MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391012097 · doi:10.21009/jpud.172.01

Theory of Mind, Roles, and the Development of Emotion Regulation in Early Childhood

2023· article· en· W4391012097 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erna Risnawati, Laila Meiliyandrie Indah Wardani, Alpin Herman Saputra, Muktia Pramitasari

Bibliographic record

VenueJPUD - Jurnal Pendidikan Usia Dini · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of mindPsychologyEmpathyMediationConstruct (python library)Developmental psychologyEarly childhoodProsocial behaviorScale (ratio)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to regulate children's emotions is the basis for psychosocial development which is the key to future success, and they can quickly adapt to other people or situations that may not always be comfortable for them. Theory of mind (ToM) is a construct used to describe the ability to interpret other people's mental states, which then develops into the ability to empathize. This study examines how the theory of mind contributes to the development of emotion regulation in children aged 4, 5, and 6 years. This research used a quasi-experimental design to find the effect of ToM stimulation on children's emotional regulation. 109 respondents were selected using a purposive sampling technique. The scales used in this research are the PreBers scale to examine children's emotional regulation and the ToM scale. The research results showed that the influence of ToM development on children's emotional regulation was 52.4%. The results of this research highlight that the better the child acquires a Theory of Mind, the better the development of the child's emotional regulation. Furthermore, these findings are significant for early childhood education providers to develop programs to optimize ToM acquisition from childhood. Keywords: theory of mind, empathy, emotion regulation, children aged 4, 5, and 6 years References: Benita, M., Levkovitz, T., & Roth, G. (2017). Integrative emotion regulation predicts adolescents’ prosocial behavior through the mediation of empathy. Learning and Instruction, 50, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.004 Cress, C. J., Synhorst, L., Epstein, M. H., & Allen, E. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis of the preschool behavioral and emotional rating scale (PreBERS) with preschool children with disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508411433499 Cress, C., Lambert, M. C., & Epstein, M. H. (2016). Factor Analysis of the Preschool Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale for Children in Head Start Programs. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915617630 Diane E.Papalia; Gabriella Martorell. (2014). Experience Human Development (13th ed.). McGraw Hill-Education. Dunfield, K. A., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2013). Classifying prosocial behavior: Children’s responses to instrumental need, emotional distress, and material desire. Child Development, 84(5), 1766–1776. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12075 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2007). Prososial Development. Handbook of Child Psychology, 73. Fitzpatrick, P., Frazier, J. A., Cochran, D., Mitchell, T., Coleman, C., & Schmidt, R. C. (2018). Relationship Between Theory of Mind, Emotion Recognition, and Social Synchrony in Adolescents With and Without Autism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(July), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01337 Glenwright, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). Development of children’s ability to distinguish sarcasm and verbal irony. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909009520 Graham, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). Supporting children’s social and emotional well-being: Does “having a say” matter? Children and Society, 25(6), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00295.x Hum, K., & Lewis, M. (2013). Emotion Regulation in Children. Handbook of Self-Regulatory Processes in …, 33(April), 102–112. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o9DG7crxtZoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA173&dq=Emotion+Regulation+in+Children+With&ots=Lh-WsDVhYR&sig=9M0LvXTiIxBAP85dfTvmEIvqJWA Imuta, K., Henry, J. D., Slaughter, V., & Ruffman, T. (2016). Supplemental Material for Theory of Mind and Prosocial Behavior in Childhood: A Meta-Analytic Review. Developmental Psychology, 52(8), 1192–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000140.supp Kuntoro, I. A., Risnawati, E., & Collier-Baker, E. (2019). The development of mental time travel in Indonesian children. Diversity in Unity: Perspectives from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315225302-12 Lane, J. D., Wellman, H. M., Olson, S. L., LaBounty, J., & Kerr, D. C. R. (2010). Theory of mind and emotional understanding predict moral development in early childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151009X483056 Lee, K., Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2021). Teaching sarcasm: Evaluating metapragmatic training for typically developing children. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000228 Lei, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Wang, J., Lou, Y., & Li, H. (2019). Taking familiar others’ perspectives to regulate our own emotion: An event-related potential study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(JUN), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01419 Lewis, A. (2019). Examining the concept of well-being and early childhood: Adopting multi-disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(4), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X19860553 Meyebovsky, M. M., Tabullo, Á. J., & García, C. S. (2021). Associations between Theory of Mind and Emotion Regulation in Argentinean Adults. Current Psychology, 40(12), 6118–6131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00539-9 Mizokawa, Ai; Koyasu, M., & Mizokawa, A. (1999). Children ’ understanding of hidden emotion , theory of mind , and peer relationship Method Participants. 2025–2030. Nyklíček, I., Zeelenberg, M., & Vingerhoets, A. (2011). Emotion regulation and well-being. In Emotion Regulation and Well-Being (Issue January 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6953-8 Risnawati, E., Anggraika, I., & Collier-baker, E. (2015). Kontribusi Perolehan Theory of mind terhadap Perkembangan mental Time Travel pada Anak Usia 3-5 tahun. 4(1), 37–39. 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), 1239–1247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023899 Shukla, P., & Rishi, P. (2014). A Corelational Study of Psychosocial & Spiritual Well Being and Death Anxiety among Advanced Stage Cancer Patients. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(3), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajap-2-3-1 Slaughter, V., Dennis, M. J., & Pritchard, M. (2002). Theory of mind and peer acceptance in preschool children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002760390945 Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75(2), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPUD - Jurnal Pendidikan Usia DiniSame topicEducational Methods and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207