Reduced egocentric bias when perspective-taking compared with working from rules.

Theory of mind egocentric bias level 2 perspective-taking perspective-taking

Journal

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)
ISSN: 1747-0226
Titre abrégé: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101259775

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 19 3 2020
medline: 16 7 2021
entrez: 19 3 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Previous research has suggested that adults are sometimes egocentric, erroneously attributing their current beliefs, perspectives, and opinions to others. Interestingly, this egocentricity is sometimes stronger when perspective-taking than when working from functionally identical but non-perspectival rules. Much of our knowledge of egocentric bias comes from Level 1 perspective-taking (e.g., judging whether something is seen) and judgements made about narrated characters or avatars rather than truly social stimuli such as another person in the same room. We tested whether adults would be egocentric on a Level 2 perspective-taking task (judging how something appears), in which they were instructed to indicate on a continuous colour scale the colour of an object as seen through a filter. In our first experiment, we manipulated the participants' knowledge of the object's true colour. We also asked participants to judge either what the filtered colour looked like to themselves or to another person present in the room. We found participants' judgements did not vary across conditions. In a second experiment, we instead manipulated how much participants knew about the object's colour when it was filtered. We found that participants were biased towards the true colour of the object when making judgements about targets they could not see relative to targets they could, but that this bias disappeared when the instruction was to imagine what the object looked like to another person. We interpret these findings as indicative of reduced egocentricity when considering other people's experiences of events relative to considering functionally identical but abstract rules.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32186240
doi: 10.1177/1747021820916707
pmc: PMC7509608
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1368-1381

Références

Neuroimage. 2006 Apr 15;30(3):1059-68
pubmed: 16337813
Neuroimage. 2010 Oct 1;52(4):1574-83
pubmed: 20510369
Cognition. 2015 Sep;142:148-65
pubmed: 26048297
Cognition. 2016 Mar;148:97-105
pubmed: 26752604
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Jun;63(6):1201-17
pubmed: 19838912
R Soc Open Sci. 2017 Aug 16;4(8):170284
pubmed: 28878978
Cogn Sci. 2019 Jan;43(1):
pubmed: 30648802
Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):600-6
pubmed: 17614868
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 May;100(5):777-93
pubmed: 21244180
Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Jun;22(3):844-9
pubmed: 25149442
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Feb;20(1):54-72
pubmed: 23188738
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014 Mar;9(2):131-43
pubmed: 26173251
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Jan;26(1):151-68
pubmed: 10682295
Front Psychol. 2014 Jul 29;5:781
pubmed: 25120503
Psychol Sci. 2004 Apr;15(4):264-7
pubmed: 15043645
Child Dev. 1974 Jun;45(2):357-66
pubmed: 4837714
Cognition. 2003 Aug;89(1):25-41
pubmed: 12893123
Cognition. 2013 Nov;129(2):426-38
pubmed: 23999408
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Aug;20(4):766-72
pubmed: 23408369
Dev Sci. 2010 Mar;13(2):331-8
pubmed: 20136929
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Oct;36(5):1255-66
pubmed: 20731512
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019 Feb;45(2):213-218
pubmed: 29698043
Cogn Sci. 2018 Jun;42 Suppl 4:974-1008
pubmed: 29388246
Conscious Cogn. 2016 Apr;41:93-103
pubmed: 26897297
Percept Psychophys. 2006 Feb;68(2):327-37
pubmed: 16773904
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Nov;71(11):2395-2410
pubmed: 30362406
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Jun 29;6:196
pubmed: 22754521
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jun;8(6):255-60
pubmed: 15165550
Cognition. 2015 Mar;136:49-63
pubmed: 25490129
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Nov 05;7:698
pubmed: 24204334
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Aug 20;99(17):11537-42
pubmed: 12177409

Auteurs

Steven Samuel (S)

Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe, UK.

Anna Frohnwieser (A)

Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Robert Lurz (R)

Brooklyn College, City University New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA.

Nicola S Clayton (NS)

Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH