Does ChatGPT have Theory of Mind?
Open accessAbstract
Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to understand human thinking and decision-making, an ability that plays a crucial role in social interaction between people, including linguistic communication. This paper investigates to what extent recent Large Language Models in the ChatGPT tradition possess ToM. We posed six well-known problems that address biases in human reasoning and decision making to two versions of ChatGPT and we compared the results under a range of prompting strategies. While the results concerning ChatGPT-3 were somewhat inconclusive, ChatGPT-4 was shown to arrive at the correct answers more often than would be expected based on chance, although correct answers were often arrived at on the basis of false assumptions or invalid reasoning.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Later models demonstrate an increasing ability to reliably infer unobservable mental states in others.
“later models demonstrate an increasing ability to reliably infer unobservable mental states in others (Strachan et al., 2024;Holterman and Deemter, 2023;Moghaddam and Honey, 2023).”
From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Holterman and Deemter, 2023
The Results and Conclusion report that ChatGPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT-3 on questions about human reasoning biases, answering about 80% correctly. But the Conclusion describes this cautiously as possible comprehension of one facet of theory of mind, not reliable inference of others’ unobservable mental states generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Mohammad Aljanabi, Mohanad Ghazi, Ahmed Hussein Ali, Saad Abas Abed, et al. 2023. Chatgpt: Open possibilities. Iraqi Journal For Computer Science and Mathematics, 4(1):62-64.
- Ian A Apperly. 2012. What is "theory of mind"? concepts, cognitive processes and individual differ- ences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy, 65(5):825-839.
- Ömer Aydın and Enis Karaarslan. 2022. Openai chatgpt generated literature review: Digital twin in healthcare. Available at SSRN 4308687.
- Marcel Binz and Eric Schulz. 2023. Using cognitive psychology to understand gpt-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6):e2218523120.
- Ali Borji. 2023. A categorical archive of chatgpt fail- ures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03494. · arXiv
- K.E. Jacowitz and D. Kahneman. 1995. Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21:1161-66.
- D. Kahneman and D. Lovallo. 2003. Delusions of suc- cess: how optimism undermines executives' deci- sions. Harvard Business Review, 81:56-63.
- Boaz Keysar, Shuhong Lin, and Dale J Barr. 2003. Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1):25-41.
- Michal Kosinski. 2023. Theory of mind may have spon- taneously emerged in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02083. · arXiv
- R Thomas McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntac- tic heuristics in natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01007. · arXiv
- Shima Rahimi Moghaddam and Christopher J Honey. 2023. Boosting theory-of-mind performance in large language models via prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11490. · arXiv
- Fabio Motoki, Valdemar Pinho Neto, and Victor Ro- drigues. 2023. More human than human: Measuring chatgpt political bias. Available at SSRN 4372349.
- Timothy Niven and Hung-Yu Kao. 2019. Probing neu- ral network comprehension of natural language argu- ments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07355. · arXiv
- N. Novemsky and D. Kahneman. 2005. The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42:119-28.
- Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Exploit- ing cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676. · arXiv
- M.S. Seidenberg and D. Kahneman. 1979. Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5:546-54.
- A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. 1983. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in proba- bility judgment. Psychological Review, 90:293-315.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deception abilities emerged in large language models
Hagendorff, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2317967121 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Hagendorff, T., Dasgupta, I., Binz, M., Chan, S. C. Y., Lampinen, A., Wang, J. X., Akata, Z., & Schulz, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.13988 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language models
Hu, J., Sosa, F., & Ullman, T. (2025) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2023.0499 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Holterman, B., & van Deemter, K.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- ORCID
- Holterman, Bart
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2305.14020
- OpenAlex
- W4378508547
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- theory of mind, ChatGPT, large language models, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3, reasoning biases, decision-making, prompting strategies, false assumptions, social cognition
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
