Abstract
The interpretive and theory versions of children’s theory of mind as discussed by Astington and Olson are reconsidered in the light of an experiential theory of cognitive development. Data from adults’ responses to a theory of mind task are reported, indicating that many adults (college students) provide interpretive explanations while others give straightforward logical-causal theoretical explanations of actions. Evidence from naturalistic studies of young children as well as their explanations offered in experimental situations suggest that they rely on background experientially based knowledge to interpret theory of mind tasks. We argue that a logical-causal theory of human action based on mental states is a developmental product of interpretive narrative and not its basis.