| Title |
Spontaneous Theory of Mind is reduced for nonhuman-like agents as compared to human-like agents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-018-1000-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lara Bardi, Charlotte Desmet, Marcel Brass |
| Abstract |
Theory of Mind research has shown that we spontaneously take into account other's beliefs. In the current study, we investigate, with a spontaneous Theory of Mind (ToM) task, if this belief representation also applies to nonhuman-like agents. In a series of three experiments, we show here that we do not spontaneously take into account beliefs of nonhuman-like others, or at least we do it to a lesser extent than for human and human-like agents. Further, the experience we have with the other agent, in our case a dog, does not modulate spontaneous ToM: the same pattern of results was obtained when dog owners and no owners were compared. However, when more attention was attracted to the dog behavior, participants' behavior was influenced by the beliefs of the dog. In sum, spontaneous belief representation seems to be primarily restricted to human and human-like agents, but can be facilitated when more attention is drawn to a nonhuman-like agent. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 20% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 37% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 14% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 24 December 2023.
All research outputs
#4,419,407
of 25,050,563 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#155
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,147
of 302,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,050,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 302,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.