1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Does interference between self and other perspectives in theory of mind tasks reflect a common underlying process? Evidence from individual differences in theory of mind and inhibitory control

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Theory of mind (ToM), the ability to understand that other agents have different beliefs, desires, and knowledge than oneself, has been extensively researched. Theory of mind tasks involve participants dealing with interference between their self-perspective and another agent’s perspective, and this interference has been related to executive function, particularly to inhibitory control. This study assessed whether there are individual differences in self–other interference, and whether these effects are due to individual differences in executive function. A total of 142 participants completed two ToM (the director task and a Level 1 visual perspective-taking task), which both involve self–other interference, and a battery of inhibitory control tasks. The relationships between the tasks were examined using path analysis. Results showed that the self–other interference effects of the two ToM tasks were dissociable, with individual differences in performance on the ToM tasks being unrelated and performance in each predicted by different inhibitory control tasks. We suggest that self–other differences are part of the nature of ToM tasks, but self–other interference is not a unitary construct. Instead, self–other differences result in interference effects in various ways and at different stages of processing, and these effects may not be a major limiting step for adults’ performance on typical ToM tasks. Further work is needed to assess other factors that may limit adults’ ToM performance and hence explain individual differences in social ability.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.3758/s13423-019-01656-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure.

          Executive functions (EFs) are high-level cognitive processes, often associated with the frontal lobes, that control lower level processes in the service of goal-directed behavior. They include abilities such as response inhibition, interference control, working memory updating, and set shifting. EFs show a general pattern of shared but distinct functions, a pattern described as "unity and diversity". We review studies of EF unity and diversity at the behavioral and genetic levels, focusing on studies of normal individual differences and what they reveal about the functional organization of these cognitive abilities. In particular, we review evidence that across multiple ages and populations, commonly studied EFs (a) are robustly correlated but separable when measured with latent variables; (b) are not the same as general intelligence or g; (c) are highly heritable at the latent level and seemingly also highly polygenic; and (d) activate both common and specific neural areas and can be linked to individual differences in neural activation, volume, and connectivity. We highlight how considering individual differences at the behavioral and neural levels can add considerable insight to the investigation of the functional organization of the brain, and conclude with some key points about individual differences to consider when interpreting neuropsychological patterns of dissociation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences

            Individual differences in cognitive paradigms are increasingly employed to relate cognition to brain structure, chemistry, and function. However, such efforts are often unfruitful, even with the most well established tasks. Here we offer an explanation for failures in the application of robust cognitive paradigms to the study of individual differences. Experimental effects become well established – and thus those tasks become popular – when between-subject variability is low. However, low between-subject variability causes low reliability for individual differences, destroying replicable correlations with other factors and potentially undermining published conclusions drawn from correlational relationships. Though these statistical issues have a long history in psychology, they are widely overlooked in cognitive psychology and neuroscience today. In three studies, we assessed test-retest reliability of seven classic tasks: Eriksen Flanker, Stroop, stop-signal, go/no-go, Posner cueing, Navon, and Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Code (SNARC). Reliabilities ranged from 0 to .82, being surprisingly low for most tasks given their common use. As we predicted, this emerged from low variance between individuals rather than high measurement variance. In other words, the very reason such tasks produce robust and easily replicable experimental effects – low between-participant variability – makes their use as correlational tools problematic. We demonstrate that taking such reliability estimates into account has the potential to qualitatively change theoretical conclusions. The implications of our findings are that well-established approaches in experimental psychology and neuropsychology may not directly translate to the study of individual differences in brain structure, chemistry, and function, and alternative metrics may be required. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis.

              This study examined the relationships among visuospatial working memory (WM) executive functioning, and spatial abilities. One hundred sixty-seven participants performed visuospatial short-term memory (STM) and WM span tasks, executive functioning tasks, and a set of paper-and-pencil tests of spatial abilities that load on 3 correlated but distinguishable factors (Spatial Visualization, Spatial Relations, and Perceptual Speed). Confirmatory factor analysis results indicated that, in the visuospatial domain, processing-and-storage WM tasks and storage-oriented STM tasks equally implicate executive functioning and are not clearly distinguishable. These results provide a contrast with existing evidence from the verbal domain and support the proposal that the visuospatial sketchpad may be closely tied to the central executive. Further, structural equation modeling results supported the prediction that, whereas they all implicate some degree of visuospatial storage, the 3 spatial ability factors differ in the degree of executive involvement (highest for Spatial Visualization and lowest for Perceptual Speed). Such results highlight the usefulness of a WM perspective in characterizing the nature of cognitive abilities and, more generally, human intelligence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                qureshia@edgehill.ac.uk
                Journal
                Psychon Bull Rev
                Psychon Bull Rev
                Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
                Springer US (New York )
                1069-9384
                1531-5320
                19 August 2019
                19 August 2019
                2020
                : 27
                : 1
                : 178-190
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.255434.1, ISNI 0000 0000 8794 7109, Edge Hill University, ; Ormskirk, L39 4PY UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.7942.8, ISNI 0000 0001 2294 713X, Université Catholique de Louvain, ; L0.01.03, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
                [3 ]GRID grid.6572.6, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7486, University of Birmingham, ; Edgbaston, B15 2TT UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7698-2691
                Article
                1656
                10.3758/s13423-019-01656-z
                7000534
                31429057
                efc4d2dd-42d5-4c3a-a96c-80f90c6c9a2d
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Edge Hill University
                Categories
                Brief Report
                Custom metadata
                © The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2020

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                theory of mind,executive function,self–other interference,path analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article