View More View Less
  • 1 PTE ÁOK
  • | 2 PTE BTK
Restricted access

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.

  • 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), 179200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., & He, Z. (2010). False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(3), 110118.

  • Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition, 20(3), 191208.

  • Bugnyar, T. (2010). Knowe-guesser differentiation in ravens: others’ viewpoints matter. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20101514.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buttelmann, D., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm. Cognition, 112(2), 337342.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language, 28(5), 606637.

  • Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in cognitive sciences, 12(5), 18792.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cannon, E. N., & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal-based action predictions. Developmental science, 15(2), 292298.

  • 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), 7392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carruthers, P. (2013). Mindreading in infancy. Mind & Language, 28(2), 14172.

  • Carruthers, P. (2015). Two systems for mindreading? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 122.

  • Clements, W. A., & Perner, J. (1994). Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive development, 9(4), 377395.

  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 239262.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frith, C. D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 22132223.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 94100.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 330343). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haith, M. M. (1998). Who put the cog in infant cognition? Is rich interpretation too costly?. Infant behavior and development, 21(2), 167179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Heyes, C. (2014). Submentalizing I Am Not Really Reading Your Mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 131143.

  • Heyes, C. (2014). False belief in infancy: a fresh look. Developmental science, 17(5), 647659.

  • Heyes, C. M. (1993). Anecdotes, training, trapping and triangulating: do animals attribute mental states?. Animal Behaviour, 46(1), 177188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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, 6170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 1527115274.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 672691.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knudsen, B., & Liszkowski, U. (2012b). Eighteen-and 24-month-old infants correct others in anticipation of action mistakes. Developmental science, 15(1), 113122.

  • Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E., & Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330(6012), 18301834.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leslie, A. M., & Polizzi, P. (1998). Inhibitory processing in the false belief task: Two conjectures. Developmental Science, 1(2), 247253.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leslie, A. M., German, T. P., & Polizzi, P. (2005). Belief-desire reasoning as a process of selection. Cognitive Psychology, 50(1), 4585.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?. Science, 308(5719), 255258.

  • 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. 241263). New York: Psychology Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perner, J., & Ruffman, T. (2005). Infants’ insight into the mind: How deep. Science, 308(5719), 214216.

  • Povinelli, D. J., & Vonk, J. (2003). Chimpanzee minds: suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 157160.

  • Rakoczy, H. (2012). Do infants have a theory of mind? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 5974.

  • 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), 388414.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saxe, R. (2006). Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(2), 235239.

  • Schaafsma, S. M., Pfaff, D. W., Spunt, R. P., & Adolphs, R. (2015). Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends in cognitive sciences, 19(2), 6572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 433438.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schneider, D., Lam, R., Bayliss, A. P., & Dux, P. E. (2012). Cognitive load disrupts implicit theory-of-mind processing. Psychological Science, 23(8), 842847.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schneider, D., Nott, Z. E., & Dux, P. E. (2014). Task instructions and implicit theory of mind. Cognition, 133(1), 4347.

  • 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), 410417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scott, R. M., & Baillargeon, R. (2009). Which penguin is this? Attributing false beliefs about object identity at 18 months. Child Development, 80(4), 11721196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Senju, A., Southgate, V., White, S., & Frith, U. (2009). Mindblind eyes: an absence of spontaneous theory of mind in Asperger syndrome. Science, 325(5942), 883885.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 4664.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 295315.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Southgate, V. (2013). Early manifestations of mind reading. In S Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & M. Lombardo (Eds), Understanding other minds (pp. 318). Oxford: University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18(7), 587592.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Southgate, V., & Vernetti, A. (2014). Belief-based action prediction in preverbal infants. Cognition, 130(1), 110.

  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 323.

  • 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), 141155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tuomela, R. (2005). We-intentions revisited. Philosophical Studies, 125(3), 327369.

  • Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 13011303.

  • Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655684.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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), 103128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Fülöp, Márta

Chair of the Editorial Board:
Molnár, Márk

          Area Editors

  • Bereczkei Tamás (Evolutionary psychology)
  • Demetrovics Zsolt (Clinical psychology)
  • Egyed Katalin (Developmental psychology)
  • Hámori Eszter (Clinical child psychology)
  • Molnárné Kovács Judit (Social psychology)
  • Rózsa Sándor (Personality psychology and psychometrics)
  • Nguyen Luu Lan Anh (Cross-cultural psychology)
  • Pléh Csaba (Book Review)
  • Sass Judit (Industrial and organizational psychology)
  • Szabó Éva (Educational psychology)
  • Urbán Róbert (Health psychology)
  • Bolla Veronika (Psychology of special education)
  • Faragó Klára (Organizational psychology)
  • Kéri Szabolcs (Experimental and Neuropsychology)

 

        Editorial Board

  • Czigler István
  • Császár Noémi
  • Csépe Valéria
  • Dúll Andrea
  • Ehmann Bea
  • Fülöp Márta
  • Gervai Judit
  • Kiss Enikő Csilla
  • Kiss Paszkál
  • Mészáros Judit
  • Molnár Márk
  • Németh Dezső
  • Oláh Attila
  • Péley Bernadette
  • Perczel-Forintos Dóra
  • Révész György
  • Winkler István

 

Secretary of the editorial board: 

  •  Saád Judit

 

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

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
8
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,117
Scimago Quartile Score

Psychology (miscellaneous) (Q4)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
0,3
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
General Psychology 200/209 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,366

2020  
Scimago
H-index
7
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,142
Scimago
Quartile Score
Psychology (miscellaneous) Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
17/111=0,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
General Psychology 199/203 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,079
Scopus
Cites
53
Scopus
Documents
24
Days from submission to acceptance 116
Days from acceptance to publication 225
Acceptance
Rate
81%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
6
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,139
Scimago
Quartile Score
Psychology (miscellaneous) Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
24/103=0,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
General Psychology 192/204 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,113
Scopus
Cites
35
Scopus
Documents
14
Acceptance
Rate
58%

 

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 2022 Online subsscription: 156 EUR / 220 USD
Print + online subscription: 188 EUR / 250 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
Jan 2022 7 0 0
Feb 2022 4 1 1
Mar 2022 7 2 2
Apr 2022 10 3 5
May 2022 5 1 2
Jun 2022 8 0 0
Jul 2022 0 0 0