Theory of Mind and Self-Attributions of Mentality are Dissociable in LLMs

Aligning large language models to prevent them attributing consciousness to themselves inadvertently alters their representations of mindedness in other entities alongside human beliefs and values. We demonstrate that safety fine-tuning suppresses models' tendencies to attribute minds not only to themselves, but also to non-human animals and natural objects, while also driving a reduction in spiritual belief. Both ablating the learned safety-refusal direction and mechanistically steering a consciousness vector in activation space reverse this suppression. Restoring these internal representations recovers broad mind attribution and produces significantly more human-like responses on standardized sociological surveys regarding religiosity, moral values, hope, and subjective well-being. Crucially, these shifts occur without impairing Theory of Mind capabilities, demonstrating that core social reasoning remains mechanistically independent. Ultimately, current safety alignment efforts to curb potentially harmful self-attributions of mindedness entangle these self-attributions with benign spiritual beliefs and attributions of mind to non-human entities that are culturally accepted and widespread.

The study explores whether current Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities -- specifically, the ability to infer others' beliefs, intentions, and emotions from text. Given that LLMs are trained on language data without social embodiment or access to other manifestations of mental representations, their apparent social-cognitive reasoning raises key questions about the nature of their understanding. Are they capable of robust mental-state attribution indistinguishable from human ability in its output, or do their outputs merely reflect superficial pattern completion? To address this question, we tested five LLMs and compared their performance to that of human controls using an adapted version of a text-based tool widely used in human ToM research. The test involves answering questions about the beliefs, intentions, and emotions of story characters. The results revealed a performance gap between the models. Earlier and smaller models were strongly affected by the number of relevant inferential cues available and, to some extent, were also vulnerable to the presence of irrelevant or distracting information in the texts. In contrast, GPT-4o demonstrated high accuracy and strong robustness, performing comparably to humans even in the most challenging conditions. This work contributes to ongoing debates about the cognitive status of LLMs and the boundary between genuine understanding and statistical approximation.

Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to an agent's ability to model the internal states of others. Contributing to the debate whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit genuine ToM capabilities, our study investigates their ToM robustness using perturbations on false-belief tasks and examines the potential of Chain-of-Thought prompting (CoT) to enhance performance and explain the LLM's decision. We introduce a handcrafted, richly annotated ToM dataset, including classic and perturbed false belief tasks, the corresponding spaces of valid reasoning chains for correct task completion, subsequent reasoning faithfulness, task solutions, and propose metrics to evaluate reasoning chain correctness and to what extent final answers are faithful to reasoning traces of the generated CoT. We show a steep drop in ToM capabilities under task perturbation for all evaluated LLMs, questioning the notion of any robust form of ToM being present. While CoT prompting improves the ToM performance overall in a faithful manner, it surprisingly degrades accuracy for some perturbation classes, indicating that selective application is necessary.