This chapter reports a study providing evidence that narrative experience, in the form of interactive bookreading, promoted theory of mind abilities of preschoolers. Sixty-seven low-income 4- and 5-year-olds participated in either one of two types of bookreading training or in a control group. The two bookreading conditions involved the reading of books: (1) that included mental state themes such as characters having beliefs counter to reality (false beliefs), or characters deceiving another character to gain something from them (active deception), or characters encountering objects that falsely appear to be one thing but are entirely something else (appearance-reality distinction); or (2) that did not include such mental state themes. The control condition was a no-treatment group in which children continued their daily classroom activities. All children were pre- and post-tested on a battery of theory of mind tasks. Results indicated that children participating in bookreading with or without mental state themes improved in theory of mind abilities from pre- to post-test as compared to the no-treatment control group. However, children who were read storybooks with mental state themes demonstrated greater improvements in active deception than those in the non-mental state themes condition. These results indicate the need for further research to disentangle the impact of mental state themes, mental state concepts, and mental state language in storybooks for promoting theory of mind abilities in children.
Adrían, 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.
Adrían, J. E., Clementeß, R. A., Villanueva, L., & Rieffe, C. (2005). Parent–child picture-book reading, mothers’ mental state language and children’s theory of mind. Journal of Child Language, 32(3), 673–686.
Aram, D., Fine, Y., & Ziv, M. (2013). Enhancing parent–child shared book reading interactions: Promoting references to the book’s plot and socio-cognitive themes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 111–122.
Brockmeyer, C.Nicolopoulou, A., de Sá, A., Ilgaz, H., & Cortina, K. S. (2008). Multitasking: The best way to assess preschoolers’ narrative competence. Paper presented at the XI International Association for the Study of Child Language. Edinburgh, UK.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chandler, M., Fritz, A. S., & Hala, S. (1989). Small-scale deceit: Deception as a marker of two-, three-, and four-year-olds’ theories of mind. Child Development, 60(6), 1263–1277.
Chevalier, C. (1987). Spence is small. Part Ridge, IL: Albert Whitman & Co.
Cole, K., & Mitchell, P. (2001). Family background in relation to deceptive ability and understanding of the mind. Social Development, 7(2), 181–197.
Curenton, S. M. (2003). Low-income preschoolers’ false-belief performance. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(4), 411–424.
Dyer, J. R., Shatz, M., & Wellman, H. M. (2000). Young children’s storybooks as a source of mental state information. Cognitive Development, 15(1), 17–37.
Ehrlich, H. M. (2000). Louie’s goose. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. R., & Green, F. L. (1983). Development of the appearance-reality distinction. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 95–120.
Fletcher, K. L., & Reese, E. (2005). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 25(1), 64–103.
Galdone, P. (1985). The little red hen. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. A. (2004). Test of narrative language: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Goodsitt, J., Raitan, J. G., & Perlmutter, M. (1988). Interaction between mothers and preschool children when reading a novel and familiar book. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 11(4), 489–505.
Guajardo, N. R., & Watson, A. C. (2002). Narrative discourse and theory of mind development. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(3), 305–325.
Harris, P. L. (2006). Conversation, pretense, and theory of mind. In J. W. Astington, & J. A. Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp.70–83). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, H., Black, C., & Miller, S. (1996). A cross-task comparison of false belief understanding in a Head Start population. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63(2), 263–285. Retrieved from [URL]
Hutto, D. D. (2008). Folk psychological narratives: The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kasza, K. (2005). My lucky day. New York, NY: Puffin Books.
Lalonde, C. E., & Chandler, M. J. (1995). False belief understanding goes to school: On the social-emotional consequences of coming early or late to a first theory of mind. Cognition and Emotion, 9(2–3), 167–185.
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(3), 173–192.
Nelson, K. (2007). Young minds in social worlds: Experience, meaning, and memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peskin, J., & Astington, J. W. (2004). The effects of adding metacognitive language to story texts. Cognitive Development, 19(2), 253–273.
Phillips, G., & McNaughton, S. (1990). The practice of storybook reading in mainstream New Zealand Families. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 196–212.
Racine, T. P., Carpendale, J. I. M., & Turnbull, W. (2007). Parent–child talk and children’s understanding of beliefs and emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 21(3), 480–494.
Rall, J., & Harris, P. L. (2000). In Cinderella’s slippers? Story comprehension from the protagonist’s point of view. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 202–208.
Ratner, N. K., & Olver, R. R. (1998). Reading a tale of deception, learning a theory of mind?Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 219–239.
Saunders, D., & Saunders, J. (1990). Dibble and Dabble. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing.
Shatz, M., Diesendruck, G., Martinez-Beck, I., & Akar, D. (2003). The influence of language and socioeconomic status on children’s understanding of false belief. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 717–729.
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2014, August 11). Can fiction stories make us more empathetic? Retrieved from [URL].
Symons, D. K., Peterson, C. C., Slaughter, V., Roche, J., & Doyle, E. (2005). Theory of mind and mental state discourse during book reading and story-telling tasks. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 81–102.
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75(2), 523–541.
Wiig, E. H., Secord, W., & Semel, E. M. (2004). CELF Preschool 2: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool. Pearson/PsychCorp.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Bergman Deitcher, Deborah & Adi Sharabi
2024. Shared Book-Reading Amongst Parents of Autistic and Non-Autistic Children. European Journal of Special Needs Education► pp. 1 ff.
Lenhart, Jan & Tobias Richter
2024. Media exposure and preschoolers' social‐cognitive development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 42:2 ► pp. 234 ff.
Zheng, Yuanxia, Danyang Li, Zhongqi Chen & Guoxiong Liu
2022. Picture book reading on the development of preschoolers in rural areas of China: Effects on language, inhibition, and theory of mind. Frontiers in Psychology 13
2021. Promoting Preschoolers’ Mental-Emotional Conceptualization and Social Understanding: A Shared Book-Reading Study. Early Education and Development 32:4 ► pp. 501 ff.
Timperley, Sarah, Elizabeth Schaughency, Ruby-Rose McDonald & Elaine Reese
2021. Rhymes and Relatability: How Storybook Style and Content Relate to Home-Based Educators’ Extra-Textual Talk. Early Education and Development 32:8 ► pp. 1240 ff.
Wimmer, Lena, Gregory Currie, Stacie Friend & Heather J. Ferguson
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.