The Medusa effect reveals levels of mind perception in pictures.
dictator game
eye tracking
mind perception
moral judgement
prosociality
Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 08 2021
10 08 2021
Historique:
entrez:
6
8
2021
pubmed:
7
8
2021
medline:
18
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Throughout our species history, humans have created pictures. The resulting picture record reveals an overwhelming preference for depicting things with minds. This preference suggests that pictures capture something of the mind that is significant to us, albeit at reduced potency. Here, we show that abstraction dims the perceived mind, even within the same picture. In a series of experiments, people were perceived as more real, and higher in both Agency (ability to do) and Experience (ability to feel), when they were presented as pictures than when they were presented as pictures of pictures. This pattern persisted across different tasks and even when comparators were matched for identity and image size. Viewers spontaneously discriminated between different levels of abstraction during eye tracking and were less willing to share money with a more abstracted person in a dictator game. Given that mind perception underpins moral judgement, our findings suggest that depicted persons will receive greater or lesser ethical consideration, depending on the level of abstraction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34353914
pii: 2106640118
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2106640118
pmc: PMC8364175
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no competing interest.
Références
Biol Lett. 2006 Sep 22;2(3):412-4
pubmed: 17148417
Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 02;7:1717
pubmed: 27853445
Behav Brain Res. 2000 May;109(2):143-65
pubmed: 10762685
Psychol Inq. 2012 Apr;23(2):101-124
pubmed: 22754268
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2018 Jun 27;3:24
pubmed: 30009254
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Aug 10;118(32):
pubmed: 34353914
Science. 2007 Feb 2;315(5812):619
pubmed: 17272713
Nature. 2019 Dec;576(7787):442-445
pubmed: 31827284
Behav Processes. 2015 Jun;115:149-55
pubmed: 25862989
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 18;9(6):e100115
pubmed: 24940738
Cognition. 2020 Oct;203:104345
pubmed: 32531378
Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 13;7(1):3415
pubmed: 28611410
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Mar;96(3):505-20
pubmed: 19254100
Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):700-65
pubmed: 17014301
Cognition. 2013 Apr;127(1):105-18
pubmed: 23376296
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2011 Aug;37(8):1080-90
pubmed: 21518808
Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):694-724
pubmed: 17592962