Mindreading quality versus quantity: A theoretically and empirically motivated two-factor structure for individual differences in adults' mindreading.

Existing methods for studying individual differences in adults' mindreading often lack good psychometric characteristics. Moreover, it remains unclear, even in theory, how mindreading varies in adults who already possess an understanding of mental states. In this pre-registered study, it was hypothesised that adults vary in their motivation for mindreading and in the degree to which their answers on mindreading tasks are appropriate (context-sensitive). These factors are confounded in existing measures as they do not differentiate between the frequency of mental state terms (MST), indicative of motivation, and the quality of an explanation. Using an innovative scoring system, the current study examined whether individual differences in adult undergraduate psychology students' (N = 128) answer quality and / or quantity of explicit references to others' mental states on two open-ended response mindreading tasks were separable constructs, accounted for by mindreading motivation, and related differentially to measures previously linked with mindreading (e.g., religiosity, loneliness, social network size). A two-factor and one-factor model both provided acceptable fit. Neither model showed significant associations with mindreading motivation. However, a two-factor model (with MST and response appropriateness loading onto separate factors) provided greater explanatory power. Specifically, MST was positively associated with religiosity and response appropriateness was negatively associated with religiosity, whilst the one-factor solution did not predict any socially relevant outcomes. This provides some indication that mindreading quantity and mindreading quality may be distinguishable constructs in the structure of individual differences in mindreading.

A decade of theory as reflected in Psychological Science (2009-2019).

The dominant belief is that science progresses by testing theories and moving towards theoretical consensus. While it's implicitly assumed that psychology operates in this manner, critical discussions claim that the field suffers from a lack of cumulative theory. To examine this paradox, we analysed research published in Psychological Science from 2009-2019 (N = 2,225). We found mention of 359 theories in-text, most were referred to only once. Only 53.66% of all manuscripts included the word theory, and only 15.33% explicitly claimed to test predictions derived from theories. We interpret this to suggest that the majority of research published in this flagship journal is not driven by theory, nor can it be contributing to cumulative theory building. These data provide insight into the kinds of research psychologists are conducting and raises questions about the role of theory in the psychological sciences.

Age-related differences in the ability to decode intentions from non-literal language.

Older adults sometimes experience difficulty in decoding non-literal language, such as sarcastic statements where the underlying meaning differs from the literal words used. Given that sarcasm usually communicates a negative message this age effect might be explained by a positivity bias in old age. Here we test this for the first time by looking at age differences in interpreting non-literal compliments made with positive intention. However, another possibility is that older adults may fail to interpret such remarks correctly because these non-literal compliments are rarely encountered in everyday interactions. The aim of this study was therefore to compare younger and older adults' comprehension of positively and negatively valenced non-literal language. Forty younger and thirty-eight older adults read short story scenarios ending with a positive or negative, literal or non-literal evaluative appraisal of an event. Older adults were less likely than young to detect negatively valenced non-literal criticism and there were even more pronounced age-related differences in comprehending positive non-literal compliments. This indicates that age differences in understanding non-literal language are not driven by positivity biases. The relative rarity of non-literal compliments may have made these particularly difficult to interpret for both younger and older adults. Younger adults' performance indicated that non-literal language mutes perceived levels of critique and praise, while older adults' tendency to misinterpret non-literal language means that they may not benefit from this muting function. Potential implications for social interactions in older adulthood are discussed.