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).
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
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
