Theoretical limitations on mindreading measures: Commentary on Wendt et al. (2024).

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1037/pas0001349
Jane R Conway, Emily L Long, Leora Sevi, Caroline Catmur, Geoffrey Bird
{"title":"Theoretical limitations on mindreading measures: Commentary on Wendt et al. (2024).","authors":"Jane R Conway, Emily L Long, Leora Sevi, Caroline Catmur, Geoffrey Bird","doi":"10.1037/pas0001349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this Commentary article, we expand on issues in the theory of mind literature raised by Wendt et al. (2024) that limit progress in our understanding of how people read other minds. We critically assess how they categorized tasks in their study and, in so doing, raise deeper questions that need addressing: What exactly are mental states; how can we accurately measure mindreading when the \"correct\" answer lacks ground truth; and what are the contributions to individual differences in mindreading of general cognitive ability and specific experience in the kinds of minds being read? We conclude that developing a psychological theory of how people read other minds would advance ways in which we can better measure and explain what it means to be better or worse at mindreading and how general cognitive ability relates to this sociocognitive skill. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"37 3","pages":"129-132"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001349","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this Commentary article, we expand on issues in the theory of mind literature raised by Wendt et al. (2024) that limit progress in our understanding of how people read other minds. We critically assess how they categorized tasks in their study and, in so doing, raise deeper questions that need addressing: What exactly are mental states; how can we accurately measure mindreading when the "correct" answer lacks ground truth; and what are the contributions to individual differences in mindreading of general cognitive ability and specific experience in the kinds of minds being read? We conclude that developing a psychological theory of how people read other minds would advance ways in which we can better measure and explain what it means to be better or worse at mindreading and how general cognitive ability relates to this sociocognitive skill. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
读心术测量的理论局限性:对Wendt等人(2024)的评论。
在这篇评论文章中,我们扩展了Wendt等人(2024)提出的心智理论文献中的问题,这些问题限制了我们对人们如何阅读他人思想的理解。我们批判性地评估他们如何在研究中对任务进行分类,并在此过程中提出需要解决的更深层次的问题:精神状态到底是什么;当“正确”答案缺乏基本事实时,我们如何准确地测量读心术?读心术的一般认知能力和被读心术的特定体验对个体差异的贡献是什么?我们的结论是,发展一种关于人们如何读心术的心理学理论,将有助于我们更好地衡量和解释读心术的好坏,以及一般认知能力与这种社会认知技能之间的关系。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
期刊最新文献
A conversation of methodological worldviews on Thematic Apperceptive Techniques (TATs): Commentary on Sinclair et al. (2023). Proclaiming a psychological assessment tool is "reliable, valid, and ethical" doth not make it so: A reply to Stein et al. (2026) and Jenkins (2026). The social cognition and object relations scale is reliable, valid, and ethical in clinical practice and research: Comment on Sinclair et al. (2023). Supplemental Material for Structure of Current Psychopathology and Its Associations With Daily Life Experiences Using the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology Self-Report (HiTOP-SR) in a Mixed Clinical/Community Sample Supplemental Material for Between- and Within-Person Predictors of Missingness in Intensive Longitudinal Data Among People in Outpatient Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1