Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26859562›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

It Depends Who Is Watching You: 3-D Agent Cues Increase Fairness.

Jan Krátký, John J McGraw, Dimitris Xygalatas, Panagiotis Mitkidis, Paul Reddish

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jan KrátkýLaboratory for the Experimental Research of Religion, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
John J McGrawInteracting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Dimitris XygalatasLaboratory for the Experimental Research of Religion, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Panagiotis MitkidisInteracting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Paul ReddishLaboratory for the Experimental Research of Religion, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated that exposure to cues of intentional agents in the form of eyes can increase prosocial behavior. However, previous research mostly used 2-dimensional depictions as experimental stimuli. Thus far no study has examined the influence of the spatial properties of agency cues on this prosocial effect. To investigate the role of dimensionality of agency cues on fairness, 345 participants engaged in a decision-making task in a naturalistic setting. The experimental treatment included a 3-dimensional pseudo-realistic model of a human head and a 2-dimensional picture of the same object. The control stimuli consisted of a real plant and its 2-D image. Our results partly support the findings of previous studies that cues of intentional agents increase prosocial behavior. However, this effect was only found for the 3-D cues, suggesting that dimensionality is a critical variable in triggering these effects in a real-world settings. Our research sheds light on a hitherto unexplored aspect of the effects of environmental cues and their morphological properties on decision-making.

Indexed as

CuesDecision MakingFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationSocial BehaviorSocial Justice

Identifiers

PMID26859562
PMCPMC4747577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.