ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2020
Perspective-taking is spontaneous but not automatic.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Avatars versus the people: Photo-realism, spontaneous detection and trait inferences of digitised faces.Perception · 2026Article
- Is Mind-Reading Involved in Ownership Judgments?Cognitive science · 2025Article
- The effect of avatar identity on spontaneous perspective-taking in patients with schizophrenia.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- I prefer what you can see: The role of visual perspective-taking on the gaze-liking effect.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Both the domain-general and the mentalising processes affect visual perspective taking.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Visual perspective-taking in complex natural scenes.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2022Article
- Cognitive and Emotional Determinants of Automatic Perspective Taking in Healthy Adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data from a range of different experimental paradigms-in particular (but not only) the dot perspective task-have been interpreted as evidence that humans automatically track the perspective of other individuals. Results from other studies, however, have cast doubt on this interpretation, and some researchers have suggested that phenomena that seem like perspective-taking might instead be the products of simpler behavioural rules. The issue remains unsettled in significant part because different schools of thought, with different theoretical perspectives, implement the experimental tasks in subtly different ways, making direct comparisons difficult. Here, we explore the possibility that subtle differences in experimental method explain otherwise irreconcilable findings in the literature. Across five experiments we show that the classic result in the dot perspective task is not automatic (it is not purely stimulus-driven), but nor is it exclusively the product of simple behavioural rules that do not involve mentalising. Instead, participants do compute the perspectives of other individuals rapidly, unconsciously, and involuntarily, but only when attentional systems prompt them to do so (just as, for instance, the visual system puts external objects into focus only as and when required). This finding prompts us to clearly distinguish spontaneity from automaticity. Spontaneous perspective-taking may be a computationally efficient means of navigating the social world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.