Age Differences in Mental State Inference of Sarcasm: Contributions of Facial Emotion Recognition and Cognitive Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Older age is associated with poorer ability to accurately infer mental states, but some mental states are more complex than others. Sarcasm is a complex mental state because the literal and intended meaning of a speaker's words are in opposition. Individuals must rely on additional cues (e.g., facial expressions, intonation) for accurate inference. We hypothesized that understanding of sarcastic versus sincere exchanges would be more sensitive to age-related difficulty in mental state understanding. METHODS: We examined accuracy at identifying sarcasm among 263 adults (ages 18-90 years) using videos of social interactions in The Awareness of Social Inference Test. Hypotheses were tested using a logistic linear mixed effects model predicting correct/incorrect trial-level responses. To characterize why sarcasm differed with age, we measured 2 abilities commonly implicated in mental state understanding: facial emotion recognition and cognitive performance. RESULTS: Sarcasm understanding declined with age, whereas understanding of sincere exchanges did not. Both better emotion recognition and cognitive performance related to better understanding of sarcastic but not sincere exchanges. Only cognitive performance showed an age-related effect such that the cognitive performance among the oldest participants facilitated their understanding of both sarcastic and sincere exchanges. DISCUSSION: We showed that individual variation related to age and social and cognitive performance is more pronounced when the use of multiple mental state cues is more (sarcasm) or less (sincerity) necessary for accurate understanding of social interactions. Naturalistic paradigms involving multiple mental state cues can address important questions about how older adults make decisions in the real world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".