Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33319316›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021

Taking the perspectives of many people: Humanization matters.

Tian Ye, Fumikazu Furumi, Daniel Catarino da Silva, Antonia Hamilton

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Tian YeInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7688-2140
Fumikazu FurumiJapan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Daniel Catarino da SilvaInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.
Antonia HamiltonInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK. a.hamilton@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 313398-INTERACTJapan Society for the Promotion of Science 15J00570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a busy space, people encounter many other people with different viewpoints, but classic studies of perspective-taking examine only one agent at a time. This paper explores the issue of selectivity in visual perspective-taking (VPT) when different people are available to interact with. We consider the hypothesis that humanization impacts on VPT in four studies using virtual reality methods. Experiments 1 and 2 use the director task to show that for more humanized agents (an in-group member or a virtual human agent), participants were more likely to use VPT to achieve lower error rate. Experiments 3 and 4 used a two-agent social mental rotation task to show that participants are faster and more accurate to recognize items which are oriented towards a more humanized agent (an in-group member or a naturally moving agent). All results support the claim that humanization alters the propensity to engage in VPT in rich social contexts.

Indexed as

Social InteractionAdultFemaleHumansMaleSpace PerceptionTheory of MindVisual PerceptionYoung AdultDehumanizationIn-groupMotivationPerspective-takingSocial cognition

Identifiers

PMID33319316
PMCPMC8219553

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.