Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36571125›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023

On the social nature of abstraction: cognitive implications of interaction and diversity.

Karsten Olsen, Kristian Tylén

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. 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. Review
  3. Editorial concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Karsten OlsenThe Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1513-4736
Kristian TylénThe Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human capacity for abstraction is remarkable. We effortlessly form abstract representations from varied experiences, generalizing and flexibly transferring experiences and knowledge between contexts, which can facilitate reasoning, problem solving and learning across many domains. The cognitive process of abstraction, however, is often portrayed and investigated as an individual process. This paper addresses how cognitive processes of abstraction-together with other aspects of human reasoning and problem solving-are fundamentally shaped and modulated by online social interaction. Starting from a general distinction between convergent thinking, divergent thinking and processes of abstraction, we address how social interaction shapes information processing differently depending on cognitive demands, social coordination and task ecologies. In particular, we suggest that processes of abstraction are facilitated by the interactive sharing and integration of varied individual experiences. To this end, we also discuss how the dynamics of group interactions vary as a function of group composition; that is, in terms of the similarity and diversity between the group members. We conclude by outlining the role of cognitive diversity in interactive processes and consider the importance of group diversity in processes of abstraction. This article is part of the theme issue 'Concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences'.

Indexed as

Concept FormationLearningCognitionHumansProblem Solvingabstractionconvergencedivergencediversitygroup compositionsocial interaction

Identifiers

PMID36571125
PMCPMC9791485

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.