Mentalising (otherwise known as 'theory of mind') involves a special process that is adapted for predicting and explaining the behavior of others (targets) based on inferences about targets' beliefs and character. The current research investigated how well participants made inferences about an especially apposite aspect of character, empathy. Participants were invited to make inferences of self-rated empathy after watching or listening to an unfamiliar target for a few seconds telling a scripted joke (or answering questions about him/herself or reading aloud a paragraph of promotional material). Across three studies participants were good at identifying targets with low and high self-rated empathy but not good at identifying those who are average. Such inferences, especially of high self-rated empathy, seemed to be based mainly on clues in the target's behavior, presented either in a video, a still photograph or in an audio track. However, participants were not as effective in guessing which targets had low or average self-rated empathy from a still photograph showing a neutral pose or from an audio track. We conclude with discussion of the scope and the adaptive value of this inferential ability.

In this article, we propose a new framework for investigating how accurately and by what process people read others' minds—a process that requires perceivers to make a retrodictive inference. In this context, we discuss the value of a novel methodological approach that complements the conceptual framework. This framework is formulated on the basis of a series of empirical articles emerging over the past few years in which the ideas appear in nascent form. Retrodiction is the process in which, on observing a person's behavior (often but not exclusively a facial expression), people are equipped not only to sense the underlying inner state but also to infer the event that caused that inner state. Indeed, the goal of mindreading need not always be to identify an inner state explicitly but to infer the event that caused the inner state. Doing so is adaptive in that it permits access to a more expansive view of the world through the lens of another mind. This view of mindreading naturally leads to a reconsideration of methods that are fit for purpose and leads to testable hypotheses.

No abstract

Trait inferences occur routinely and rapidly during social interaction, sometimes based on scant or fleeting information. In this research, participants (perceivers) made inferences of targets' big‐five traits after briefly watching or listening to an unfamiliar target (a third party) performing various mundane activities (telling a scripted joke or answering questions about him/herself or reading aloud a paragraph of promotional material). Across three studies, when perceivers judged targets to be either low or high in one or more dimensions of the big‐five traits, they tended to be correct, but they did not tend to be correct when they judged targets as average. Such inferences seemed to vary in effectiveness across different trait dimensions and depending on whether the target's behaviour was presented either in a video with audio, a silent video, or just in an audio track—perceivers generally were less often correct when they judged targets as average in each of the big‐five traits across various information channels (videos with audio, silent videos, and audios). Study 3 replicated these findings in a different culture. We conclude with discussion of the scope and the adaptive value of this trait inferential ability. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

This is an author response to commentaries on our original article (Wu, Sheppard & Mitchell, 2016). We abstract two main themes from the commentaries, and they are as follows: (1) What kind of clues in target behaviour allow perceivers to infer target EQ? And related with this, by what process do perceivers infer the target's EQ? (2) Do features of the target group naturally lead to a U-shaped function, whereby it is easy for perceivers to identify those at the extremes but not those in the middle of the continuum?