Cited by 171Deception detection and forensic psychologyAction Observation and SynchronizationSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm

Open access
Hall, Judith A., Schmid Mast, Marianne·2007·Emotion

Abstract

In the empathic accuracy paradigm, perceivers make inferences about the naturalistically occurring thoughts and feelings of stimulus persons, and these inferences are scored for accuracy against the stimulus persons' self-reported thoughts and feelings. The present study investigated sources of accuracy in this paradigm by presenting the stimulus tape in several cue modalities (full video, audio, transcript, or silent video) and with differing instructions (infer thoughts and feelings, infer thoughts, or infer feelings). Verbal information contributed the most to accuracy, followed by vocal nonverbal cues. Visual nonverbal cues contributed the least, though still at levels above zero. When asked to infer feelings, perceivers appeared to shift attention toward visual nonverbal cues and away from verbal cues, and the reverse occurred when they were asked to infer thoughts. The study contributes to understanding of factors contributing to accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.438

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reading a communicator's opinions via text, compared with hearing the same message via speech, reduces observers' accuracy in assessing the communicator's true thoughts and feelings.

    “First, reading a communicator's opinions via text (e.g. in an email) compared to hearing exactly the same message via speech (e.g. a voice message), decreases observers' ability to accurately assess the communicator's true (self-reported) thoughts and feelings [4,5].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
Venue
Emotion
Published
2007
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
438-446
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2012412843
Cited by
171
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 13
FWCI
10.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
empathic accuracy, emotion inference, verbal cues, attentional shift, cue modality, social perception
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Culture, Empathy, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Male, Speech Perception, Thinking, Visual Perception, Personal Construct Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review