↓ Skip to main content

Why are bilinguals better than monolinguals at false-belief tasks?

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why are bilinguals better than monolinguals at false-belief tasks?
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13423-016-1143-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula Rubio-Fernández

Abstract

In standard Theory of Mind tasks, such as the Sally-Anne, children have to predict the behaviour of a mistaken character, which requires attributing the character a false belief. Hundreds of developmental studies in the last 30 years have shown that children under 4 fail standard false-belief tasks. However, recent studies have revealed that bilingual children and adults outperform their monolingual peers in this type of tasks. Bilinguals' better performance in false-belief tasks has generally been interpreted as a result of their better inhibitory control; that is, bilinguals are allegedly better than monolinguals at inhibiting the erroneous response to the false-belief question. In this review, I challenge the received view and argue instead that bilinguals' better false-belief performance results from more effective attention management. This challenge ties in with two independent lines of research: on the one hand, recent studies on the role of attentional processes in false-belief tasks with monolingual children and adults; and on the other, current research on bilinguals' performance in different Executive Function tasks. The review closes with an exploratory discussion of further benefits of bilingual cognition to Theory of Mind development and pragmatics, which may be independent from Executive Function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 30%
Linguistics 9 10%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Philosophy 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 32 36%