Table 4.

Description of Final Measures

Task	Format	Description
Ambiguous Intentions and Hostility Questionnaire, abbreviated version	Paper and pencil	This task is designed to evaluate hostile social cognitive biases. Participants read 5 hypothetical, negative situations with causes that are ambiguous (ie, they could be intentional or accidental), imagine the scenario happening to them, and record a reason why the scenario occurred. Independent raters later code this initial response to compute a hostility index (range = 1–5). Participants then use Likert scales to rate whether the other person/s performed the action on purpose (1 “definitely no” to 6 “definitely yes”), how angry it would make them feel (1 “not angry at all” to 5 “very angry”), and how much they would blame the other person/s (1 “not at all” to 5 “very much”). Finally, the participant is asked to write down how they would respond to the situation, which is later coded by 2 independent raters to compute an aggression index (range = 1–5)
Bell Lysaker Emotion Recognition Task	Stimuli presented via computer, responses recorded by experimenter	The BLERT measures the ability to correctly identify 7 emotional states: happiness, sadness, fear, disgust, surprise, anger, or no emotion. Participants view 21 ten-second video clips of a male actor, which provide dynamic facial, vocal-tonal, and upper body movement cues. After viewing each video, participants identify the expressed emotion. Performance is indexed as the total number of correctly identified emotions (ranging from 0 to 21)
Penn Emotion Recognition Test	Computer administered	The ER-40 assesses facial affect recognition ability. It includes 40 color photographs of static faces expressing 4 basic emotions (ie, happiness, sadness, anger, or fear) and neutral expressions. Stimuli are balanced for poser’s gender, age, and ethnicity, and for each emotion category, 4 high-intensity and 4 low-intensity expressions are included. Participants view 1 image at a time and choose the correct emotion label for each face. Accuracy scores, ranging from 0 to 40, serve as the primary dependent variable
Relationships Across Domains, abbreviated version	Paper and pencil	The RAD measures competence in relationship perception. The content and format are based on relational models theory, which proposes that individuals use their implicit knowledge of 4 relational models (ie, communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing) to understand social relationships and predict the behavior of others. The abbreviated RAD is comprised of 15 vignettes involving different male-female dyads that represent one of the relational models. Participants read each vignette and answer 3 yes/no questions about whether a future behavior is likely to happen given the described relationship. Performance is indexed as the total number of correct responses (ranging from 0 to 45)
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test	Stimuli presented via computer, responses recorded by experimenter	The Eyes task measures the capacity to discriminate the mental state of others from expressions in the eye region of the face. Participants view 36 photos of the eye region of different faces and choose the most accurate descriptor word for the thought/feeling that is portrayed. Four possible options are presented with each photo, and a glossary of mental state terms is provided for reference. Total score is the number of correct responses, and scores range from 0 to 36
The Awareness of Social Inferences Test, Part III	Stimuli presented via computer, responses recorded by experimenter	The TASIT is comprised of videotaped vignettes of everyday social interactions, and Part III, the Social Inference-Enriched test, assesses detection of lies and sarcasm. Participants watch each vignette and answer 4 standard questions per vignette that probe understanding of the intentions, beliefs, and meanings of the speakers and their exchanges. Scores range from 0 to 64
Hinting Task	Paper and pencil	The Hinting Task examines the ability of individuals to infer the true intent of indirect speech. The task includes 10 short passages presenting an interaction between 2 characters that are read aloud by the experimenter. Each passage ends with one of the characters dropping a hint, and participants are asked what the character truly meant. If the first response provided is inaccurate, a second hint is delivered, and participants may earn partial credit for that passage. Total scores range from 0 to 20
Trustworthiness Task, abbreviated version	Stimuli presented via computer, responses recorded by experimenter	Participants rate 42 faces for trustworthiness on a scale from −3 to 3. Faces are presented in gray scale and represent ethnically diverse males and females. The task assesses participants’ ability to make complex social judgments by comparing the participant ratings to normative data

Note: Abbreviations are explained in the first footnote to table 3.