Explicit factuality and comparative evidence

We argue that Dienes and Perner's (D and P's) proposal needs to specify independent criteria when a subject explicitly represents factuality. This task is complicated by the fact that people typically 'tacitly' believe that each of their beliefs is a fact. This problem does not arise for comparative evidence on monkeys, for they presumably lack the capacity to represent factuality explicitly. D and P suggest that explicit visual processing and declarative memory depend on explicit representations of factuality, whereas the analogous implicit processes do not require such representations. Many of the implicit/explicit findings are also found in monkeys, however, and D and P's account needs to explain this striking parallel.