Development and validation of the Attribution of Mental States Questionnaire (AMS-Q): A reference tool for assessing anthropomorphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attributing mental states to others, such as feelings, beliefs, goals, desires, and attitudes, is an important interpersonal ability, necessary for adaptive relationships, which underlies the ability to mentalize. To evaluate the attribution of mental and sensory states, a new 23-item measure, the Attribution of Mental States Questionnaire (AMS-Q), has been developed. The present study aimed to investigate the dimensionality of the AMS-Q and its psychometric proprieties in two studies. Study 1 focused on the development of the questionnaire and its factorial structure in a sample of Italian adults ( N = 378). Study 2 aimed to confirm the findings in a new sample ( N = 271). Besides the AMS-Q, Study 2 included assessments of Theory of Mind (ToM), mentalization, and alexithymia. A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and a Parallel Analysis (PA) of the data from Study 1 yielded three factors assessing mental states with positive or neutral valence (AMS-NP), mental states with negative valence (AMS-N), and sensory states (AMS-S). These showed satisfactory reliability indexes. AMS-Q’s whole-scale internal consistency was excellent. Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) further confirmed the three-factor structure. The AMS-Q subscales also showed a consistent pattern of correlation with associated constructs in the theoretically predicted ways, relating positively to ToM and mentalization and negatively to alexithymia. Thus, the questionnaire is considered suitable to be easily administered and sensitive for assessing the attribution of mental and sensory states to humans. The AMS-Q can also be administered with stimuli of nonhuman agents (e.g., animals, inanimate things, and even God); this allows the level of mental anthropomorphization of other agents to be assessed using the human as a term of comparison, providing important hints in the perception of nonhuman entities as more or less mentalistic compared to human beings, and identifying what factors are required for the attribution of human mental traits to nonhuman agents, further helping to delineate the perception of others’ minds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".