ArticlePloS one2025
The alignment model of indirect communication.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Linguistic perspective-taking in verbal communication with LLMs: evidence of an egocentric bias.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Speakers often choose utterances under uncertainty about the potential opinion of the listener. In this case, utterances that do not signal the speaker's opinion directly may allow the speaker to avoid possible conflict: saying that an election outcome is interesting rather than amazing, even if the speaker is truly excited about it, may give her an option to retreat if it turns out that the listener's opinion is the opposite. By enhancing the Rational Speech Act framework with a turn-taking pragmatic system, we develop a model of indirect communication that is able to (1) rationalize the choice of indirect utterances when speakers' opinions do not align; (2) capture complex reasoning about the true interlocutor's opinion when facing indirect utterances and responses. The model has several novel features: in addition to standard informativeness goals, speaker choices factor in potential divergences of opinions between conversation partners. The listener model further considers multi-turn dialogues rather than isolated utterances: it is able to derive that an utterance like "interesting" can be interpreted positively or negatively depending on preceding discourse. The model, though complex, makes novel, non-trivial qualitative predictions, which are supported by data from three behavioral experiments reported here.
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.