Executive function mechanisms of theory of mind.
Different ToM tests tap different EF skills—choose the test that matches the skill you want to assess.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran regression models on a mixed group of kids and adults. They wanted to know which executive-function skills predict scores on different theory-of-mind tests.
They used five common ToM tasks and several EF measures. IQ was also entered as a predictor.
What they found
Each ToM test leaned on a different EF skill. For example, one test needed working memory, another needed inhibition.
Only IQ predicted the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. The other ToM tasks were driven by specific EF domains.
How this fits with other research
Granader et al. (2014) extends these findings to preschoolers with ASD. They show planning and shifting predict ToM in that age group.
Fisher et al. (2005) looks like a contradiction at first. Their training study found no transfer between EF and ToM. But the 2011 paper is about prediction, not training. The two studies ask different questions, so they do not clash.
Goldfarb et al. (2024) adds motor skills to the mix. They show EF and ToM together explain most of the social skills variance in older kids. This builds on the 2011 finding that EF and ToM are tightly linked.
Why it matters
Pick your ToM test based on the EF skill you want to probe. If you need to test working memory, use a false-belief task. If you need to test inhibition, use a strange-stories task. This saves time and gives clearer data.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Look at your current ToM tool and list which EF skill it likely measures—swap it if it does not match your target skill.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study examined the relationship between Executive Function (EF) and Theory of Mind (ToM) using the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) and three tests of ToM (Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET), Strange Stories test, and Faux Pas test). Separate regression analyses were conducted, and EF predictors varied by ToM test. No EF domains accounted for significant variance in RMET scores; only estimated IQ scores were significant predictors of RMET performance. Verbal fluency and deductive reasoning were significant predictors of performance on the Strange Stories test, while verbal fluency, problem solving, and gender accounted for a significant variance in the Faux Pas test. Results suggest that the ToM tests each utilized differing cognitive mechanisms.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2011 · doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1087-7