4.8 Article

The Medusa effect reveals levels of mind perception in pictures

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2106640118

Keywords

mind perception; prosociality; moral judgement; eye tracking; dictator game

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  3. British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The research indicates that abstraction diminishes the perceived mind in pictures. Experiments demonstrate that people are perceived as more real and higher in abilities and experiences when presented as pictures rather than as pictures of pictures. Viewers naturally discriminate between different levels of abstraction and are less willing to share resources with more abstracted individuals.
Throughout our species history, humans have created pictures. The resulting picture record reveals an overwhelming preference for depicting things with minds. This preference suggests that pictures capture something of the mind that is significant to us, albeit at reduced potency. Here, we show that abstraction dims the perceived mind, even within the same picture. In a series of experiments, people were perceived as more real, and higher in both Agency (ability to do) and Experience (ability to feel), when they were presented as pictures than when they were presented as pictures of pictures. This pattern persisted across different tasks and even when comparators were matched for identity and image size. Viewers spontaneously discrim-inated between different levels of abstraction during eye tracking and were less willing to share money with a more abstracted person in a dictator game. Given that mind perception underpins moral judge-ment, our findings suggest that depicted persons will receive greater or lesser ethical consideration, depending on the level of abstraction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available