Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38180973›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Perspective-taking in a language game.

Johanne Nedergaard, Kenny Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Johanne NedergaardDepartment of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6381-2901
Kenny SmithSchool of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4530-6914

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many theories of communication claim that perspective-taking is a fundamental component of the successful design of utterances for a specific audience. In three experiments, we investigated perspective-taking in a constrained communication situation: Participants played a word guessing game where each trial required them to select a clue word to communicate a single target word to their partner. In many cases, the task requires participants to take the perspective of their partner when generating, evaluating, and selecting potential clue words. For example, if the target word was 'heart', the first word that came to mind might be 'love', but this would not in fact be a very useful clue word. Instead, a word like 'cardiovascular' is much more likely than 'love' to make the partner guess 'heart'. Pairs of participants took turns giving and receiving clues to guess target words, receiving feedback after each trial. In Experiment 1, participants appeared unable to improve their perspective-taking over repeated interactions, despite a baseline performance that suggested strong perspective-taking abilities. In Experiment 2, which included extensive feedback after each trial and only target words for which good clues existed and which required perspective-taking, some measures of perspective-taking showed modest improvements. In Experiment 3, which was conducted online, we used Experiment 2 feedback with Experiment 1 target words. As in Experiment 1, participants did not improve over the course of the game in Experiment 3. The results of these three experiments show quite strong limits on people's ability to adapt and improve perspective-taking without the context provided by interaction history and growing common ground.

Indexed as

CommunicationLanguageHeartHumans

Identifiers

PMID38180973
PMCPMC10769035

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.