Assessing Theory of Mind in Bilinguals: A Scoping Review on Tasks and Study Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous developmental studies reported bilinguals’ Theory of Mind (ToM; the ability to take on another’s perspective) develops differently than monolinguals. We conducted a scoping review to evaluate how researchers assess bilinguals’ ToM and whether they characterize bilinguals’ lived experiences. We analyzed 53 publications examining ToM in bilinguals, with most papers studying children (n = 42; 79%) instead of adults. We identified 96 different tasks used across these 53 papers. The most common are 46 (48%) cases of the false-belief task, a cognitive-focused task using story vignettes. Few tasks target other types of ToM, such as ToM in social settings or taking others’ emotional perspectives. Furthermore, only half of the papers reported language history (n = 28, 53%) and exposure (n = 25, 47%), limiting the inferrability of ToM and language experiences. Expanding how we study ToM in bilinguals will improve our understanding of the intersection of bilingualism and ToM.
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 | 0.024 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".