Perspective-taking in comprehension, production, and memory: An individual differences approach.

Ryskin, Rachel; Benjamin, Aaron S.; Tullis, Jonathan G.; Brown‐Schmidt, Sarah

doi:10.1037/xge0000093

Cited by 65 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When the physical context made the task difficult for the na€ ıve Matcher, Directors produced long expressions. At least in the case of three-party conversation, there was no evidence that taking into consideration both the knowledge and physical perspective of two addressees was too resource demanding (Ryskin et al, 2015;Wardlow, 2013;Wardlow Lane & Ferreira, 2008), and no evidence that speakers designed utterances using a knowledge overlap heuristic or an egocentric default (Horton & Keysar, 1996;Wu & Keysar, 2007). Finally, when the physical context made the task difficult even for the knowledgeable Matcher, Directors produced long expressions that were more likely to be disfluent and elaborated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While this outcome would be consistent with evidence that speakers in dialogue adjust referring expressions based on the visual context that another person is perceiving (e.g., Nadig & Sedivy, 2002;Schober, 1993;Yoon et al, 2012), other evidence points to attentional and processing demands that limit the effectiveness of audience design in dialogue (Horton & Keysar, 1996;Wardlow Lane & Ferreira, 2008;Wardlow Lane et al, 2006). Likewise, given that taking into account an addressee's physical perspective is a working memory capacity-limited process (Ryskin et al, 2015;Wardlow, 2013), speakers may fail to simultaneously consider both knowledge and physical context asymmetries, instead designing utterances with respect to a heuristic based on one's own perspective (Wu & Keysar, 2007). Likewise, given that taking into account an addressee's physical perspective is a working memory capacity-limited process (Ryskin et al, 2015;Wardlow, 2013), speakers may fail to simultaneously consider both knowledge and physical context asymmetries, instead designing utterances with respect to a heuristic based on one's own perspective (Wu & Keysar, 2007).…”

Section: Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design

Yoon

Brown‐Schmidt

2019

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communicating with multiple addressees poses a problem for speakers: Each addressee necessarily comes to the conversation with a different perspective-different knowledge, different beliefs, and a distinct physical context. Despite the ubiquity of multiparty conversation in everyday life, little is known about the processes by which speakers design language in multiparty conversation. While prior evidence demonstrates that speakers design utterances to accommodate addressee knowledge in multiparty conversation, it is unknown if and how speakers encode and combine different types of perspective information. Here we test whether speakers encode the perspective of multiple addressees, and then simultaneously consider their knowledge and physical context during referential design in a three-party conversation. Analyses of referential form-expression length, disfluency, and elaboration rate-in an interactive multiparty conversation demonstrate that speakers do take into consideration both addressee knowledge and physical context when designing utterances, consistent with a knowledge-scene integration view. These findings point to an audience design process that takes as input multiple types of representations about the perspectives of multiple addressees, and that bases the informational content of the to-be-designed utterance on a combination of the perspectives of the intended addressees. process involves considerations of the likely knowledge and beliefs of a single addressee -tailoring what is said to their perspective. When we consider the case of multiparty conversation, however, this process becomes decidedly more complex. Consider that each individual necessarily brings to the conversation different knowledge and beliefs (due to different life experiences), and a distinct physical context (as two people cannot occupy the same place at the same time). Thus, when simultaneously addressing two or more addressees, the speaker must design what they will say for a group of addressees who have different communicative needs due to their distinct perspectives. The current literature contains only a small number of studies examining audience design in multiparty conversation, and as a result, very little is known about if or how this process unfolds. In a new line of research, we have begun to ask basic mechanistic questions about how speakers design language for groups of addressees who differ in their background knowledge for the topic at hand. The present research builds on these findings to explore if and how speakers take into consideration two different types of perspective informationknowledge and physical context-in multiparty audience design.A classic paradigm for examining audience design is the referential communication task, in which pairs of participants work together to rearrange a set of abstract images multiple times (Krauss & Weinheimer, 1964, 1966. In this task, the conversational partners jointly create brief labels for these images across the course of the conversation

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design

Yoon

Brown‐Schmidt

2019

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, people acting together form and pursue joint goals (Loehr & Vesper, 2016), are aware of each other’s focuses of attention (Böckler, Knoblich, & Sebanz, 2012), mentalize about their coactors’ perspectives (Ryskin, Benjamin, Tullis, & Brown-Schmidt, 2015) and beliefs (van der Wel, Sebanz, & Knoblich, 2014), and form precise representations of each other’s actions (Sebanz, Bekkering, & Knoblich, 2006) and their anticipated outcomes (Pfister, Dolk, Prinz, & Kunde, 2014). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spontaneous adaptation explains why people act faster when being imitated

Lelonkiewicz

Gambi

2016

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human ability to perform joint actions is often attributed to high-level cognitive processes. For example, the finding that action leaders act faster when imitated by their partners has been interpreted as evidence for anticipation of the other’s actions (Pfister, Dignath, Hommel, & Kunde, 2013). In two experiments, we showed that a low-level mechanism can account for this finding. Action leaders were faster when imitated than when counterimitated, but only if they could observe their partner’s actions (Exp. 1). Crucially, when due to our manipulation the partner’s imitative actions became slower than the counterimitative actions, leaders also became slower when they were imitated, and faster when counterimitated (Exp. 2). Our results suggest that spontaneous temporal adaptation is a key mechanism in joint action tasks. We argue for a reconsideration of other phenomena that have traditionally been attributed solely to high-level processes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1141-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Such studies have investigated the impact of perspective-taking on metacognitive abilities from two angles: self-observation through a third-person perspective (e.g., observing oneself from the outside through a video) and the evaluation of another person’s performance. The concept of perspective-taking is usually defined as the ability to take another person’s point of view (Ryskin et al, 2015). However, as it has already been done in the literature (Brugger, 2002; Besharati et al, 2015), in the current review, we will use the term “perspective-taking” to refer to the two perspectives explained above (self-observation in a third-person perspective and other-observation).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognition and Perspective-Taking in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Mini-Review

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metacognition refers to the monitoring and regulation of cognitive processes and its impairment can lead to a lack of self-awareness of deficits, or anosognosia. In the context of different neurological and psychiatric disorders (e.g., traumatic brain injury, dementia, and schizophrenia), studies have shown that patients who present impairments in metacognitive abilities may be able to recognize such difficulties in others and in themselves when exposed to material in a third-person perspective. Considering that metacognitive impairments are an important characteristic of dementia, especially in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), studies of the relationship between metacognition and perspective-taking may be relevant to improve the quality of life of people with dementia. The current paper first briefly addresses the theme of metacognition and the impact of metacognitive deficits in people with AD. The focus then turns to the relationship between metacognition and perspective-taking in different neurological and psychiatric disorders, particularly AD. This relationship is also discussed based on theoretical models, particularly the Cognitive Awareness Model (CAM). Specifically, the CAM suggests the existence of distinct memory systems for self- and other-information, an idea which is supported by neuroimaging findings. We suggest that the Default Mode Network, as it has been shown to be implicated in self vs. other processing and is affected early in AD, could explain the impact of perspective-taking on awareness of deficits in AD. Finally, we present possible clinical implications of the relationship between metacognition and perspective-taking in AD. Indeed, we considered the possibility of improving patient’s awareness through the use of a third-person perspective, which, consequently, may decrease the negative impacts of anosognosia in AD.

show abstract

Perspective-taking in comprehension, production, and memory: An individual differences approach.

Cited by 65 publications

References 66 publications

Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design

Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design

Spontaneous adaptation explains why people act faster when being imitated

Metacognition and Perspective-Taking in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Mini-Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About