A longitudinal study of theory of mind across the lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Theory of Mind (ToM) is essential for social interactions. However, gaps remain in our knowledge of when ToM abilities develop and change, particularly from adolescence to older adulthood. Methods We used data from an ongoing longitudinal study to examine ToM abilities across three time points in participants aged 3 years and older. Testing waves occurred over multiple years. Cognitive ToM was assessed using the Sandbox task ( N = 187; age range = 3–80 years), and affective ToM was assessed using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Task (RMET; N = 121; age range = 6–80 years). Data were analyzed using mixed-design ANOVAs to examine interactions between Age Group and Time Point. Results Children aged 6–9 years exhibited significantly lower ToM abilities compared to adults. However, beyond childhood, both cognitive and affective ToM remained relatively stable across the lifespan. Discussion Our study illuminates critical periods of ToM development. Moreover, our study highlights the importance of using measures that capture subtle changes across the lifespan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".