Scoping review identifies innovative video-based measures of social inference, highlighting gaps and opportunities.
Introduction: Social inferential processes, including theory of mind, pragmatics (comprising irony and sarcasm), deception, and social judgments, enable individuals to interpret intentions, beliefs, and socially normative behaviors. Traditional measures using vignettes or static images often lack ecological validity, whereas video-based tasks provide a more naturalistic approach. This scoping review maps video-based measures of social inference in adults over the past 30 years. Methods: A systematic search in PsycInfo, PubMed, and SocIndex identified 5057 records, with 421 meeting inclusion criteria. We extracted details on test and stimuli characteristics, populations studies, and video features. Results: A total of 189 tests were identified: 33% assessed theory of mind, 25% social judgment, 20% deception, 12% irony/sarcasm, and 7% pragmatics. Most were in English or European languages, with videos typically featuring speaking actors (77%) and over half showing real interactions. Commonly used tests included the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition, Awareness of Social Inference Test, Interpersonal Perception Task, and EmpaToM. Thirteen stimuli banks were identified, mainly covering theory of mind, deception, and social judgment, with limited linguistic diversity. Psychiatric populations, particularly schizophrenia, were most studied, while neurodegenerative disorders were underrepresented. Conclusion: The breadth of tools demonstrates strong innovation in task design and offers a practical resource for researchers and clinicians. However, validation remains limited, stimuli banks are scarce, and key populations such as older adults and patients with neurodegenerative disorders are underrepresented. Future work should focus on strengthening existing tools, expanding accessibility, and linking assessments more closely to clinical and real-world social functioning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
St-Georges et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: