More than just making it go: Toddlers effectively integrate causal efficacy and intentionality in selecting an appropriate causal intervention . Cognitive Development, 45, 48-56.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838–850.

Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). Imitation as a mechanism of social cognition: Origins of empathy, theory of mind, and the representation of action. Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development, 6-25.

Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: Meta‐analysis of the relation between language ability and false‐belief understanding. Child development, 78 (2), 622-646.

Moore, C., Pure, K., & Furrow, D. (1990). Children’s understanding of the modal expression of speaker certainty and uncertainty and its relation to the development of a representational theory of mind. Child development, 61 (3), 722-730.

Moran, J. M. (2013). Lifespan development: The effects of typical aging on theory of mind. Behavioral brain research, 237, 32-40.

Nelson, P. B., Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (2008). Toddlers’ joint engagement experience facilitates preschoolers’ acquisition of theory of mind. Developmental science, 11 (6), 847-852.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 737.

O Connell, S., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). A test for comprehension of false belief in chimpanzees. Evolution and Cognition, 9(2), 131-140.

Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?. science, 308 (5719), 255-258.

Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. The MIT Press.

Perner, J., Ruffman, T., & Leekam, S. R. (1994). Theory of mind is contagious: You catch it from your sibs. Child Development, 65(4), 1228–1238. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131316

Perner, J., & Wimmer, H. (1985). “John thinks that Mary thinks…”: Attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39(3), 437–471.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking Press.

Phillips, L. H., MacLean, R. D. J., & Allen, R. (2011). Age and the understanding of emotions: Neuropsychological and sociocognitive perspectives. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66B(3), 325–331.

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?  Behavioral and brain sciences, 1 (4), 515-526.

Richter, D., & Kunzmann, U. (2011). Age differences in three facets of empathy: Performance-based evidence. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 60–70.

Ruffman, T., Slade, L., & Crowe, E. (2002). The relation between children’s and mothers’ mental state language and theory‐of‐mind understanding. Child development, 73 (3), 734-751.

Santos, L. R., Nissen, A. G., & Ferrugia, J. A. (2006). Rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta, know what others can and cannot hear. Animal Behaviour, 71 (5), 1175-1181.

Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about thinking people: the role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind” . Neuroimage, 19 (4), 1835-1842.

Saxe, R., & Powell, L. J. (2006). It’s the thought that counts: specific brain regions for one component of theory of mind. Psychological science, 17 (8), 692-699.

Saxe, R., Schulz, L. E., & Jiang, Y. V. (2006). Reading minds versus following rules: Dissociating theory of mind and executive control in the brain. Social neuroscience, 1 (3-4), 284-298.

Senju, A. (2012). Spontaneous theory of mind and its absence in autism spectrum disorders. The Neuroscientist, 18 (2), 108-113.

Shahaeian, A., Peterson, C. C., Slaughter, V., & Wellman, H. M. (2011). Culture and the sequence of steps in theory of mind development. Developmental psychology, 47 (5), 1239.

Slaughter, V., & Peterson, C. C. (2012). How conversational input shapes theory of mind development in infancy and early childhood. Access to language and cognitive development, 3-22.

Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18(7), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01944.x

Speaks, A. (2011). What is autism. Retrieved on November 17, 2011.

Spek, A. A., Scholte, E. M., & Van Berckelaer-Onnes, I. A. (2010). Theory of mind in adults with HFA and Asperger syndrome. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 40 (3), 280-289.

Sprong, M., Schothorst, P., Vos, E., Hox, J., & Van Engeland, H. (2007). Theory of mind in schizophrenia: meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 191 (1), 5-13.

Stone, V. E. (2000). The role of the frontal lobes and the amygdala in theory of mind. Understanding other minds, 253-272.

Sung, J., & Hsu, H. C. (2014). Collaborative mother–toddler communication and theory of mind development at age 4. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 35 (5), 381-391.

Tauzin, T., & Gergely, G. (2018). Communicative mind-reading in preverbal infants. Scientific reports, 8 (1), 1-9.

Träuble, B., Marinović, V., & Pauen, S. (2010). Early theory of mind competencies: Do infants understand others’ beliefs? Infancy, 15(4), 434-444.

Vetter, N. C., Altgassen, M., Phillips, L., Mahy, C. E. V., & Kliegel, M. (2013). Development of theory of mind in adolescence: Testing the scaffold hypothesis. Journal of Adolescence, 36(4), 799–806.

Wang, Y. G., Wang, Y. Q., Chen, S. L., Zhu, C. Y., & Wang, K. (2008). Theory of mind disability in major depression with or without psychotic symptoms: A componential view. Psychiatry Research, 161(2), 153–161.

Washburn, D., Wilson, G., Roes, M., Rnic, K., & Harkness, K. L. (2016). Theory of mind in social anxiety disorder, depression, and comorbid conditions. Journal of anxiety disorders, 37, 71-77.

Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684.

Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75(2), 523–541.

Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., & Peterson, C. C. (2011). Sequential progressions in a theory‐of‐mind scale: Longitudinal perspectives. Child development, 82 (3), 780-792.

Westby, C. & Robinson, L. (2014). A developmental perspective for promoting theory of mind. Topics in Language Disorders, 34 (4), 362-383.

Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5

Wolkenstein, L., Schönenberg, M., Schirm, E., & Hautzinger, M. (2011). I can see what you feel, but I can’t deal with it: Impaired theory of mind in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 132(1–2), 104–111.

Keep Learning

• How and where: Theory of mind in the brain
• Age and gender dependent development of Theory of Mind in 6-to 8-years old children
• Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind
• Sally-Anne Task Materials (Zip File)