Poster #200 - Relation between theory of mind and hot/cool executive function: A longitudinal perspective

• In Event: 2-110 - Poster Session 07
  In Poster Session: PS 07 Section - Social Cognition

Integrative Statement

Zelazo and Müller (2002) suggested a distinction between the “cool” cognitive aspect and the “hot” affective aspect of executive function (EF). A meta-analysis showed stronger evidence that earlier EF predicted later theory of mind (ToM) than vice versa; furthermore, the correlation between performance on the Gift Delay task (a hot EF task) and ToM was significantly weaker than that between the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS, a cool EF task) and ToM (Devine & Hughes, 2014). Another longitudinal study with large sample also found that only the earlier attention shifting and working memory updating components of EF, but not the inhibition component of EF, predicted later ToM (Austin, Grope, & Elsner, 2014). In a longitudinal design, the current study aimed to examine how exactly both “hot” and “cool” aspects of EF are associated with ToM development. Specifically, it was hypothesized that earlier cool EF, but not hot EF, predicts later ToM; but ToM predicts later hot EF measured by delay task.
One-hundred and thirty-four normal developing children aged between 4- to 7-years and their primary caregivers were recruited at Time1, and 94 pairs returned one year later at Time2. Cool EF was assessed using a Head-Shoulders-Knees-Toes task (HTKS) at Time1 and DCCS at Time2. Hot EF was assessed using a Gift Delay at both time points. In the Gift Delay Task, children were told not to peek when the experimenter wrapped a present noisily during a 60s period. A dichotomous peeking score, the latency of the first peek over shoulder, and the total number of peeks were recorded and coded. All three variables were significantly correlated at both time points, rs ranging from .58 to .78, and therefore were standardized to compute a composite score as the index of Gift Delay. ToM was measured using 1st and 2nd false belief tasks at Time1, and 1st and 2nd false belief tasks and strange stories at Time2. All scores of the tasks were significantly inter-correlated at both time points, rs ranged from .25 to .64, therefore were standardized to compute composite ToM scores. Path analysis was adopted to test the hypothesis using bootstrap method.
Bivariate correlations were shown in Table 1. The path analysis model yielded acceptable model fit, 2(1) = 98.04, p = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI= 1.00, and RMSEA=.000. Figure 1 illustrated the longitudinal relations between “cool” EF, “hot” EF, and ToM. After controlling child ToM at Time1, “cool” EF at Time1 significantly contributed to child ToM at Time2 (b = .32, p < .01); while “hot” EF at Time1 did not predict ToM at Time2 (b = .11, ns). After controlling child “cool” and “hot” EF at Time1, ToM at Time1 did not predict child “cool” EF at Time2 (b = -.03, ns) but significantly predicted “hot” EF at Time2 (b = .45, p < .01). The findings suggested that only cool EF predicted later ToM development. Children’s performance on the delay task appeared to be measuring self-control, which could be considered a developmental outcome of ToM.

Authors

• Xiaozi Gao, The Education University of Hong Kong
  Presenting Author

• Zhenlin Wang, The Education University of Hong Kong
  Non-Presenting Author