Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Spatial perspective-taking in conversation

M F Schober1

  • 1Department of Psychology, Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research, New York, NY 10003.

Cognition
|April 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Disfluency rates in conversation: effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender.

Language and speech·2001
Same author

Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey.

Public opinion quarterly·2000
Same journal

People make graded judgments about the inconceivable.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

The self as an image: Appearance and belief in visual representations of one's own face.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Corrigendum to 'Consonant, vowel, and tone cues in early wordform recognition: Evidence from Cantonese-learning infants' [Cognition 275 (2026) 106624].

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Identifying distinct sources of whole number interference in children's decimal comparison: the role of numerical magnitude and inhibitory control.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Evidence for abstract spatial concept learning in young animals.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Blurred lines or clear boundaries? Synchrony and social dominance shape domain-specific self-other processing.

Cognition·2026
See all related articles

When speaking with real partners, people use more egocentric spatial perspectives compared to imaginary ones. This shows adaptable language use in collaborative communication.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Science
  • Linguistics
  • Psychology

Background:

  • Spatial language describes object locations relative to a speaker or addressee.
  • Previous research often used imaginary addressees, potentially not reflecting real-world interaction.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how speakers establish spatial perspectives in conversations with actual partners versus imaginary ones.
  • To analyze the impact of real-time interaction on perspective-taking strategies.

Main Methods:

  • Participants described object locations in dyadic conversations with real partners.
  • Compared perspective-taking strategies (egocentric, addressee-centric, neutral) between conditions.
  • Analyzed explicitness of perspective-taking based on turn length.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Speakers with actual partners used more egocentric perspectives than solo speakers.
  • Perspective-taking strategies varied idiosyncratically but followed a collaborative pattern.
  • Speakers precisely adopted their partner's perspective when roles switched.
  • Explicitness of perspective-taking increased with shorter description sequences.

Conclusions:

  • Real conversational partners influence spatial perspective choices differently than imaginary ones.
  • Dyadic interaction involves dynamic and precise perspective-taking.
  • Adaptability in spatial language reflects the collaborative nature of communication.