Individual Differences in Mentalizing Tendencies
The human capacity to represent others and oneself in terms of internal mental states—mentalizing—varies across individuals. In this paper, we assess the extent to which commonly used mentalizing measures successfully capture meaningful individual differences in mentalizing tendencies and explore ho...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Collabra. Psychology 2022-08, Vol.8 (1) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Collabra. Psychology |
container_volume | 8 |
creator | Weinstein, Netanel Y Whitmore, Lucy B Mills, Kathryn L |
description | The human capacity to represent others and oneself in terms of internal mental states—mentalizing—varies across individuals. In this paper, we assess the extent to which commonly used mentalizing measures successfully capture meaningful individual differences in mentalizing tendencies and explore how these tendencies relate to broader variability in cognitive and social functioning. To this end, we administered a battery of behavioral and self-report measures of mentalizing, fluid intelligence, personality dimensions, sense of self, cognitive tendencies, and psychopathology symptoms in an online study (N=150). In a series of preregistered analyses, we found that fluid intelligence scores were most predictive of mentalizing variability while dimensions such as psychopathy, empathy and sense of power were also significantly associated with this variability (though to a lesser extent than fluid intelligence). Of the psychopathology symptoms assessed, somatization and self-harm were most strongly associated with inter-individual variability in mentalizing and uncertainty about mental states was the mentalizing dimension most tightly correlated to psychopathology symptoms. Our findings point to the need for more research to explore ways in which mentalizing tendencies are tied to other domains, such as general cognitive functioning and psychopathology. Additionally, our findings highlight the potential for merging clinical assessment tools with social cognition research. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1525/collabra.37602 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2731757563</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A802996967</galeid><sourcerecordid>A802996967</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-3c542e24e74a64ad7daf0262cbcc53f7c5d54f9f0255f759e63d981f8a1fdf403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUU1LAzEQDaJgqb16XvDkYWs2H5vdY6lfhYqg9RzSZFJSttma7Ir6642fWChzmOHNe28YHkKnBR4XnPAL3TaNWgY1pqLE5AANCBMsF7Rmh__mYzSKcY0xJkVZlZQOEJ55416c6VWTXTprIYDXEDPnszvwnWrcu_OrbAHepIWDeIKOrGoijH76ED1dXy2mt_n8_mY2ncxzTWnV5VRzRoAwEEyVTBlhlMWkJHqpNadWaG44s3XCOLeC11BSU1eFrVRhjWWYDtHZt-82tM89xE6u2z74dFISQQvBBU8P_LFWqgHpvG27oPTGRS0nFSZ1XdalSKzxHlYqAxunWw_WJXxHcL4jSJwOXruV6mOUs8eHveY6tDEGsHIb3EaFN1lg-ZmN_M1GfmVDPwCtLIBj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2731757563</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Individual Differences in Mentalizing Tendencies</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Weinstein, Netanel Y ; Whitmore, Lucy B ; Mills, Kathryn L</creator><contributor>Visser, Beth</contributor><creatorcontrib>Weinstein, Netanel Y ; Whitmore, Lucy B ; Mills, Kathryn L ; Visser, Beth</creatorcontrib><description>The human capacity to represent others and oneself in terms of internal mental states—mentalizing—varies across individuals. In this paper, we assess the extent to which commonly used mentalizing measures successfully capture meaningful individual differences in mentalizing tendencies and explore how these tendencies relate to broader variability in cognitive and social functioning. To this end, we administered a battery of behavioral and self-report measures of mentalizing, fluid intelligence, personality dimensions, sense of self, cognitive tendencies, and psychopathology symptoms in an online study (N=150). In a series of preregistered analyses, we found that fluid intelligence scores were most predictive of mentalizing variability while dimensions such as psychopathy, empathy and sense of power were also significantly associated with this variability (though to a lesser extent than fluid intelligence). Of the psychopathology symptoms assessed, somatization and self-harm were most strongly associated with inter-individual variability in mentalizing and uncertainty about mental states was the mentalizing dimension most tightly correlated to psychopathology symptoms. Our findings point to the need for more research to explore ways in which mentalizing tendencies are tied to other domains, such as general cognitive functioning and psychopathology. Additionally, our findings highlight the potential for merging clinical assessment tools with social cognition research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2474-7394</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2474-7394</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1525/collabra.37602</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oakland: University of California Press</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Analysis ; Cognition ; Cognitive ability ; Psychology, Pathological ; Skills</subject><ispartof>Collabra. Psychology, 2022-08, Vol.8 (1)</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 University of California Press</rights><rights>This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-3c542e24e74a64ad7daf0262cbcc53f7c5d54f9f0255f759e63d981f8a1fdf403</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-8848-2627</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Visser, Beth</contributor><creatorcontrib>Weinstein, Netanel Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitmore, Lucy B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mills, Kathryn L</creatorcontrib><title>Individual Differences in Mentalizing Tendencies</title><title>Collabra. Psychology</title><description>The human capacity to represent others and oneself in terms of internal mental states—mentalizing—varies across individuals. In this paper, we assess the extent to which commonly used mentalizing measures successfully capture meaningful individual differences in mentalizing tendencies and explore how these tendencies relate to broader variability in cognitive and social functioning. To this end, we administered a battery of behavioral and self-report measures of mentalizing, fluid intelligence, personality dimensions, sense of self, cognitive tendencies, and psychopathology symptoms in an online study (N=150). In a series of preregistered analyses, we found that fluid intelligence scores were most predictive of mentalizing variability while dimensions such as psychopathy, empathy and sense of power were also significantly associated with this variability (though to a lesser extent than fluid intelligence). Of the psychopathology symptoms assessed, somatization and self-harm were most strongly associated with inter-individual variability in mentalizing and uncertainty about mental states was the mentalizing dimension most tightly correlated to psychopathology symptoms. Our findings point to the need for more research to explore ways in which mentalizing tendencies are tied to other domains, such as general cognitive functioning and psychopathology. Additionally, our findings highlight the potential for merging clinical assessment tools with social cognition research.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Psychology, Pathological</subject><subject>Skills</subject><issn>2474-7394</issn><issn>2474-7394</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptUU1LAzEQDaJgqb16XvDkYWs2H5vdY6lfhYqg9RzSZFJSttma7Ir6642fWChzmOHNe28YHkKnBR4XnPAL3TaNWgY1pqLE5AANCBMsF7Rmh__mYzSKcY0xJkVZlZQOEJ55416c6VWTXTprIYDXEDPnszvwnWrcu_OrbAHepIWDeIKOrGoijH76ED1dXy2mt_n8_mY2ncxzTWnV5VRzRoAwEEyVTBlhlMWkJHqpNadWaG44s3XCOLeC11BSU1eFrVRhjWWYDtHZt-82tM89xE6u2z74dFISQQvBBU8P_LFWqgHpvG27oPTGRS0nFSZ1XdalSKzxHlYqAxunWw_WJXxHcL4jSJwOXruV6mOUs8eHveY6tDEGsHIb3EaFN1lg-ZmN_M1GfmVDPwCtLIBj</recordid><startdate>20220824</startdate><enddate>20220824</enddate><creator>Weinstein, Netanel Y</creator><creator>Whitmore, Lucy B</creator><creator>Mills, Kathryn L</creator><general>University of California Press</general><general>University of California Press, Journals & Digital Publishing Division</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8848-2627</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220824</creationdate><title>Individual Differences in Mentalizing Tendencies</title><author>Weinstein, Netanel Y ; Whitmore, Lucy B ; Mills, Kathryn L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-3c542e24e74a64ad7daf0262cbcc53f7c5d54f9f0255f759e63d981f8a1fdf403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Psychology, Pathological</topic><topic>Skills</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weinstein, Netanel Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitmore, Lucy B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mills, Kathryn L</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Collabra. Psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weinstein, Netanel Y</au><au>Whitmore, Lucy B</au><au>Mills, Kathryn L</au><au>Visser, Beth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Individual Differences in Mentalizing Tendencies</atitle><jtitle>Collabra. Psychology</jtitle><date>2022-08-24</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><issn>2474-7394</issn><eissn>2474-7394</eissn><abstract>The human capacity to represent others and oneself in terms of internal mental states—mentalizing—varies across individuals. In this paper, we assess the extent to which commonly used mentalizing measures successfully capture meaningful individual differences in mentalizing tendencies and explore how these tendencies relate to broader variability in cognitive and social functioning. To this end, we administered a battery of behavioral and self-report measures of mentalizing, fluid intelligence, personality dimensions, sense of self, cognitive tendencies, and psychopathology symptoms in an online study (N=150). In a series of preregistered analyses, we found that fluid intelligence scores were most predictive of mentalizing variability while dimensions such as psychopathy, empathy and sense of power were also significantly associated with this variability (though to a lesser extent than fluid intelligence). Of the psychopathology symptoms assessed, somatization and self-harm were most strongly associated with inter-individual variability in mentalizing and uncertainty about mental states was the mentalizing dimension most tightly correlated to psychopathology symptoms. Our findings point to the need for more research to explore ways in which mentalizing tendencies are tied to other domains, such as general cognitive functioning and psychopathology. Additionally, our findings highlight the potential for merging clinical assessment tools with social cognition research.</abstract><cop>Oakland</cop><pub>University of California Press</pub><doi>10.1525/collabra.37602</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8848-2627</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2474-7394 |
ispartof | Collabra. Psychology, 2022-08, Vol.8 (1) |
issn | 2474-7394 2474-7394 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2731757563 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Accuracy Analysis Cognition Cognitive ability Psychology, Pathological Skills |
title | Individual Differences in Mentalizing Tendencies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T01%3A11%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Individual%20Differences%20in%20Mentalizing%20Tendencies&rft.jtitle=Collabra.%20Psychology&rft.au=Weinstein,%20Netanel%20Y&rft.date=2022-08-24&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.issn=2474-7394&rft.eissn=2474-7394&rft_id=info:doi/10.1525/collabra.37602&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA802996967%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2731757563&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A802996967&rfr_iscdi=true |