ArticlePloS one2025
The common structure of mentalizing.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary goal of this research was to investigate the common factor structure of mentalizing by combining items from pre-existing validated tools, cross-validating the resulting structure, and exploring its associations with relevant constructs. Three sequential studies were conducted using community-dwelling samples (total N = 947). Study 1 used exploratory factor analysis on a merged item pool derived from eight measures of mentalizing. Study 2 utilized exploratory structural equation modeling to replicate the extracted structure and investigated its association with psychological dysfunction. Study 3 performed cross-validation of the factor structure and provided criterion-related validity by examining relations with markers of psychopathology and well-being. Factor analyses provided a 10-factor solution that covered distinct facets of mentalizing. Some factors, especially Nonmentalizing-Self and Emotion/Impulse Dysregulation, were strong predictors of dysfunction and psychopathology. Notably, after controlling for positive self-evaluation, individuals reporting greater confidence in understanding others' minds (Mindreading Self-Concept) showed poorer psychological functioning (β = 0.157, p = .001), in line with theoretical emphasis on humility as a component of genuine mentalizing. The resulting 10-factor structure provides a framework to potentially differentiate between adaptive and maladaptive mentalizing, distinguish its components along the self-other continuum, and discriminate authentic mentalizing processes from subjective assessments of one's mentalizing capacity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.