False-belief tasks (Sally–Anne lineage)
Tasks asking whether a person predicts action from another person’s mistaken belief.
Structured observation The format describes how observations are obtained, not an evidence rating.
What it measures
Performance on a specified belief-attribution problem, not a complete measure of social understanding.
What people do
A character has incomplete information about an object’s location. The participant is asked about the character’s belief or expected search, alongside memory and reality control questions. Wording and control questions matter.
What the scores mean
A response is coded against the task’s belief question only when reality and memory control questions are answered accurately. Passing one task is not equivalent to understanding every mental state; failing does not establish the absence of that understanding.
This explains the logic of a score. It does not supply a test form, individual result or administration manual.
Development and versions
Heinz Wimmer and Josef Perner introduced the unexpected-transfer false-belief task in 1983, which preceded the simplified 1985 Sally–Anne puppet study by Simon Baron-Cohen, Alan Leslie and Uta Frith.
Evidence: (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Reliability and validity evidence
The inspected 1985 publisher abstract concerns a particular sample and paradigm. Its historical generalizations do not license a universal claim about autistic people. Broader assessment requires tasks, language demands and participants beyond that study.
Evidence belongs to a version, sample and interpretation. Read the source notes for what was actually inspected.
Evidence: (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Where it is used
Developmental research on belief attribution with age-appropriate control tasks and careful interpretation.
Limits and common misreadings
- Language, memory and executive demands can affect responses.
- One task is not an autism diagnostic test.
- An unfamiliar story or communication style can change task comprehension.
Read an example
Original teaching example
In an original scenario, Maya puts a key in a desk and leaves. Another person moves it to a shelf. A question about where Maya will look must be distinguished from asking where the key actually is. This is an illustrative story, not a validated test.
Constructed for learning; this is not a result from the instrument’s validation study.
Access and permission
Use original teaching scenarios or authorized materials; do not assume a published figure or story can be redistributed without checking rights.
Textbook connection
Related contextPsychology 2e: 9.3 Stages of Development
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.
Related measures
Read a measure critically · Explore score examples · Review research methods
Sources and inspection notes
Checked October 22, 2026. An inspection date is not a publication date. Publisher information is not presented as independent validation; abstract-only and indexed-excerpt access are identified below.
- Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind” ? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8Primary research: indexed publisher abstract and bibliographic record
The indexed publisher abstract was inspected; direct publisher access returned 403 and PubMed has no abstract. Historical terminology is preserved only in the source title. This study cannot justify a general claim that autistic people lack understanding of minds.
- Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/9-3-stages-of-developmentTextbook: conceptual context
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.