Cargando…

Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task

The concept of mentalizing has been widely studied, but almost exclusively through tasks with explicit instructions. Recent studies suggest that people also mentalize on a more implicit level. However, to our knowledge, no study to date has directly contrasted the effects of implicit and explicit me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nijhof, Annabel D., Brass, Marcel, Bardi, Lara, Wiersema, Jan R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5056736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27723814
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164373
_version_ 1782458951366868992
author Nijhof, Annabel D.
Brass, Marcel
Bardi, Lara
Wiersema, Jan R.
author_facet Nijhof, Annabel D.
Brass, Marcel
Bardi, Lara
Wiersema, Jan R.
author_sort Nijhof, Annabel D.
collection PubMed
description The concept of mentalizing has been widely studied, but almost exclusively through tasks with explicit instructions. Recent studies suggest that people also mentalize on a more implicit level. However, to our knowledge, no study to date has directly contrasted the effects of implicit and explicit mentalizing processes on an implicit dependent measure within-subjects. We implemented this by using two versions of an object detection task, differing only on secondary catch questions. We hypothesized that if explicit mentalizing relies on complementary processes beyond those underlying implicit mentalizing, this would be reflected in enhanced belief effects in the explicit version. Twenty-eight healthy adults watched movies in which, during the first phase, both they themselves and another agent formed a belief about the location of a ball, and although irrelevant, these beliefs could influence their ball detection reaction times in the second phase. After this response phase, there were occasional catch questions that were different for the explicit and implicit task version. Finally, self-report measures of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptomatology were included, as the literature suggests that ASD is related to a specific deficit in implicit mentalizing. Both in the explicit and implicit version, belief conditions had a significant effect on reaction times, with responses being slower when neither the participant nor the other agent expected the ball to be present compared to all other conditions. Importantly, after the implicit version, participants reported no explicit mentalizing awareness. In our neurotypical sample, ASD symptoms were not found to correlate with either explicit or implicit mentalizing. In conclusion, the reaction time patterns in the explicit and implicit version of the task show strikingly similar effects of mentalizing, indicating that participants processed beliefs to the same extent regardless of whether they mentalized explicitly or implicitly, with no additional effects for explicit processing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5056736
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50567362016-10-27 Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task Nijhof, Annabel D. Brass, Marcel Bardi, Lara Wiersema, Jan R. PLoS One Research Article The concept of mentalizing has been widely studied, but almost exclusively through tasks with explicit instructions. Recent studies suggest that people also mentalize on a more implicit level. However, to our knowledge, no study to date has directly contrasted the effects of implicit and explicit mentalizing processes on an implicit dependent measure within-subjects. We implemented this by using two versions of an object detection task, differing only on secondary catch questions. We hypothesized that if explicit mentalizing relies on complementary processes beyond those underlying implicit mentalizing, this would be reflected in enhanced belief effects in the explicit version. Twenty-eight healthy adults watched movies in which, during the first phase, both they themselves and another agent formed a belief about the location of a ball, and although irrelevant, these beliefs could influence their ball detection reaction times in the second phase. After this response phase, there were occasional catch questions that were different for the explicit and implicit task version. Finally, self-report measures of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptomatology were included, as the literature suggests that ASD is related to a specific deficit in implicit mentalizing. Both in the explicit and implicit version, belief conditions had a significant effect on reaction times, with responses being slower when neither the participant nor the other agent expected the ball to be present compared to all other conditions. Importantly, after the implicit version, participants reported no explicit mentalizing awareness. In our neurotypical sample, ASD symptoms were not found to correlate with either explicit or implicit mentalizing. In conclusion, the reaction time patterns in the explicit and implicit version of the task show strikingly similar effects of mentalizing, indicating that participants processed beliefs to the same extent regardless of whether they mentalized explicitly or implicitly, with no additional effects for explicit processing. Public Library of Science 2016-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5056736/ /pubmed/27723814 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164373 Text en © 2016 Nijhof et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nijhof, Annabel D.
Brass, Marcel
Bardi, Lara
Wiersema, Jan R.
Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task
title Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task
title_full Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task
title_fullStr Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task
title_full_unstemmed Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task
title_short Measuring Mentalizing Ability: A Within-Subject Comparison between an Explicit and Implicit Version of a Ball Detection Task
title_sort measuring mentalizing ability: a within-subject comparison between an explicit and implicit version of a ball detection task
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5056736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27723814
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164373
work_keys_str_mv AT nijhofannabeld measuringmentalizingabilityawithinsubjectcomparisonbetweenanexplicitandimplicitversionofaballdetectiontask
AT brassmarcel measuringmentalizingabilityawithinsubjectcomparisonbetweenanexplicitandimplicitversionofaballdetectiontask
AT bardilara measuringmentalizingabilityawithinsubjectcomparisonbetweenanexplicitandimplicitversionofaballdetectiontask
AT wiersemajanr measuringmentalizingabilityawithinsubjectcomparisonbetweenanexplicitandimplicitversionofaballdetectiontask