Psychologists at the University of Bath, Cardiff, and London have developed the first ever ‘mind-reading questionnaire’ to assess how well people understand what others are really thinking.
A fresh approach to ‘mind-reading’ has been developed by investigators at the University of Bath, Cardiff, and London to improve how well we know what others are thinking. And it transpires that women are much better than men at putting themselves in someone else’s shoes.
Mind-reading, sometimes known in psychology as ‘mentalising’, is a significant skill allowing us to pick-up on subtle behavioral factors that may indicate that someone we are speaking to is thinking something they’re not saying (e.g. being sarcastic or even lying).
The researchers state that we all have distinct mind-reading abilities, with some of us inherently better than others. The simple fact that not all of us are great at mind-reading can lead to challenges – in particular for people with disabilities in which it can result in social struggles in building or maintaining relationships.
To identify those men and women who have problems and also to provide them with appropriate support, the group at Bath made a new mind-reading evaluation, which draws on data from over 4,000 autistic and non-autistic people in the UK and US.
Results from their simple, four-step questionnaire were scored, ranging from 4 to 16 (with 4 indicating poor mind-reading skills; 16 signaling excellent abilities). The average score because of their survey was between 12 and 13. After mathematically confirming that the evaluation was measuring the same thing in women and men, they found that women reported greater mind-reading than men, whilst also confirming some of the well-reported societal challenges faced by the autistic community.
Their method, which utilizes just four questions to evaluate people, together with their study findings, are published in the journal Psychological Assessment.
Dr Punit Shah, Senior author of the study and top expert on social cognitive processing in the University of Bath’s Department of Psychology explained: “We will all undoubtedly have had experiences where we have felt we have not connected with other people we are talking to, where we’ve perceived that they have failed to understand us, or where things we’ve said have been taken the wrong way. Much of how we communicate relies on our understanding of what others are thinking, yet this is a surprisingly complex process that not everyone can do.”
“To understand this psychological process, we needed to separate mind-reading from empathy. Mind-reading refers to understanding what other people are thinking, whereas empathy is all about understanding what others are feeling. The difference might seem subtle but is critically important and involves very different brain networks. By focussing carefully on measuring mind-reading, without confusing it with empathy, we are confident that we have just measured mind-reading. And, when doing this, we consistently find that females reported greater mind-reading abilities than their male counterparts.”
Lead writer, Rachel Clutterbuck, emphasized the clinical importance of the questionnaire. She explained: “This new test, which takes under a minute to complete, has important utility in clinical settings. It is not always obvious if someone is experiencing difficulties understanding and responding to others – and many people have learnt techniques which can reduce the appearance of social difficulties, even though these remain.”
“This work has great potential to better understand the lived experience of people with mind-reading difficulties, such as those with autism, whilst producing a precise quantitative score that may be used by clinicians to identify individuals who may benefit from interventions.”
Dr Shah added: “This research has been about understanding more about our mind-reading abilities and providing solutions to those who might struggle, particularly the autistic community. We have created a freely available questionnaire which we hope can help identify people who are experiencing mental difficulties relevant to social situations.”
Related Journal Article: https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpas0001004