Культура в процессе формирования интеллектуального потенциала личности

Introduction of vocalizations (low formant dispersion first)

Story structure used in Experiment 3.

<p>Note: The difference between the ADO and AE conditions is italicized.</p

Explanation types produced in Experiments 1 and 2.

<p>Note: Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of explanations given in each category by the total number of explanations (160 total explanations). The percentages for each experiment total to greater than 100% because some of the explanations mentioned both a desire and belief.</p

Mean endorsement level for the explanation types in Experiment 3.

<p>Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the mean (S.E.M). * indicates that the predicted difference was significant at p<.0001, two tailed; additional significant differences are reported in the main text.</p

Percent of children producing each type of mental state response in Experiment 1.

<p>The “true belief distracter” responses are not shown for the desire-statement-absent stories because none were produced. Error bars represent the standard error of each percentage. * indicates McNemar test of dependent proportions, p<.0001, two-tailed.</p

Candidate explanation types used in Experiment 3B, belief probe.

*<p>Denotes the explanation type predicted to be endorsed in the ADO condition, but not in the AE condition.</p><p>Note: The structure shown for the True Belief – Distracter and Impossible Belief – Distracter explanations applies to the ADO condition. The locations were changed to [location 2] and [location 1] respectively for the AE condition.</p

Percent of participants who produced distracter object and target object responses in Experiments 1 and 2.

<p>Note: The comparisons between preschool children and adults producing distracter object responses in the ADO condition were significant for the desire-statement-absent stories (Fisher’s Exact, P = .01) and marginally significant for the desire-statement-present stories (Fisher’s Exact, P = .055). None of the other age comparisons were significant.</p

Candidate explanation types used in Experiment 3A, desire probe.

*<p>Denotes the explanation type predicted to be endorsed in the ADO condition, but not in the AE condition.</p

Percent of adults producing each type of mental state explanation in Experiment 2.

<p>Distracter object explanations are not shown for the desire-statement-present stories because none were produced. Error bars represent the standard error of each percentage. * indicates McNemar test of dependent proportions, p<.009, two-tailed.</p

Task diagram for Experiments 1 and 2.

<p>Four of 10 total panels are depicted for each condition (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0072835#pone.0072835.s001" target="_blank">Figure S1</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0072835#pone.0072835.s002" target="_blank">Figure S2</a> for complete stories and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0072835#pone.0072835.s003" target="_blank">Text S1</a> for the corresponding text). The ADO experimental condition is depicted on the left; the AE control condition is depicted on the right. The initial locations of both the target and distracter objects are shown (Panel 1). Next, character A returns the target object to its original location (Panel 2) after playing with it (a panel not shown here). Then, character B moves the target object to a different location (Panel 3). Finally, character A searches at the original location of the target object (Panel 4) and participants are asked “Why did she go there?” The initial location of the objects (left vs. right side) was counterbalanced across the four stories. Note that the only difference between the ADO and AE conditions is the location of the distracter object.</p