Siblings in the development of executive control and a theory of mind

By Kristina Cole, Peter Mitchell. 2000

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4ad66f0739102d74ab077de58c7a8653fffb25b2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Executive function and theory of mind (2008, unknown): “However, most of these studies examined children (Fisher & Happé, 2005; Joseph & Tager- 7 Flusberg, 2004; Fahie & Symons, 2003; Cole & Mitchell, 2000; Sabbagh, Xu, Carlson et al., 2006; Carlson et al., 2002; Carlson et al., 2004; Carlson et al., 2004).”
A longitudinal study of child siblings and theory of mind development (2007, background): “Thus our results fail to address the possibility (Cole & Mitchell, 2000) that children in families with high mobility, low incomes and poor education may not gain ToM benefits from siblings.”
Cultural and Family Influences on Children’s Theory of Mind Development (2014, result): “This is however controversial as some others have failed to find similar association (Cole & Mitchell, 2000; Henning, Spinath, & Aschersleben, 2011).”
The neural bases of cooperation and competition: an fMRI investigation (2004, background): “In addition, developmental research shows that executive control is an enabling factor for children succeeding on various theory of mind tasks (Carlson et al., 2002; Cole and Mitchell, 2000; Ozonoff et al., 1991).”
The Development of Mentalisation in Children From a Theory of Mind Perspective (2010, background): “A systematic relationship has also been found between maternal mental state thinking about their infants and maternal education and cultural background on the one hand ( Reznick, 1999 ), and socio-economic status and theory of mind on the other ( Cole and Mitchell, 2000 ; Cutting and Dunn, 1999 ; ”
Children's brand symbolism understanding: Links to theory of mind and executive functioning (2010, methodology): “Cole and Mitchell’s (2000) Squirrel and Badger game was employed with teddy bear and lion puppets to replace the squirrel and badger. The task required impulse control, rule adherence, and behavior planning. On each of 12 trials, the puppets took turns directing children’s hand movements (e.g., touc”
Maternal mind-mindedness and attachment security as predictors of theory of mind understanding. (2002, background): “Our findings thus add to a growing number of studies (Carlson & Moses, 2001; Cole & Mitchell, 1998, 2000; Cutting & Dunn, 1999; Meins & Fernyhough, 1999) that have failed to replicate findings of a facilitatory effect of siblings on children's ToM abilities (e.g., Perner et al., 1994; Ruffman et…”
Theory of mind and inhibitory control in three cultures: Conflict inhibition predicts false belief understanding in Germany, Costa Rica and Cameroon (2006, background): “…to numerous contextual variables such as socioeconomic status of the family and number of (older) siblings even when age and verbal skill of the child is controlled (Cole & Mitchell, 2000; Cutting & Dunn, 1999; Perner, Ruffman & Leekam, 1994; Ruffman, Perner, Naito, Parkin, & Clements, 1998).”
Constructing an understanding of mind: The development of children's social understanding within social interaction (2004, result): “The sibling effect was not replicated, however, in two more recent studies involving working-class families (Cole & Mitchell 2000; Cutting & Dunn 1999).”
What are the Links Between Theory of Mind and Social Relations? Review, Reflections and New Directions for Studies of Typical and Atypical Development (2004, background): “…has documented significant correlations between family socio-economic status (SES) and individual differences in false-belief performance (e.g., Cole & Mitchell, 2000; Cutting & Dunn, 1999; Holmes, Black & Miller, 1996), and SES contrasts in language use are widely recognized (e.g., Bradley &…”