↓ Skip to main content

Task instructions and implicit theory of mind

Overview of attention for article published in Cognition, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
Task instructions and implicit theory of mind
Published in
Cognition, June 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Schneider, Zoie E. Nott, Paul E. Dux

Abstract

It has been hypothesized that humans are able to track other's mental states efficiently and without being conscious of doing so using their implicit theory of mind (iToM) system. However, while iToM appears to operate unconsciously recent work suggests it does draw on executive attentional resources (Schneider, Lam, Bayliss, & Dux, 2012) bringing into question whether iToM is engaged efficiently. Here, we examined other aspects relating to automatic processing: The extent to which the operation of iToM is controllable and how it is influenced by behavioral intentions. This was implemented by assessing how task instructions affect eye-movement patterns in a Sally-Anne false-belief task. One group of subjects was given no task instructions (No Instructions), another overtly judged the location of a ball a protagonist interacted with (Ball Tracking) and a third indicated the location consistent with the actor's belief about the ball's location (Belief Tracking). Despite different task goals, all groups' eye-movement patterns were consistent with belief analysis, and the No Instructions and Ball Tracking groups reported no explicit mentalizing when debriefed. These findings represent definitive evidence that humans implicitly track the belief states of others in an uncontrollable and unintentional manner.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 198 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 28%
Student > Master 30 14%
Researcher 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 35 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 107 52%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Linguistics 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Philosophy 5 2%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 44 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2014.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cognition
#2,455
of 3,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,450
of 242,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognition
#23
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 242,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.