Using imagery perspective to access two distinct forms of self-knowledge: Associative evaluations versus propositional self-beliefs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When mentally simulating life events, people may visualize them from either an actor's 1st-person or observer's 3rd-person visual perspective. Two experiments demonstrated that visual perspective differentially determines reliance on 2 distinct forms of self-knowledge: associative evaluations of the simulated environment and propositional self-beliefs about relevant values and preferences. Implicit measures indexed associative evaluations of environmental stimuli (political candidates, outgroups); explicit measures indexed propositional self-beliefs about relevant personal values or preferences. A separate session manipulated participants' visual perspective for mentally simulating a pertinent event (voting, interracial interaction) as they forecasted their behavior or feelings if that event occurred. Forecasts corresponded more closely with associative evaluations from the 1st-person than 3rd-person perspective but more closely with propositional self-beliefs from the 3rd-person than 1st-person. Results have practical implications for channeling the power of mental simulation to desired ends and theoretical implications for understanding the pathways by which imagery and mental simulation shape cognition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".