Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking

Alexia Galati, Rick Dale, Nicholas Duran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

How do environmental cues and social perspectives influence perspective selection? Listeners responded to instructions (e.g., “Give me the folder on the right”) from a simulated partner, selecting from two objects consistently aligned with themselves (ego-aligned; Experiment 1a) or the speaker (other-aligned; Experiment1b). In Experiment 2, listeners selected from triangular 3-object configurations whose orientation varied (ego-, other-, or neither-aligned). When the configural cue was other-aligned (consistently or inconsistently: Experiments 1b and 2), listeners were more likely to be other-centric. Other-centric responders stabilized their strategy more quickly when the cue was other-aligned, but their mouse trajectories did not exhibit facilitation (Experiment 1b vs. 1a). In Experiment 2, other-centric responders showed sensitivity to the configural cue, making longer and more complex trajectories on neither-aligned configurations. That cue also influenced how listeners interpreted the front-back terms. Our findings suggest that configural cues can promote an other-centric strategy and its stabilization, influence response dynamics selectively, and impact the interpretation of spatial language.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages1-24
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Memory and Language
Volume104
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Cues
listener
experiment
Ego
Experiments
Trajectories
stabilization
Dynamic response
Stabilization
Perspective Taking
Experiment
instruction
Language
interpretation
Listeners
language
Trajectory

Keywords

  • Audience design
  • Cognitive dynamics
  • Mouse-tracking
  • Perspective-taking
  • Spatial cognition
  • Spatial instructions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Artificial Intelligence

Cite this

Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking. / Galati, Alexia; Dale, Rick; Duran, Nicholas.

In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 104, 01.02.2019, p. 1-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{62a4eafba27842ad8f6ce118dab78858,
title = "Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking",
abstract = "How do environmental cues and social perspectives influence perspective selection? Listeners responded to instructions (e.g., “Give me the folder on the right”) from a simulated partner, selecting from two objects consistently aligned with themselves (ego-aligned; Experiment 1a) or the speaker (other-aligned; Experiment1b). In Experiment 2, listeners selected from triangular 3-object configurations whose orientation varied (ego-, other-, or neither-aligned). When the configural cue was other-aligned (consistently or inconsistently: Experiments 1b and 2), listeners were more likely to be other-centric. Other-centric responders stabilized their strategy more quickly when the cue was other-aligned, but their mouse trajectories did not exhibit facilitation (Experiment 1b vs. 1a). In Experiment 2, other-centric responders showed sensitivity to the configural cue, making longer and more complex trajectories on neither-aligned configurations. That cue also influenced how listeners interpreted the front-back terms. Our findings suggest that configural cues can promote an other-centric strategy and its stabilization, influence response dynamics selectively, and impact the interpretation of spatial language.",
keywords = "Audience design, Cognitive dynamics, Mouse-tracking, Perspective-taking, Spatial cognition, Spatial instructions",
author = "Alexia Galati and Rick Dale and Nicholas Duran",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jml.2018.08.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "104",
pages = "1--24",
journal = "Journal of Memory and Language",
issn = "0749-596X",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking

AU - Galati, Alexia

AU - Dale, Rick

AU - Duran, Nicholas

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - How do environmental cues and social perspectives influence perspective selection? Listeners responded to instructions (e.g., “Give me the folder on the right”) from a simulated partner, selecting from two objects consistently aligned with themselves (ego-aligned; Experiment 1a) or the speaker (other-aligned; Experiment1b). In Experiment 2, listeners selected from triangular 3-object configurations whose orientation varied (ego-, other-, or neither-aligned). When the configural cue was other-aligned (consistently or inconsistently: Experiments 1b and 2), listeners were more likely to be other-centric. Other-centric responders stabilized their strategy more quickly when the cue was other-aligned, but their mouse trajectories did not exhibit facilitation (Experiment 1b vs. 1a). In Experiment 2, other-centric responders showed sensitivity to the configural cue, making longer and more complex trajectories on neither-aligned configurations. That cue also influenced how listeners interpreted the front-back terms. Our findings suggest that configural cues can promote an other-centric strategy and its stabilization, influence response dynamics selectively, and impact the interpretation of spatial language.

AB - How do environmental cues and social perspectives influence perspective selection? Listeners responded to instructions (e.g., “Give me the folder on the right”) from a simulated partner, selecting from two objects consistently aligned with themselves (ego-aligned; Experiment 1a) or the speaker (other-aligned; Experiment1b). In Experiment 2, listeners selected from triangular 3-object configurations whose orientation varied (ego-, other-, or neither-aligned). When the configural cue was other-aligned (consistently or inconsistently: Experiments 1b and 2), listeners were more likely to be other-centric. Other-centric responders stabilized their strategy more quickly when the cue was other-aligned, but their mouse trajectories did not exhibit facilitation (Experiment 1b vs. 1a). In Experiment 2, other-centric responders showed sensitivity to the configural cue, making longer and more complex trajectories on neither-aligned configurations. That cue also influenced how listeners interpreted the front-back terms. Our findings suggest that configural cues can promote an other-centric strategy and its stabilization, influence response dynamics selectively, and impact the interpretation of spatial language.

KW - Audience design

KW - Cognitive dynamics

KW - Mouse-tracking

KW - Perspective-taking

KW - Spatial cognition

KW - Spatial instructions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053402365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053402365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2018.08.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2018.08.007

M3 - Article

VL - 104

SP - 1

EP - 24

JO - Journal of Memory and Language

T2 - Journal of Memory and Language

JF - Journal of Memory and Language

SN - 0749-596X

ER -