Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41381481›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Directional bias in interpersonal emotion perception.

Shir Genzer, Matan Rubin, Haran Sened, Eshkol Rafaeli, Kevin N Ochsner, Noga Cohen, Anat Perry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Shir GenzerPsychology Department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. shir.genzer@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1633-7882
Matan RubinPsychology Department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7869-4993
Haran SenedDepartment of Counseling and Human Development, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0467-1154
Eshkol RafaeliDepartment of Psychology and Gonda Neuroscience Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1226-9678
Kevin N OchsnerDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, Columbia, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8532-2129
Noga CohenDepartment of Special Education and The Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7682-0289
Anat PerryPsychology Department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. anat.perry@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2329-856X

Funding

Israel Science Foundation (ISF) 354/21Mind and Life Institute PEACE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately understanding others' emotional states is fundamental to effective social functioning. While extensive research exists on how humans recognize different emotions, little is known about how people assess emotional intensity. Through a preliminary survey and seven multi-site studies (n = 2866), we demonstrate that despite believing they gauge emotions accurately, systematic discrepancies emerge: individuals tend to rate others' emotions as more intense than those individuals rate themselves, particularly for negative emotions. This bias persists across text-based interactions, recorded videos, and live conversations, with both strangers and romantic partners. Interestingly, while people report preferring accurate judgments of their own emotional intensity, the discrepancy may serve adaptive functions, predicting higher empathic responses with strangers and greater relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships. These findings advance understanding of discrepancies in interpersonal emotional perception, highlighting their potential adaptive roles and providing insight into how they shape our social world and relationship outcomes.

Indexed as

EmotionsInterpersonal RelationsSocial PerceptionAdolescentAdultEmpathyFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41381481
PMCPMC12780232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.