Cited by 26Media Influence and HealthChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentNarrative Theory and Analysis

Watching More Closely: Shot Scale Affects Film Viewers’ Theory of Mind Tendency But Not Ability

Open access
Rooney, Brendan, Bálint, Katalin E.·2018·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Recent research debates the effects of exposure to narrative fiction on recognition of mental states in others and self, referred to as Theory of Mind. The current study explores the mechanisms by which such effects could occur in fictional film. Using manipulated film scenes, we conducted a between subject experiment (N=136) exploring how film shot-scale affects viewers’ Theory of Mind. Specifically, in our methods we distinguish between the trait Theory of Mind abilities (ToM ability), and the state-like tendency to recognise mental states in others and self (ToM tendency). Results showed that close-up shots (compared to long shots) of a character was associated with higher levels of Theory of Mind tendency, when the facial expression was sad but not when it was neutral. And this effect did not transfer to other characters in the film. There was also no observable effect of character depiction on viewers’ general Theory of Mind ability. Together the findings suggest that formal and content features of shot scale can elicit Theory of Mind responses by directing attention towards character mental states rather than improving viewers’ general Theory of Mind ability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02349

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rooney, B., & Bálint, K. E.
Affiliations
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • University of Augsburg (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Rooney, Brendan
  • Bálint, Katalin E.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2018-01-17
Volume
8
Pages
2349-2349
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2782678380
Cited by
26
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
34.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
Keywords
theory of mind, shot scale, close-up, long shot, film viewing, narrative fiction, mental state recognition, facial expressions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review