Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28033550›Full record

ReviewConsciousness and cognition2017

Alignment in social interactions.

M Gallotti, M T Fairhurst, C D Frith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Consciousness and cognition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Who Talks About Flood Risks and Climate Change Adaptation? Analysis of Social Interactions in Three Countries.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. On the social nature of abstraction: cognitive implications of interaction and diversity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M GallottiSchool of Advanced Study, University of London, Senate House Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Mattia.Gallotti@sas.ac.uk.
M T FairhurstInstitute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Study, University of London, United Kingdom; Munich Centre for Neuroscience, Ludwig Maximilian University, Germany.
C D FrithThe Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL, United Kingdom; Institute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Study, University of London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the prevailing paradigm in social-cognitive neuroscience, the mental states of individuals become shared when they adapt to each other in the pursuit of a shared goal. We challenge this view by proposing an alternative approach to the cognitive foundations of social interactions. The central claim of this paper is that social cognition concerns the graded and dynamic process of alignment of individual minds, even in the absence of a shared goal. When individuals reciprocally exchange information about each other's minds processes of alignment unfold over time and across space, creating a social interaction. Not all cases of joint action involve such reciprocal exchange of information. To understand the nature of social interactions, then, we propose that attention should be focused on the manner in which people align words and thoughts, bodily postures and movements, in order to take one another into account and to make full use of socially relevant information.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalInterpersonal RelationsHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.