Role reversal enhances an understanding of the other, but not of the self
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key techniques of psychotherapeutic methods like psychodrama is role reversal, in which a client engages in the dramatic act of portraying another person. Such a portrayal is believed to provide insight not only into oneself, but into the perspective and experiences of the portrayed person. In this experimental study, university students (n = 57) were asked to recount a conflictual episode involving another person. In different conditions, they did so from either their own first-person perspective (“I”), from the third-person perspective (“she/he/they”), or from the “fictional first-person” perspective (speaking as “I” while portraying the other person), where the latter is akin to role reversal in psychodrama. A within-subject analysis of self-report questionnaires following each trial revealed that, relative to the first-person condition, role reversal failed to increase insight into one’s own behavior, but led to a significant increase in insight into the other person’s actions, as well as a sense of connectedness with that person. These results suggest that role reversal can increase empathy for someone with whom we are in conflict. • One of the key techniques of psychotherapeutic methods like psychodrama is role reversal. • Participants were asked to recount a conflictual episode involving another person. • Role reversal led to a significant increase in insight into the other person’s actions. • The results suggest that role reversal can increase empathy for people with whom we are in conflict.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".