What is theory of mind? A psychometric study of theory of mind and intelligence

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101495
Ester Navarro
{"title":"What is theory of mind? A psychometric study of theory of mind and intelligence","authors":"Ester Navarro","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Theory of mind (ToM) is an essential ability for social competence and communication, and it is necessary for understanding behaviors that differ from our own (<span>Premack &amp; Woodruff, 1978</span>). Recent research suggests that tasks designed to measure ToM do not adequately capture a single ToM ability (<span>Warnell and Redcay, 2019</span>, <span>Quesque and Rossetti, 2020</span>) and, instead, might be related to tasks of general cognitive ability (<span>Coyle, Elpers, Gonzalez, Freeman, &amp; Baggio, 2018</span>). This hinders the interpretation of experimental findings and puts into question the validity of the ToM construct. The current study is the first psychometric assessment of the structure of ToM to date. Comparing ToM to crystallized intelligence (Gc) and fluid intelligence (Gf), the study aims to (a) understand whether ToM should be considered a monolithic ability and (b) explore whether tasks of ToM adequately assess ToM, above and beyond general cognitive ability. For this, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and exploratory network analysis (NMA) were conducted. The results of the models largely point to the same conclusion: while ToM tasks are not merely assessing cognitive ability, they are not purely assessing a single ToM construct either. Importantly, these findings align with recent theoretical accounts proposing that ToM should not be considered a monolithic construct (<span>Quesque and Rossetti, 2020</span>, <span>Schaafsma et al., 2015</span>, <span>Devaine et al., 2014</span>), and should instead be explored and measured as multiple domains.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"136 ","pages":"Article 101495"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028522000329/pdfft?md5=836f0d5531c179da5f05b0ebf8d59522&pid=1-s2.0-S0010028522000329-main.pdf","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028522000329","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Theory of mind (ToM) is an essential ability for social competence and communication, and it is necessary for understanding behaviors that differ from our own (Premack & Woodruff, 1978). Recent research suggests that tasks designed to measure ToM do not adequately capture a single ToM ability (Warnell and Redcay, 2019, Quesque and Rossetti, 2020) and, instead, might be related to tasks of general cognitive ability (Coyle, Elpers, Gonzalez, Freeman, & Baggio, 2018). This hinders the interpretation of experimental findings and puts into question the validity of the ToM construct. The current study is the first psychometric assessment of the structure of ToM to date. Comparing ToM to crystallized intelligence (Gc) and fluid intelligence (Gf), the study aims to (a) understand whether ToM should be considered a monolithic ability and (b) explore whether tasks of ToM adequately assess ToM, above and beyond general cognitive ability. For this, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and exploratory network analysis (NMA) were conducted. The results of the models largely point to the same conclusion: while ToM tasks are not merely assessing cognitive ability, they are not purely assessing a single ToM construct either. Importantly, these findings align with recent theoretical accounts proposing that ToM should not be considered a monolithic construct (Quesque and Rossetti, 2020, Schaafsma et al., 2015, Devaine et al., 2014), and should instead be explored and measured as multiple domains.

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
什么是心智理论?心理和智力理论的心理测量学研究
心理理论(ToM)是社会能力和沟通的基本能力,对于理解与我们自己不同的行为是必要的(Premack &伍德乐夫,1978)。最近的研究表明,旨在衡量ToM的任务并不能充分捕捉到单一的ToM能力(Warnell and redkay, 2019; Quesque and Rossetti, 2020),相反,它可能与一般认知能力的任务有关(Coyle, Elpers, Gonzalez, Freeman, &巴乔,2018)。这阻碍了对实验结果的解释,并对ToM结构的有效性提出了质疑。目前的研究是迄今为止首次对ToM结构进行心理测量评估。将ToM与结晶智力(Gc)和流体智力(Gf)进行比较,本研究旨在(a)了解ToM是否应该被视为一种单一的能力,(b)探索ToM的任务是否能够在一般认知能力之外充分评估ToM。为此,我们进行了验证性因子分析(CFAs)、探索性因子分析(EFA)和探索性网络分析(NMA)。这些模型的结果在很大程度上指向了相同的结论:虽然ToM任务不仅仅是评估认知能力,但它们也不是纯粹评估单一的ToM结构。重要的是,这些发现与最近提出的ToM不应被视为单一结构的理论相符(Quesque和Rossetti, 2020, Schaafsma等人,2015,Devaine等人,2014),而应作为多个领域进行探索和测量。
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
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Cognitive Psychology is concerned with advances in the study of attention, memory, language processing, perception, problem solving, and thinking. Cognitive Psychology specializes in extensive articles that have a major impact on cognitive theory and provide new theoretical advances. Research Areas include: • Artificial intelligence • Developmental psychology • Linguistics • Neurophysiology • Social psychology.
期刊最新文献
Free time, sharper mind: A computational dive into working memory improvement. Editorial Board Building compressed causal models of the world Doing things efficiently: Testing an account of why simple explanations are satisfying Perceptual inference corrects function word errors in reading: Errors that are not noticed do not disrupt eye movements
×
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:481959085
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