Post hoc versus predictive accounts of children's theory of mind: A reply to Ruffman

Ruffman (2014) argues for a minimalist account of infants' performance on theory of mind tasks. This commentary argues that because Ruffman's minimalist account is post hoc, it neither generates testable predictions about how infants will respond in new situations, nor does it offer a coherent explanation for existing false-belief findings. An alternative, mentalist account is presented. This account integrates infancy findings with prior theory of mind literature and generates novel predictions about children's false belief performance.