获取信念的原则。我们如何读懂他人的思想

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
M.T. Pascarelli , D. Quarona , G. Barchiesi , G. Riva , S.A. Butterfill , C. Sinigaglia
{"title":"获取信念的原则。我们如何读懂他人的思想","authors":"M.T. Pascarelli ,&nbsp;D. Quarona ,&nbsp;G. Barchiesi ,&nbsp;G. Riva ,&nbsp;S.A. Butterfill ,&nbsp;C. Sinigaglia","doi":"10.1016/j.concog.2023.103625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Reading other minds is a pervasive feature of human social life. A decade of research indicates that people can automatically track an agent’s beliefs regardless of whether this is required. But little is known about the principles t guide automatic belief tracking. In six experiments adapting a false belief task introduced by <span>Kovács et al. (2010)</span>, we tested whether belief tracking is interrupted by either an agent’s lack of perceptual access or else by an agent’s constrained action possibilities. We also tested whether such manipulations create interruptions when participants were instructed to track beliefs. Our main finding: the agent’s lack of perceptual access did not interrupt belief tracking when participants were not instructed to track beliefs. Overall, our findings raise a challenge: some of the phenomena that have been labelled mindreading are perhaps not mindreading at all, or—more likely—they are mindreading but not as we know it.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51358,"journal":{"name":"Consciousness and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810023001629/pdfft?md5=f7aa238899b8d926457deb41ec6a3d46&pid=1-s2.0-S1053810023001629-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Principles of belief acquisition. How we read other minds\",\"authors\":\"M.T. Pascarelli ,&nbsp;D. Quarona ,&nbsp;G. Barchiesi ,&nbsp;G. Riva ,&nbsp;S.A. Butterfill ,&nbsp;C. Sinigaglia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.concog.2023.103625\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Reading other minds is a pervasive feature of human social life. A decade of research indicates that people can automatically track an agent’s beliefs regardless of whether this is required. But little is known about the principles t guide automatic belief tracking. In six experiments adapting a false belief task introduced by <span>Kovács et al. (2010)</span>, we tested whether belief tracking is interrupted by either an agent’s lack of perceptual access or else by an agent’s constrained action possibilities. We also tested whether such manipulations create interruptions when participants were instructed to track beliefs. Our main finding: the agent’s lack of perceptual access did not interrupt belief tracking when participants were not instructed to track beliefs. Overall, our findings raise a challenge: some of the phenomena that have been labelled mindreading are perhaps not mindreading at all, or—more likely—they are mindreading but not as we know it.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Consciousness and Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810023001629/pdfft?md5=f7aa238899b8d926457deb41ec6a3d46&pid=1-s2.0-S1053810023001629-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Consciousness and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810023001629\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consciousness and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810023001629","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

读心术是人类社会生活的一个普遍特征。十年来的研究表明,无论是否需要,人们都能自动追踪他人的信念。但是,人们对自动追踪信念的指导原则却知之甚少。在改编科瓦奇等人(2010 年)提出的虚假信念任务的六个实验中,我们测试了信念追踪是否会因代理缺乏感知能力或代理的行动可能性受限而中断。我们还测试了当被试者被指示追踪信念时,这些操作是否会造成中断。我们的主要发现是:当参与者没有接到追踪信念的指令时,代理缺乏感知能力并不会中断信念追踪。总之,我们的发现提出了一个挑战:一些被称为读心术的现象也许根本就不是读心术,或者--更有可能--它们是读心术,但不是我们所知道的读心术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Principles of belief acquisition. How we read other minds

Reading other minds is a pervasive feature of human social life. A decade of research indicates that people can automatically track an agent’s beliefs regardless of whether this is required. But little is known about the principles t guide automatic belief tracking. In six experiments adapting a false belief task introduced by Kovács et al. (2010), we tested whether belief tracking is interrupted by either an agent’s lack of perceptual access or else by an agent’s constrained action possibilities. We also tested whether such manipulations create interruptions when participants were instructed to track beliefs. Our main finding: the agent’s lack of perceptual access did not interrupt belief tracking when participants were not instructed to track beliefs. Overall, our findings raise a challenge: some of the phenomena that have been labelled mindreading are perhaps not mindreading at all, or—more likely—they are mindreading but not as we know it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Consciousness and Cognition
Consciousness and Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal provides a forum for a natural-science approach to the issues of consciousness, voluntary control, and self. The journal features empirical research (in the form of regular articles and short reports) and theoretical articles. Integrative theoretical and critical literature reviews, and tutorial reviews are also published. The journal aims to be both scientifically rigorous and open to novel contributions.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信