Theory-of-Mind Development in Brazilian Low-Income Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite all advances of theory-of-mind research in recent years, our current understanding of this phenomenon in children from different socioeconomic backgrounds living in developing countries is still limited. The present study aimed to investigate the developmental pattern toward theory-of-mind in 121 Brazilian preschool children (3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) from low SES working-class families. Participants were administered three tasks assessing different aspects of theory of mind: adapted versions of a verbal and a non-verbal false belief tasks, the Luria hand-game, and the Deceptive Box game. Children from all three-age groups succeeded in the test of inhibitory control (the Luria hand-game). In the unexpected false belief task, the majority of 4-year-old children (65.9 %) passed the non-verbal test and the second verbal test (72.7%); however, in the Deceptive box task, only half of 5-year-old children gave correct responses to both types of question (52.8 % to self- and 50% to other-attribution questions). These results suggest a possible difference in the developmental sequence toward theory-of-mind in Brazilian low-income children that needs to be further investigated. Future cross-cultural studies should be particularly attentive to the characteristics of children’s family environments, in particular, family context and functioning when investigating social cognitive development in poor children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".