Jane R Conway, Emily L Long, Leora Sevi, Caroline Catmur, Geoffrey Bird
{"title":"读心术测量的理论局限性:对Wendt等人(2024)的评论。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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)。
Theoretical limitations on mindreading measures: Commentary on Wendt et al. (2024).
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