Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30976921›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2020

Measuring spontaneous mentalizing with a ball detection task: putting the attention-check hypothesis by Phillips and colleagues (2015) to the test.

Rachida El Kaddouri, Lara Bardi, Diana De Bremaeker, Marcel Brass, Jan R Wiersema

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rachida El KaddouriDepartment of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Rachida.ElKaddouri@UGent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2680-1784
Lara BardiDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1678-647X
Diana De BremaekerDepartment of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Marcel BrassDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3364-4019
Jan R WiersemaDepartment of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5875-2051

Funding

Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds BOF.DOC.2015.0096.01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theory of Mind (ToM) or mentalizing refers to the ability to attribute mental states (such as desires, beliefs or intentions) to oneself or others. ToM has been argued to operate in an explicit and an implicit or a spontaneous way. In their influential paper, Kovács et al. (Science 330:1830-1834, 2010) introduced an adapted false belief task-a ball detection task-for the measurement of spontaneous ToM. Since then, several studies have successfully used versions of this paradigm to investigate spontaneous ToM. This paradigm has, however, been criticized by Phillips et al. (Psychol Sci 26(9):1353-1367, 2015), who argue that the effects are fully explained by timing artifacts in the paradigm, namely differences in timing of the attention check. The main objective of the current study is to test this attention-check hypothesis. An additional aim was to relate the findings to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptomatology in our neurotypical sample, as ASD has been linked to deficits in spontaneous mentalizing. We applied an adjusted version of the paradigm in which the timings for all conditions are equalized, ruling out any potential timing confounds. We found significant main effects of own and agent beliefs on reaction times. Additionally, we found a significant 'ToM-effect': When participants believe the ball is absent, they detect the ball faster if the agent believes the ball would be present rather than absent, which refers to the original effect in the paper of Kovács et al. (2010), taken as evidence for spontaneous ToM and which was contested by Phillips et al. (2015). Our findings cannot be explained by the attention-check hypothesis. Effects could not be associated with ASD symptoms in our neurotypical sample, warranting further investigation on the link between spontaneous mentalizing and ASD.

Indexed as

MentalizationTheory of MindAdultAttentionAutism Spectrum DisorderFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.