Authors:
,
, and
Zsófia Esperger
Zsófia Esperger
PTE ÁOK, Pszichiátriai és Pszichoterápiás Klinika
Search for other papers by Zsófia Esperger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Zsófia Esperger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Luca Kozma
Luca Kozma
PTE BTK, Pszichológia Intézet
Search for other papers by Luca Kozma in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Luca Kozma in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Róbert Herold
Róbert Herold
PTE ÁOK, Pszichiátriai és Pszichoterápiás Klinika
Search for other papers by Róbert Herold in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Róbert Herold in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Elmeolvasó készségünk teszi lehetővé, hogy mások mentális állapotait — észleleteit, szándékait, vélekedéseit — leképezzük, és saját hasonló állapotainktól megkülönböztessük. Ezt a teljesítményt közel negyven éve sajátosan emberi készségnek tételezzük. Az utóbbi évtizedben egyre több bizonyíték szól amellett, hogy a vélekedésolvasás készségének létezik egy implicit formája, melyen automatikus kognitív működéseket értünk. Ugyanakkor kétséges, hogy az automatikus folyamatok során valóban mentális állapotokat reprezentálunk-e. Az implicit működések jelenleg főként viselkedéses mérésen keresztül ragadhatóak meg. Egyes viselkedéses változók pedig nemcsak a vélekedésolvasás lehetséges kifejeződéseként, hanem egyúttal a készség birtoklásának fontos bizonyítékaként is értelmezhetőek. Ugyanakkor eddig kevés figyelem irányult ezen viselkedések lehetséges funkcióinak feltárására. Jelen tanulmányunkban azt a célt tűztük ki, hogy funkcionális értelmezési lehetőségeket kínáljunk az implicit elmeolvasó paradigmákban megjelenő két spontán viselkedésre: a viselkedésjósló szemmozgásra és a közbeavatkozó-korrigáló viselkedésre. Alkalmazott módszerünk a szelektív irodalomelemzés, melynek során az implicit vélekedésolvasás erős bizonyítékait vizsgáljuk meg közelebbről. Eredményeink szerint a viselkedésjósló szemmozgások a szelf és a másik perspektívájának és szándékának az egyesítését, míg a korrigáló-közbeavatkozó viselkedés a saját és a másik reprezentációinak a különválasztását erősítik. Megbeszélésünkben kitérünk a spontán viselkedések szerepére az elmeolvasás atipikus működése terén.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Apperly, I. (2010). Mindreaders: the cognitive basis of „theory of mind”. Psychology Press.
-
Baillargeon, R. (1987). Young infants’ reasoning about the physical and spatial properties of a hidden object. Cognitive Development, 2(3), 179–200.
-
Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., & He, Z. (2010). False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(3), 110–118.
-
Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition, 20(3), 191–208.
-
Bugnyar, T. (2010). Knowe-guesser differentiation in ravens: others’ viewpoints matter. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20101514.
-
Buttelmann, D., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm. Cognition, 112(2), 337–342.
-
Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language, 28(5), 606–637.
-
Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in cognitive sciences, 12(5), 187–92.
-
Cannon, E. N., & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal-based action predictions. Developmental science, 15(2), 292–298.
-
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C. (2002). How specific is the relation between executive function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory. Infant and Child Development, 11(2), 73–92.
-
Carruthers, P. (2013). Mindreading in infancy. Mind & Language, 28(2), 141–72.
-
Carruthers, P. (2015). Two systems for mindreading? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1–22.
-
Clements, W. A., & Perner, J. (1994). Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive development, 9(4), 377–395.
-
Daum, M. M., Attig, M., Gunawan, R., Prinz, W., & Gredebäck, G. (2012). Actions seen through babies’ eyes: A dissociation between looking time and predictive gaze. Anticipation and the control of voluntary action, 116.
-
Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. NY: MIT Press.
-
Deschrijver, E., Bardi, L., Wiersema, J. R., & Brass, M. (2015). Behavioral measures of implicit theory of mind in adults with high functioning autism. Cognitive Neuroscience, (justaccepted).
-
Fabricius, W. V., & Khalil, S. L. (2003). False beliefs or false positives? Limits on children’s understanding of mental representation. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4(3), 239–262.
-
Frith, C. D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2213–2223.
-
Garnham, W. A., & Ruffman, T. (2001). Doesn’t see, doesn’t know: Is anticipatory looking really related to understanding of belief? Developmental Science, 4(1), 94–100.
-
Gomez, J. C. (1996). Nonhuman primates theories of (nonhuman primate) minds: Some issues concerning the origins of mindreading. In P. Carruthers, & P. K. Smith (Eds), Theories of Theories of Mind (pp. 330–343). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Haith, M. M. (1998). Who put the cog in infant cognition? Is rich interpretation too costly?. Infant behavior and development, 21(2), 167–179.
-
Heyes, C. (2014). Submentalizing I Am Not Really Reading Your Mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 131–143.
-
Heyes, C. (2014). False belief in infancy: a fresh look. Developmental science, 17(5), 647–659.
-
Heyes, C. M. (1993). Anecdotes, training, trapping and triangulating: do animals attribute mental states?. Animal Behaviour, 46(1), 177–188.
-
Heyes, C. M., & Frith, C. D. (2014). The cultural evolution of mind reading. Science, 344(6190), 1243091.
-
Hood, B. M., Cole-Davis, V., & Dias, M. (2003). Looking and search measures of object knowledge in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 61–70.
-
Kampis, D., Parise, E., Csibra, G., & Kovács, Á. M. (2015). Neural signatures for sustaining object representations attributed to others in preverbal human infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1819), 1683.
-
Kaufman, J., Csibra, G., & Johnson, M. H. (2005). Oscillatory activity in the infant brain reflects object maintenance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(42), 15271–15274.
-
Knudsen, B., & Liszkowski, U. (2012). 18-Month-Olds Predict Specific Action Mistakes Through Attribution of False Belief, Not Ignorance, and Intervene Accordingly. Infancy, 17(6), 672–691.
-
Knudsen, B., & Liszkowski, U. (2012b). Eighteen-and 24-month-old infants correct others in anticipation of action mistakes. Developmental science, 15(1), 113–122.
-
Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E., & Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330(6012), 1830–1834.
-
Leslie, A. M. (1994). ToMM, ToBY, and Agency: Core Architecture and Domain Specificity. In L. Hirschfeld & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the Mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Leslie, A. M., & Polizzi, P. (1998). Inhibitory processing in the false belief task: Two conjectures. Developmental Science, 1(2), 247–253.
-
Leslie, A. M., German, T. P., & Polizzi, P. (2005). Belief-desire reasoning as a process of selection. Cognitive Psychology, 50(1), 45–85.
-
Liu, D., Wellman, H. M., Tardif, T., & Sabbagh, M. A. (2008). Theory of mind development in Chinese children: a meta-analysis of false-belief understanding across cultures and languages. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 523.
-
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?. Science, 308(5719), 255–258.
-
Perner, J. (2010). Who took the cog out of cognitive science? In P. A. Frensch & R. Schwarzer (Eds), Cognition and neuropsychology: International perspectives on psychological science, 1 (pp. 241–263). New York: Psychology Press.
-
Perner, J., & Ruffman, T. (2005). Infants’ insight into the mind: How deep. Science, 308(5719), 214–216.
-
Povinelli, D. J., & Vonk, J. (2003). Chimpanzee minds: suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 157–160.
-
Rakoczy, H. (2012). Do infants have a theory of mind? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 59–74.
-
Ruffman, T. (1996). Do children understand the mind by means of simulation or a theory? Evidence from their understanding of inference. Mind & Language, 11(4), 388–414.
-
Shahaeian, A., Peterson, C. C., Slaughter, V., & Wellman, H. M. (2011). Culture and the sequence of steps in theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1239.
-
Santiesteban, I., Catmur, C., Hopkins, S. C., Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2014). Avatars and arrows: Implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 929.
-
Saxe, R. (2006). Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(2), 235–239.
-
Schaafsma, S. M., Pfaff, D. W., Spunt, R. P., & Adolphs, R. (2015). Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends in cognitive sciences, 19(2), 65–72.
-
Schneider, D., Bayliss, A. P., Becker, S. I., & Dux, P. E. (2012). Eye movements reveal sustained implicit processing of others’ mental states. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 433–438.
-
Schneider, D., Lam, R., Bayliss, A. P., & Dux, P. E. (2012). Cognitive load disrupts implicit theory-of-mind processing. Psychological Science, 23(8), 842–847.
-
Schneider, D., Nott, Z. E., & Dux, P. E. (2014). Task instructions and implicit theory of mind. Cognition, 133(1), 43–47.
-
Schneider, D., Slaughter, V. P., Bayliss, A. P., & Dux, P. E. (2013). A temporally sustained implicit theory of mind deficit in autism spectrum disorders. Cognition, 129(2), 410–417.
-
Scott, R. M., & Baillargeon, R. (2009). Which penguin is this? Attributing false beliefs about object identity at 18 months. Child Development, 80(4), 1172–1196.
-
Senju, A., Southgate, V., White, S., & Frith, U. (2009). Mindblind eyes: an absence of spontaneous theory of mind in Asperger syndrome. Science, 325(5942), 883–885.
-
Sirois, S., & Jackson, I. (2007). Social cognition in infancy: A critical review of research on higher order abilities. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 46–64.
-
Song, H. J., Onishi, K. H., Baillargeon, R., & Fisher, C. (2008). Can an agent’s false belief be corrected by an appropriate communication? Psychological reasoning in 18-month-old infants. Cognition, 109(3), 295–315.
-
Southgate, V. (2013). Early manifestations of mind reading. In S Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & M. Lombardo (Eds), Understanding other minds (pp. 3–18). Oxford: University Press.
-
Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18(7), 587–592.
-
Southgate, V., & Vernetti, A. (2014). Belief-based action prediction in preverbal infants. Cognition, 130(1), 1–10.
-
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 3–23.
-
Surian, L., & Leslie, A. M. (1999). Competence and performance in false belief understanding: A comparison of autistic and normal 3-year-old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 141–155.
-
Tuomela, R. (2005). We-intentions revisited. Philosophical Studies, 125(3), 327–369.
-
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 1301–1303.
-
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684.
-
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128.
Please, download the file from HERE.
Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle
ELTE PPK Pszichológiai Intézet
Address: H-1064 Budapest, Izabella u. 46.
E-mail: pszichoszemle@gmail.com
Indexing and Abstracting Services:
- PsycINFO
- Scopus
- CABELLS Journalytics
| 2023 | |
|---|---|
| Scopus | |
| CiteScore | 0.4 |
| CiteScore rank | Q4 (General Psychology) |
| SNIP | 0.149 |
| Scimago | |
| SJR index | 0.126 |
| SJR Q rank | Q4 |
| Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle | |
|---|---|
| Publication Model | Hybrid |
| Submission Fee | none |
| Article Processing Charge | 900 EUR/article |
| Printed Color Illustrations | 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece |
| Regional discounts on country of the funding agency | World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50% World Bank Low-income economies: 100% |
| Further Discounts | Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50% Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100% |
| Subscription fee 2025 | Online subsscription: 184 EUR / 220 USD Print + online subscription: 224 EUR / 252 USD |
| Subscription Information | Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content. |
| Purchase per Title | Individual articles are sold on the displayed price. |
| Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle | |
|---|---|
| Language | Hungarian |
| Size | B5 |
| Year of Foundation |
1928 |
| Volumes per Year |
1 |
| Issues per Year |
4 |
| Founder | Magyar Pszichológiai Társaság |
| Founder's Address |
H-1075 Budapest, Hungary Kazinczy u. 23-27. I/116. |
| Publisher | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Publisher's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Responsible Publisher |
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó |
| ISSN | 0025-0279 (Print) |
| ISSN | 1588-2799 (Online) |
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2024 | 23 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2024 | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2024 | 44 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2024 | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2024 | 16 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Author:
Author:
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory