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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Collabra. Psychology 2022-08, Vol.8 (1)
Hauptverfasser: Weinstein, Netanel Y, Whitmore, Lucy B, Mills, Kathryn L
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 &amp; 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