Figure 2. Sample Stimuli and Descriptions of ToM Tasks.

Top Panel (Jack and Jill Task): Participants were shown three consecutive frames (stimulus duration indicated under each frame; interstimulus interval indicated on arrows) on a computer screen. Each frame included a character (Jack and/or Jill), two hats (red and blue), and a ball. In Frame A of each sequence, Jack is preparing to drop a ball into either a blue or red hat (here, blue) while Jill watches. In Frame B, Jack either moves the ball further into the blue hat (unswitched trials; not shown) or switches the ball to the red hat (switched trials). Jill is present in half of Frame B trials (witnessed trials) and absent in the other half (unwitnessed trials). In Frame C, participants decide whether Jill’s belief about the location of the ball is correct or incorrect. Jill’s judgment depends on what she believes about the ball’s location, not its actual location: She will choose the original (Frame A) hat if she did not witness the switch. The study consisted of 32 trials, 8 for each of four trial types: Unswitched-Witnessed, Unswitched-Unwitnessed, Switched-Witnessed, Switched-Unwitnessed. The ToM trials involve an unwitnessed switch of hat color; control trials are those in which the switch was witnessed.

Middle Panel (Emotional and Emotive Faces Task): Participants listen to 25 short narratives, five for each involving happiness, sadness, fear, disgust, and anger, involving a discrepancy between Terry’s “inside” feeling and her facial expression (e.g., “Terry woke up with a tummy ache. If her mom knew about the tummy ache she wouldn’t let Terry go out to play.”) Participants were asked how Terry felt inside (Emotional condition) and how she looked on her face (Emotive condition) by selecting a face from the display. The ToM condition is the Emotive Communication score (“Look on Face” questions), which measures the emotion on the face as a deceptive representation of what is felt inside. The control condition is the Emotional Expression score (“Feel Inside” questions), which measures the emotion on the face as a transparent read-out of the emotion experienced.

Bottom Panel (Ironic Criticism and Empathic Praise Task): Two social dyads are shown in six situations (fixing a bicycle is pictured), with simultaneous presentation of a picture, a narrative, and an audiotape of the speaker’s utterances recorded with neutral, ironic, or empathic intonation (totaling 18 trials). In all three bicycle scenarios, Sally tells John he has done a good job fixing the bicycle. In the Literal Truth scenario, this matches the actual job. In the Ironic Criticism scenario, Sally believes John has done a poor job and her intent is to convey a negative evaluation. In the Empathic Praise scenario, Sally believes John has done a poor job but her intent is to convey a positive, comforting evaluation. Participants were told the task goal (e.g., to repair a bicycle), shown the outcome (e.g., “the bicycle was…”), and informed about the speaker’s character (e.g., “she liked to chat and talk to people”; “she liked to bug and annoy people”; “she liked to cheer people up”) and what the speaker said to the hearer (e.g., “You did a great job”). Questions probed beliefs (what the speaker thought about the event, what the speaker thought about the hearer) and intentions (what the speaker wanted the hearer to think about the event, what the speaker wanted the hearer to think about him- or herself). The key measures are Literal Truth (control task), Ironic Criticism (conative ToM task, with an opaque relation between words and meaning, and a negative second-order intention towards the hearer), and Empathic Praise (conative ToM task, with an opaque relation between words and meaning, and a positive second-order intention towards the hearer). Scores for irony and empathy were combined for the purposes of the current paper.