Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41004467›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

The common structure of mentalizing.

Ahmad Asgarizadeh, Reihaneh Shoumali, Maryam Tahan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Ahmad AsgarizadehFaculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8431-0548
Reihaneh ShoumaliFaculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Maryam TahanFaculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MentalizationTheory of MindAdolescentAdultAgedFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf ConceptYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41004467
PMCPMC12469391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.