↓ Skip to main content

A Meta-Analytic Review of Age Differences in Theory of Mind

Overview of attention for article published in Psychology and Aging, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
296 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
433 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Meta-Analytic Review of Age Differences in Theory of Mind
Published in
Psychology and Aging, January 2013
DOI 10.1037/a0030677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie D. Henry, Louise H. Phillips, Ted Ruffman, Phoebe E. Bailey

Abstract

Age-related difficulties in understanding basic emotional signals are now well established, but less clear is how aging affects theory of mind (ToM), which refers to the understanding of more complex emotions and mental states. A meta-analysis of 23 datasets involving 1462 (790 younger and 672 older) participants was conducted in which six basic types of ToM task were identified (Stories, Eyes, Videos, False belief-video, False belief-other, and Faux pas). Each ToM task was also categorized according to domain (affective, cognitive, or mixed) and modality (verbal, visual-static, visual-dynamic, verbal and visual-static, or verbal and visual-dynamic). Overall, collapsed across all types of task, older adults were found to perform more poorly than younger adults, with the degree of ToM difficulty they experienced moderate in magnitude (r = -.41). The results also provide evidence for increased ToM difficulties in late adulthood regardless of specific task parameters, with deficits evident across all task types, domains, and modalities. With few exceptions, age deficits for ToM tasks were larger in magnitude compared with matched control tasks. These data have implications for our understanding of mental state attribution processes in late adulthood, suggesting that ToM difficulties are not simply secondary to non-ToM related task demands.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 433 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 416 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 21%
Student > Master 70 16%
Student > Bachelor 68 16%
Researcher 38 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 7%
Other 62 14%
Unknown 76 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 221 51%
Neuroscience 28 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 6%
Social Sciences 14 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 46 11%
Unknown 90 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2024.
All research outputs
#8,262,193
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Psychology and Aging
#541
of 1,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,142
of 295,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychology and Aging
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.