Cool, but understanding…Experiencing cooler temperatures promotes perspective-taking performance
Introduction
We all fulfill a variety of different social tasks and requirements every day. For example, we give advice to our friends, or we have to negotiate with our superiors when trying to get a pay raise or job enlargement. What do these diverse activities in different situations of our lives have in common? They all require active and accurate understanding of other individuals' perspective—perspective-taking—to bear fruitful results. By inferring other individuals' thoughts, feelings, or perceptions we can adapt our actions to them. We can explain and predict their reaction, which enables us, for example, to give a tailored advice to our friend, or to effectively negotiate with our superiors.
In line with the above examples, the psychological literature states that perspective-taking is a crucial mechanism involved in cognitive and moral functioning (Piaget, 1932), and it is often considered the basis of human social aptitude (Mead, 1934). Beyond that, substantial empirical evidence supports the beneficial role of perspective-taking for social interaction. For example, perspective-taking decreases stereotyping and prejudices (Galinsky and Moskowitz, 2000, Todd, Bodenhausen, et al., 2011), is helpful in negotiation contexts (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008), and even predicts skillful support in marriage (Verhofstadt, Buysee, Ickes, Davis, & Devoldre, 2008) as well as patient satisfaction in professional health care settings (Blatt, LeLacheur, Galinsky, Simmens, & Greenberg, 2010). Therefore, knowledge about factors hindering and facilitating perspective-taking is very important.
Recently, perspective-taking has been described and tested as a two-step process of egocentric anchoring and adjustment (see, e.g., Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004). This conceptualization suggests that one prevalent obstacle for successful perspective-taking is one's own perspective which provides a readily accessible anchor for inferences regarding another individual's perspective. Hence, for successful perspective-taking to take place this so-called egocentric anchoring needs to be overcome (e.g., Epley, 2008, Epley and Caruso, 2009, Epley, Keysar, et al., 2004, Epley, Morewedge, et al., 2004). The current research investigates, for the first time, whether experiences shaped by a pervasive feature of our physical environment may improve perspective-taking by helping to overcome egocentric anchoring, namely thermal experience. Specifically, we predict that cooler temperature cues facilitate perspective-taking, because they reduce egocentric anchoring.
This general hypothesis is the result of integrating a growing body of research on temperature grounded cognition with the domain of how humans capture others' minds and leads to the investigation of how thermal experiences influence perspective-taking performance.
Section snippets
Egocentric anchoring in perspective-taking
Epley and colleagues (e.g., Epley and Caruso, 2009, Epley, Keysar, et al., 2004, Epley, Morewedge, et al., 2004) suggested and demonstrated that the process underlying perspective-taking consists of two steps: Initial egocentric anchoring and subsequent adjustment from that anchor (see also Tamir & Mitchel, 2012). Due to its high accessibility, perspective takers' own view represents the ‘default’ or starting-point when intuiting another individual's perspective and thus serves in most cases as
Temperature grounded social cognition
Traditionally, it had been assumed that to make sense of their social world, perceivers rely on abstract, schema-like categories to structure incoming social information. However, a growing body of evidence laid the foundation for what is now known as grounded cognition—the notion that human cognition is grounded in and shaped by sensorimotor experiences (for a general overview, see Barsalou, 2008, Semin and Garrido, 2012, Semin and Smith, 2008). Accordingly, bodily sensations as well as
Research overview
Two studies tested the prediction that cooler temperature cues enhance perspective-taking (compared to warmer temperature cues) by experimentally manipulating temperature and using two different perspective-taking measures. In both studies, temperature was experimentally manipulated by letting participants hold a cup filled with cooler or with warmer water (a manipulation adopted from Williams & Bargh, 2008; see also Steinmetz & Mussweiler, 2011). Two different measures of perspective-taking
Participants and design.
Eighty-one undergraduate students (56 women, Mage = 24.85, SDage = 3.16, range: 20–34) participated in an experiment with two temperature cue conditions (cool vs. warm). They received 8 EUR (approx. $10) for completing an experimental session that lasted 1 h and started with the current experiment.
Procedure
The current experiment was presented as two separate studies and took place in the laboratory of the Social Psychology department of a German research institute. Groups of up to six individuals
Participants and design
Seventy-six undergraduate students (20 women, Mage = 24.26, SDage = 5.02, range: 19–51) participated in an experiment with a 2 (temperature cue: cool vs. warm) by 2 (privileged information: informed vs. ambiguous) between-subjects design. Five additional participants who were not native German speakers are not included in the sample reported here. Participants received 8 EUR (approx. $10) for their participation in an experimental study session that lasted an hour and ended with the current
General discussion
The current research indicates, for the first time, that cooler temperatures promote perspective-taking performance compared to warmer temperatures and that this is likely the case, because cooler temperatures reduce the influence of egocentric anchoring. This effect was supported across two studies using an experimental manipulation of temperature experience and two different tasks assessing actual perspective-taking performance. Whereas results of both Studies 1 and 2 suggested that the
References (37)
- et al.
Perspective-taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2004) - et al.
Warmth, spatial proximity, and social attachment: The embodied perception of a social metaphor
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2012) - et al.
Cold-blooded loneliness: Social exclusion leads to lower skin temperature
Acta Psychologica
(2012) - et al.
Temperature perceptions as a ground for social proximity
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2010) The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective-taking in text
Cognitive Psychology
(1994)- et al.
Reflexively mindblind: Using theory-of-mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2010) - et al.
Breaking the ice: How physical warmth shapes social comparison consequences
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2011) Grounded cognition
Annual Review of Psychology
(2008)- et al.
The curse of knowledge in reasoning about false beliefs
Psychological Science
(2007) - et al.
Does perspective-taking increase satisfaction in medical encounters?
Academic Medicine
(2010)
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Solving the (real) other-minds problem
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Perspective-taking: Misstepping into others' shoes
Perspective-taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Mind perception
The development of role-taking and communication skills in children
Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent
Psychological Science
Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cited by (5)
Physical temperature affects response behavior
2017, Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyCitation Excerpt :We recruited 125 students at the University of Cologne (89 female, Mage = 21.74, SD = 3.59) in exchange for a chocolate bar or coffee voucher for a one-factorial between subjects design (warmth versus cold). We predetermined a sample size of at least 60 participants per experimental condition, based on power analysis of an estimated effect size of 0.45 and a desired power of 0.80 with an alpha level of 0.05 (IJzerman, Schrama, & Pronk, 2016; Sassenrath, Sassenberg, & Semin, 2013). To manipulate how warm or cold participants felt, the experimenter seated them in a lab room that was either 16.0–18.7 °C in the cold condition or 22.4–24.2 °C in the warm condition (based on: IJzerman, Karremans, Thomsen, & Schubert, 2013; IJzerman & Semin, 2009; Steinmetz & Mussweiler, 2011).
A curse of knowledge or a curse of uncertainty? Bilingualism, embodiment, and egocentric bias
2023, Quarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologyKeep it cool: temperature priming effect on cognitive control
2017, Psychological Research