Cargando…

Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials

Recently, Theory of Mind (ToM) research has been revolutionized by new methods. Eye-tracking studies measuring subjects' looking times or anticipatory looking have suggested that implicit and automatic forms of ToM develop much earlier in ontogeny than traditionally assumed and continue to oper...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kulke, Louisa, Wübker, Marieke, Rakoczy, Hannes
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6689622/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31417713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190068
_version_ 1783443058493227008
author Kulke, Louisa
Wübker, Marieke
Rakoczy, Hannes
author_facet Kulke, Louisa
Wübker, Marieke
Rakoczy, Hannes
author_sort Kulke, Louisa
collection PubMed
description Recently, Theory of Mind (ToM) research has been revolutionized by new methods. Eye-tracking studies measuring subjects' looking times or anticipatory looking have suggested that implicit and automatic forms of ToM develop much earlier in ontogeny than traditionally assumed and continue to operate outside of subjects’ awareness throughout the lifespan. However, the reliability of these implicit methods has recently been put into question by an increasing number of non-replications. What remains unclear from these accumulating non-replication findings, though, is whether they present true negatives (there is no robust phenomenon of automatic ToM) or false ones (automatic ToM is real but difficult to tap). In order to address these questions, the current study implemented conceptual replications of influential anticipatory looking ToM tasks with a new variation in the stimuli. In two separate preregistered studies, we used increasingly realistic stimuli and controlled for potential confounds. Even with these more realistic stimuli, previous results could not be replicated. Rather, the anticipatory looking pattern found here remained largely compatible with more parsimonious explanations. In conclusion, the reality and robustness of automatic ToM remains controversial.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6689622
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Royal Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66896222019-08-15 Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials Kulke, Louisa Wübker, Marieke Rakoczy, Hannes R Soc Open Sci Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Recently, Theory of Mind (ToM) research has been revolutionized by new methods. Eye-tracking studies measuring subjects' looking times or anticipatory looking have suggested that implicit and automatic forms of ToM develop much earlier in ontogeny than traditionally assumed and continue to operate outside of subjects’ awareness throughout the lifespan. However, the reliability of these implicit methods has recently been put into question by an increasing number of non-replications. What remains unclear from these accumulating non-replication findings, though, is whether they present true negatives (there is no robust phenomenon of automatic ToM) or false ones (automatic ToM is real but difficult to tap). In order to address these questions, the current study implemented conceptual replications of influential anticipatory looking ToM tasks with a new variation in the stimuli. In two separate preregistered studies, we used increasingly realistic stimuli and controlled for potential confounds. Even with these more realistic stimuli, previous results could not be replicated. Rather, the anticipatory looking pattern found here remained largely compatible with more parsimonious explanations. In conclusion, the reality and robustness of automatic ToM remains controversial. The Royal Society 2019-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6689622/ /pubmed/31417713 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190068 Text en © 2019 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
Kulke, Louisa
Wübker, Marieke
Rakoczy, Hannes
Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials
title Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials
title_full Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials
title_fullStr Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials
title_full_unstemmed Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials
title_short Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials
title_sort is implicit theory of mind real but hard to detect? testing adults with different stimulus materials
topic Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6689622/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31417713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190068
work_keys_str_mv AT kulkelouisa isimplicittheoryofmindrealbuthardtodetecttestingadultswithdifferentstimulusmaterials
AT wubkermarieke isimplicittheoryofmindrealbuthardtodetecttestingadultswithdifferentstimulusmaterials
AT rakoczyhannes isimplicittheoryofmindrealbuthardtodetecttestingadultswithdifferentstimulusmaterials