Predicting your own and others' thoughts and feelings: More like a stranger than a friend

Karniol, Rachel; Eylon, Tammy; Rish, Sigalit

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199705)27:3<301::aid-ejsp823>3.0.co;2-c

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tversky's model, then, is fully consistent with my model of self as represented in terms of its distinctiveness. children and adults (e.g., Karniol, 2002;Karniol et al, 1997;Karniol & Koren, 1987;Karniol & Shomroni, 1998), erroneous predictions were rare and the majority of predictions about self, prototypic others, and well-known or nonprototypic others were found to be consistent with the SAD model. First, predictions about self and about others tend to be largely differentiated from each other across a wide variety of stimulus contexts and types of psychological experience (i.e., thoughts vs. feelings).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with this analysis, Prentice (1990) found more overlap in describing self and unfamiliar others than in describing self and familiar others. In the same vein, Karniol et al (1997) found that the transformation rules used for making predictions about self and prototypic others were more similar to each other than the transformation rules used for making predictions about self and well-known others in the same context. Finally, in this context, Fuhrman and Funder (1995) found that peers’ own self-schemas had no appreciable effect on judgments of their friends.…”

Section: Applying the Sad Model To Social Cognition Researchmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…T. Johnson (1987) found that individuals made distinctly different affective predictions about self, well-known others, and strangers. Similarly, in a study (Karniol, Eylon, & Rish, 1997) in which adult participants were asked to make predictions about how they, a prototypical other, and a well-known other would react in a wide variety of settings, little overlap in predictions about self and others was found. The amount of overlap in predictions about self and others was higher for contexts that have no generic representational structure (e.g., Rorschach inkblots) than contexts with generic representational structures (e.g., a photo of a ship at sunset).…”

Section: Assumed Similarity Of Self and Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Egocentrism versus protocentrism: The status of self in social prediction.

Karniol¹

2003

Psychological Review

Self Cite

125

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the author discusses the limitations of the egocentric view of self in which self serves as an automatic filter, inhibiting access to alternative representations of others' thoughts and feelings. The author then outlines a protocentric model, the self-as-distinct (SAD) model, in which generic representations of prototypic others serve as the default; representations of self, specific others, or categories encode only distinctiveness from generic knowledge about prototypic others. Thus, self-knowledge is distributed both in generic representations in which self and prototypic others are undifferentiated and in a self-representation that encodes distinctiveness. The self-representation does not serve to make predictions about others because it encodes how self differs from the generic representation of others. Predictions that are the same about self and others are protocentric, based on generic knowledge that serves as the default. The SAD model parsimoniously accounts for many inconsistent findings across various domains in social cognition.Answering questions about other people's covert psychological processes, their likely thoughts and feelings, seems difficult for at least two reasons. First, people do not have direct access to other people's ongoing or likely future psychological experiences. Second, there is no one-to-one correspondence between events and other people's reactions to these events; people do not always react the same way to a given event, and the same psychological reaction can be elicited in many different ways. Despite these apparently insurmountable challenges, adults, and even young children, have little trouble answering questions about other people's likely future reactions and psychological experiences. In contrast to the apparent ease with which lay people make such predictions about others, theoreticians and researchers have invested much effort to resolve the question of how such predictions are made. The major issue of contention and the focus of this article is the status of self in making predictions about other people's thoughts and feelings.One approach to the question of how people make predictions about other people's psychological experiences holds that individuals develop a theory of mind (Flavell,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Applying the Sad Model To Social Cognition Researchmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Assumed Similarity Of Self and Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Egocentrism versus protocentrism: The status of self in social prediction.

Karniol¹

2003

Psychological Review

Self Cite

125

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To reiterate, the SAD model emerged out of the transformation rule model (Karniol, 1986(Karniol, , 1990(Karniol, , 1995, which adopted a question-answering perspective to account for how people make predictions about other people's thoughts and feelings. The need to develop a new model arose because both social and developmental psychology failed to account for the apparent ease with which people made predictions about the thoughts and feelings of generic others, predictions that contrary to expectations did not generally match those about self in either children or adults (e.g., Karniol, 2002;Karniol, Eylon, & Rish, 1997;Karniol & Koren, 1987). Moreover, the overwhelming similarity between the predictions of different individuals (Karniol, 1986) suggested that people have some underlying theory of mind about how generic others' psychological processes are channeled in response to stimuli and situations.…”

Section: Representational Versus Motivational Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protocentrism will prevail: A reply to Krueger (2003), Mussweiler (2003), and Sedikides (2003).

Karniol¹

2003

Psychological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the author replies to 3 commentaries relating to the egocentrism versus protocentrism debate and the self-as-distinct model (R. Karniol, 2003). Given space limitations, the author does not directly respond to the alternative frameworks her colleagues have proposed and focuses instead on 6 issues that are interwoven in the commentaries on her article: the appropriate framework within which a model of self-representation should be grounded, the distinction between representational and motivational models, the default representation in social cognition, the representation of self as distinctive, empirical issues relevant to settling the egocentrism versus protocentrism debate, and finally, the ubiquity of protocentrism. The author concludes that protocentrism will prevail.

show abstract

What being empathic means: applying the transformation rule approach to individual differences in predicting the thoughts and feelings of prototypic and nonprototypic others

Karniol

Shomroni

1999

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the influence of individual differences in empathy on predictions about the likely thoughts and feelings of prototypic and nonprototypic others, high school students completed Davis's (1983) IRI empathy scale and made predictions about young and old, male and female targets' likely thoughts and feelings. Predictions were categorized using Karniol's (1986) transformation rules and the variety of rules served as the dependent measure. A greater variety of rules was used for making predictions about old targets than young ones. Subject gender did not influence the variety of rules used for making predictions. As for individual differences in empathy, individuals high versus low in overall empathy, on the Perspective Taking subscale and on the Empathic Concern subscale, used a greater variety of transformation rules for making predictions about others' likely thoughts and feelings and differentiated more between targets in different social categories. The findings provide support for the view of empathy as a method of information gathering and illustrate the heuristic value of the transformation rule model for making predictions about others' thoughts and feelings. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Predicting your own and others' thoughts and feelings: More like a stranger than a friend

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Egocentrism versus protocentrism: The status of self in social prediction.

Egocentrism versus protocentrism: The status of self in social prediction.

Protocentrism will prevail: A reply to Krueger (2003), Mussweiler (2003), and Sedikides (2003).

What being empathic means: applying the transformation rule approach to individual differences in predicting the thoughts and feelings of prototypic and nonprototypic others

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About