Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36203275›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2023

A curse of knowledge or a curse of uncertainty? Bilingualism, embodiment, and egocentric bias.

Steven Samuel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Feedback on Mental State Inferences Improves Accuracy and Awareness.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Steven SamuelDepartment of Psychology, School of Health & Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7776-7427

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to adopt others' perspectives-our "Theory of Mind"-underpins social interaction. Nevertheless, adults are imperfect perspective takers, demonstrating egocentric biases. Here, a series of experiments assessed whether (1) embodying an agent's physical perspective (working out whether he held something in his left or right hand) or (2) being bilingual, would benefit perspective taking. Participants were shown a scenario in which an agent puts a ball in one of four boxes. When he returns later, the boxes have been rearranged. Participants, who additionally know that the ball is now in a different box, then judge how likely the agent is to look for the ball in each of the four boxes first. In Experiments 1-3 participants were not more likely to judge the agent would look where he last saw it as a function of either factor. In Experiments 4 and 5, one group of participants were told where the ball had been moved to, the other only that the ball had been moved to a different box. In Experiment 4, participants in the latter condition assigned higher probability to the boxes that were never mentioned. In Experiment 5 this was replicated and was driven by monolinguals and those who had received the embodiment condition. These results suggest that egocentric biases may be more likely to arise when participants are more deliberative, such as when making a judgement under uncertainty, and that extrinsic factors such as bilingualism and embodiment may influence perspective attributions under such conditions.

Indexed as

MultilingualismAdultBiasHumansKnowledgeMaleSocial PerceptionUncertaintybilingualismegocentric biasembodimentPerspective takingtheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID36203275
PMCPMC10350712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.